In 21.10-11 the Israelite soldiers are given orders to go out and kill the inhabitants of Jabesh because they had not participated in the war against the tribe of Benjamin. In this verse the narrator skips several steps, including the soldiers’ departure for Jabesh and their killing of all the males, every woman who was not a virgin, and all the children. In some languages it will be necessary to make this information explicit. Contemporary English Version begins this verse with “The warriors attacked Jabesh in Gilead….” We may also say “So the warriors went to Jabesh-gilead and killed the people there….”

And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins …: Though the text says the Israelites found 400 virgins, the situation is slightly more complicated. When they had finished killing the people of Jabesh, 400 virgins “were left.” Among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead tells where the soldiers found these virgins. This detail is important because they specifically went to where the people did not take a vow to the LORD concerning their daughters (see verse 21.1). Some languages may prefer to put this phrase at the beginning of the sentence, for example, “Among the people living in Jabesh-gilead, four hundred young virgins were left…” or “… they found four hundred young virgins….”

Four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him is literally “400 young woman virgin who did not know a man to bed of a male.” This expression is very specific and repetitive in Hebrew. For the Hebrew word meaning “young woman” (naʿarah), see verse 19.3, where it is translated “girl.” Since the Hebrew word for virgin refers primarily to a young woman who still lives at her father’s house (see verse 19.24), the narrator makes it clear that these are women who had not known man, that is, they had never had sexual relations (see verse 11.39). This description is further emphasized by saying these women had never been “in the bed of a male,” with the Hebrew word for “male” being the same one used in verse 21.11. The text does not say how the soldiers actually determined who was a virgin and who was not. If possible, translators should try to preserve the narrator’s style and emphasis. Once again this extensive detail may be a form of strong irony. Those who did not hesitate to kill their own kinsmen went to great lengths to get “pure wives” for men who had clearly defiled Israel. New International Version offers a good model with “four hundred young women who had never slept with a man,” while Contemporary English Version‘s “four hundred young women” is not accurate and should not be followed.

And they brought them to the camp at Shiloh: The Israelite soldiers brought the 400 virgins to their military camp (see verse 7.1), which was located in the town of Shiloh (see verse 18.31). Like Bethel, Shiloh was a religious center, which later became the location of the ark of the covenant. The irony continues as a place of worship becomes the backdrop of a whole series of misguided acts.

Which is in the land of Canaan seems a rather odd note at this point. However, it seems to indicate that the Israelite soldiers crossed back from the east of the Jordan River with the young women to take them to their camp in Canaan. The land of Canaan refers to the area west of the Jordan River. Once again this detail shows to what lengths the Israelites went to repair their wrong and ensure that the tribe of Benjamin had descendants.

This account is full of details, but no mention is made of the slaughter of all the men, women and children of Jabesh, as if they are of no account. The storyteller highlights the biting irony here by omitting this detail.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Among those who lived in Jabesh-gilead, the Israelites found 400 young women who were virgins, who had never slept with a man. They rounded them up and took them back to their camp in Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

• In Jabesh in Gilead, the Israelite soldiers found 400 young women who had never had sexual relations. The soldiers brought them back to their camp in Shiloh in [the land of] Canaan.

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 Caleb said: This sudden introduction of a new character Caleb at this point in the narrative is somewhat surprising. As in verse 1.1, the narrator seems to assume the hearer-reader is familiar with the contents of the book of Joshua. If the book of Judges is to be published as a portion by itself, information about who Caleb is might be provided in introductory notes or in a footnote.

Caleb is Joshua’s successor and has already proven his bravery. He was one of the spies sent into the Promised Land by Moses. Later, because of his faithfulness to the LORD, he was given the town of Hebron (Num 13–14; verse 14.6-15), a detail that explains in part Caleb’s appearance here, given the mention of this town in verse 1.10. Though the name Caleb means “dog” (usually considered an insult in Hebrew; see verse 1 Sam 17.43), most scholars make no mention of the meaning of his name here.

Because of this new participant, a few versions begin a new paragraph here. However, it is clear from the Hebrew text that the narrator sees a tight connection between this verse and what precedes. In order to give a smooth transition to help the reader identify this new participant, Good News Translation begins with “One of them, called Caleb….” This may be a helpful model in some languages. We may be even more explicit: “One of the men of Judah named Caleb…” or “One of Judah’s leaders, Caleb….”

The Hebrew verb rendered said is very general. Contemporary English Version specifies the addressee: “Caleb told his troops.” His speech is a public declaration, so if there is a kind of formulaic language typical of such a situation, it can be used here. We might say “One of Judah’s men, named Caleb, cried out [or, declared].”

He who attacks Kiriath-sepher and takes it describes the person whom Caleb will reward. In Hebrew this clause begins with the relative pronoun “Who.” Translators might say “Anyone who,” “Whoever,” or “The man who.”

For the Hebrew verbs rendered attacks and takes, see verse 1.8, where they are translated “smote” and “took.” Not every language will need two verbs here. We might say “successfully attacks” or “captures.”

For Kiriath-sepher, see verse 1.11. If a new paragraph begins here, this name can be reintroduced. If not, translators may prefer to say “the town.”

I will give him Achsah my daughter as wife: This reflects the cultural setting of the time of the judges. Daughters were under the jurisdiction of their fathers and though sometimes consulted, they normally had little say in the marriages arranged by their parents (Gen 29.23; verse 1 Sam 18.27; verse 2 Sam 3.13). Translators should use natural expressions in their language reflecting the customs of that day. In many parts of the world, these practices still exist. In old English, people spoke of “asking for the hand of” or “giving the hand of” a daughter in marriage, and even today, people speak of “giving away” their daughter. In languages where the verb give is not appropriate, translators can find other expressions, such as “I will offer him my daughter Achsah to be his wife” or “I will let him marry my daughter Achsah.” As in many languages, the Hebrew word for wife is simply “woman.”

The text does not mention how many daughters Caleb had, or if Achsah had some special qualities. Usually in this kind of story, it is the most beautiful or valiant daughter who is offered as a reward. Achsah my daughter reflects the order in Hebrew, but in many languages it may be more natural to say “my daughter Achsah.”

Many languages will follow the same order as Hebrew, putting the relative clause in initial position. However, some languages will prefer to reverse the clauses, as in Good News Translation: “I will give my daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who succeeds in capturing Kiriath Sepher.”

Possible models for this verse are:

• One of the leaders of Judah, Caleb, announced to his troops: “To the one who captures Kiriath-sepher, I will give my daughter Achsah in marriage.”

• Caleb, one of the men of Judah, cried out, “To the man who captures the City of the Book, I will give Achsah my daughter as a reward.”

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 gives more details about how Israel “did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.” The Hebrew word ʾelohim appears here three times, once in reference to Yahweh as God and twice in reference to the foreign gods. This verse is quite long and Revised Standard Version has joined many sentences together with semicolons. In most languages readers will find it easier to have slightly shorter sentences separated by periods or simple conjunctions.

And they forsook the LORD: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and does not introduce what happened next but a clause that sums up what the Israelites did. Thus some versions omit the conjunction here. They forsook the LORD means the Israelites abandoned their special relationship with Yahweh. The Hebrew verb rendered forsook (ʿazab) has many meanings, for example, “to forsake a person” and “not to honor a covenant” (see Deut 29.25). Here it means turn away from an existing relationship, in this case, the alliance or covenant that was established between the LORD and his people (Deut 5.1-7). Translators need to find a strong expression to convey this meaning, for example, “They turned their backs on the LORD,” “They decided to follow Yahweh no longer,” or perhaps “They abandoned [their allegiance to] the LORD.” Some languages may have figurative or idiomatic expressions, such as “They let fall their commitment to the LORD.” Good News Translation says “They stopped worshiping the LORD,” which may be acceptable in some languages, but may not be strong enough. It was not just in worship that the people sinned. They abandoned their overall commitment to the LORD and rejected him. This clause is sadly reminiscent of the day when Joshua challenged the people of Israel. At that point in time, they responded, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods…” (verse 24.16-18). Sadly, now the Israelites are making another choice.

The God of their fathers: This longer name for God expresses the shock the narrator feels as he tells this story. As elsewhere at high points in the narrative, there are compound names of God, sometimes lined up one after another. Here the God of their fathers puts emphasis on the many times the LORD rescued the Israelites, describing the long-standing relationship between these two parties. Of their fathers may need to be made more explicit in translation, for example, “the God their ancestors served” or “the God their fathers worshiped.” God renders the generic Hebrew word ʾelohim. For fathers see verse 2.1.

Who had brought them out of the land of Egypt: Once again the narrator makes reference to Israel’s history, rooted in their relationship with the LORD and the wonderful things he did for them (Deut 4.34). Though this clause is similar to one in verse 2.1, brought … out renders another verb, the causative form of the key Hebrew verb meaning “come out” (see verse 1.24). However, the meanings are basically the same, so translators may use the same verb in both places. For the land of Egypt, see verse 2.1. As there, some may opt to make explicit the idea of “slavery in Egypt.” This relative clause modifies God and not their fathers. If this is not clear, the word God may have to be repeated, as follows: “They forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God who brought them out of Egypt.”

They went after other gods: In Revised Standard Version this clause follows a semicolon, but in Hebrew there is a waw conjunction. Many languages will begin with “and.” This clause gives the result of the people forsaking or rejecting the LORD. Went after is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. In other contexts this figurative expression is sometimes used to refer to people looking for sexual encounters, but here it means the Israelites are actively seeking to worship or serve other gods. Several versions have “followed.” If there is an equivalent idiomatic expression with the same meaning, it can be used here. Otherwise, we might say they “began to worship” (Good News Translation). In this context the word other means “foreign,” “strange,” or even “forbidden.”

From among the gods of the peoples who were round about them: The gods of the peoples could refer to the Baals or it could have a wider application to other gods worshiped in the region. Other gods are from a larger number of gods worshiped by the peoples in Canaan. The repetition of the word gods emphasizes how serious this act was. Peoples renders the same Hebrew word appearing in verse 2.7, where, in the singular, it refers to the Israelites (see comments on verse 2.4). Here it is plural, referring to the Canaanites, who worshiped a number of gods, the chief of whom were Baal and his partners, such as Astarte and Asherah.

The fact that the peoples are round about them is another strong accusation against the Israelites. The people of Israel were supposed to drive out the inhabitants of the land, but instead they end up living side by side with them (verse 1.19-36). In some places they dominated these peoples, but the phrase round about them shows that the Israelites were rather themselves surrounded by foreign peoples and practices. Thus it is clear the Israelites are the weak ones, undergoing the influence of their neighbors, rather than the other way around. The Israelites had begun to serve the gods of their neighbors, the Canaanites. For the peoples who were round about them, Contemporary English Version has “nearby nations,” but it would be better to express the idea that they are literally “surrounded,” for example, “the Canaanites who surrounded them” or “the peoples who lived all around them.” Indeed, the LORD’s warning in verse 2.3 has now become a reality.

And bowed down to them: Bowing down is an act of respect and worship. The Israelites are literally going down on their knees in adoration of these foreign gods. Translators should be able to easily render this idea.

And they provoked the LORD to anger: This clause describes the consequence of the Israelites’ attitude and acts. God becomes angry with them. To show this logical relationship, the introductory conjunction and can be rendered “so” or “therefore.” The pronoun they refers to Israel. Provoked … to anger translates the causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “be angry.” The text does not say whether they deliberately provoked Yahweh or whether it is simply a consequence of what they did. Possible translations for provoked the LORD to anger are “angered the LORD,” “irritated the LORD greatly,” and “made the LORD angry” (Good News Translation).

Some examples for the translation of this verse are:

• They abandoned their relationship with Yahweh, the God their ancestors served, the God who had brought them out of slavery in Egypt! They turned away from him to serve other gods, the gods of the Canaanite peoples who surrounded them. They bowed down to them! And this made Yahweh very angry.

• They turned away from the LORD their fathers worshiped, the God who brought them from slavery in Egypt! They bowed down to the foreign gods of the peoples all around them and served them instead. By doing this, they greatly angered the LORD.

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 details of the event here are certainly unusually graphic. However, for the Israelite listener this may have been the best part of the story! In the last verse the actions were very quick, but here it is as though time stands still. The storyteller gives every detail of the death of the fat king, Eglon, to the delight of his listeners.

And the hilt also went in after the blade gives an unusual detail of this incident. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the next action, which occurs immediately after the last event. The hilt is the handle of the sword or knife. Normally when someone is stabbed, the blade goes in but the hilt or handle of the knife sticks out. However, here the text says the handle somehow followed the dagger into the body of the king. The word also is used to highlight this. Went in renders the generic Hebrew verb meaning “come,” and translators should find a verb that is appropriate here, for example, “The handle of the dagger also went right in,” “… also sank into the king’s belly,” “The handle of the sword also followed the blade into his stomach,” or perhaps more idiomatically, “The whole sword went in, handle and all” (Good News Translation).

And the fat closed over the blade: This is another gruesome detail meant to delight the audience. The conjunction and can be kept here. The fat refers to the fat of the king’s belly already mentioned in verse 3.17.

Closed over the blade begins a series of wordplays that continue into the next verse. After Ehud stabbed the king and the fat closed over the blade, Ehud went out and “closed” the door. For closed translators can try to use the same verb here and in verse 3.23. But if this is not possible, another expression can be used, for example, “covered” or even “swallowed.” Contemporary English Version changes the perspective slightly by combining this and the previous clause, saying “even the handle was buried in his fat.” Good News Translation is very dynamic, saying “The whole sword went in, handle and all, and the fat covered it up.”

There is another wordplay here since the Hebrew word for the blade (ha-lahab) sounds like the one for the sword (ha-chereb). But these wordplays will be almost impossible to imitate in the translation.

For he did not draw the sword out of his belly: For translates the Hebrew particle ki, which could be introducing a reason, thus “for” in Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, “because” in New American Bible, and “since” in New Jerusalem Bible. However, Soggin sees ki as introducing a result, proposing “and the fat closed over it, so that he could not withdraw the sword from the belly!” Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, and New International Version leave out the conjunction altogether, presenting this clause as a simple statement of fact. Translators will have to decide which interpretation is appropriate here.

The pronoun he refers to Ehud, as is clear from the context. Translators should refrain from trying to make every pronoun explicit, since in many languages the main character is often referred to by pronominal forms. Furthermore, changing pronouns into full names can have serious consequences in some languages, especially in those where repetition is used to mock or belittle certain characters. Did not draw means Ehud “did not take out,” “did not withdraw,” or “did not pull out” the sword. Out of his belly is a repetition that serves to emphasize the humiliation imposed on this enemy of Israel. Contemporary English Version shortens this clause to “Ehud left the dagger there,” which is an effective style in English.

And the dirt came out: Once again the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the next event on the story line, with little time lapse. However, this clause raises many problems since the Hebrew is difficult, with the words “and he/it came out [to]” followed by the Hebrew word parshedonah, which occurs only here in the Old Testament. Some commentators and versions omit this clause (Contemporary English Version, NET Bible), viewing it as a copying error since the word parshedonah is very close to the word misderonah (“vestibule”), which occurs near the beginning of the next verse (verse 3.23). However, various other proposals have been made for this clause. Revised Standard Version renders parshedonah as dirt or “excrement,” seeing a relation to the Hebrew root for “dung” (Exo 29.14). This interpretation would help explain why, when the attendants returned (verse 3.24), they thought the king was on the toilet. If the sword had gone through his intestines, the odor would have been obvious. Thus several versions adopt this interpretation, including New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh (“the filth came out”) and English Standard Version (“the dung came out”). If this interpretation is adopted and such words are too shocking, the translator might use a euphemism, such as “his guts came [or, spilled] out.”

However, several versions take the word parshedonah to mean “hole,” and they thus consider this clause as describing the blade coming out of the king’s body. For example, New International Version proposes “which came out his back,” and Good News Translation says “it stuck out behind, between his legs,” which may be a euphemistic reference to the king’s anus. The notes from NET Bible point out that even this interpretation is difficult since the word for sword in Hebrew, supposedly the subject here, is feminine while the agreement on the verb (“he/it came out”) is masculine. In any case, given the high degree of difficulty involved in determining the meaning here, it would be wise for translators to specify in a footnote, “Hebrew uncertain.” If the word parshedonah is retained, as in most versions, it is possible that the narrator intended a wordplay with the word misderonah appearing in the next verse.

Came out renders the same Hebrew verb (yatsaʾ) used previously to refer to military action (verse 2.15; verse 3.10). This same verb will figure prominently in the rest of the book, where even Yahweh “goes out” in combat (verse 4.14). There is a kind of wordplay here, since in the very next verse (verse 3.23) Ehud also “goes out.”

Translation examples for this verse are:

• The whole sword went in, handle and all, and disappeared into the fat of Eglon’s belly. Ehud couldn’t pull it out and the king’s guts spilled out [all over].

• The sword and its handle disappeared into the king’s belly and his fat closed over it. Ehud left the sword in and the filth from the king’s intestines poured out.*
* The meaning of the last clause in Hebrew is uncertain.

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 sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abino-am on that day: Then renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. This connector, along with the phrase, on that day, could give the impression that as soon as the battle was won, Deborah and Barak broke into song. This is not very likely, however. Certainly some time elapsed, with people returning home. Then some time later, a celebration was probably held. Most versions leave out the conjunction Then, but keep on that day. Contemporary English Version provides a little more background by beginning with “After the battle was over that day….”

Sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abino-am follows the Hebrew word order. Deborah still takes the lead here, since the Hebrew verb for sang has a feminine singular prefix, so it is literally “And she sang Deborah and Barak….” The name of Barak the son of Abino-am seems to be added as an afterthought. Certainly it was not just Deborah and Barak who sang, but the whole community. However, most languages will rather say “Deborah and Barak, son of Abinoam, sang.”

Sang renders the common word for singing in Hebrew (shir). It is found, for example, in the title of Song of Songs. In some languages it will also be necessary to add an object by saying “sang this song.” This was a victory song following an important battle, and many languages will have a special term that can be used here.

For Barak the son of Abino-am, see verse 4.6. In praise songs around the world, the ancestry of the heroes is particularly important. Thus this specification should not be omitted in translation.

On that day is the phrase that links the narrative version (verse 4.1-24) to the poetic one (verse 5.2-31a Revised Standard Version). As noted before, the word day often has a broad meaning, and so on that day can be expressed as “at that time.” This phrase should be rendered in the same way as was done in verse 4.23 in order to preserve the literary link. In many languages it will be more natural for this time clause to appear at the beginning rather than at the end of the sentence, as in Good News Translation and Revised English Bible.

At the end of this verse the Hebrew text has a speech formula (lemor, literally “to say”) to introduce the direct speech of the poem, but Revised Standard Version omits it. New Revised Standard Version renders this formula as “saying,” but New Jerusalem Bible gives a more natural equivalent: “and the words were.” Many languages will want to use a quote formula here. In some cases this will be simply “They said.” Another possibility might be to render the whole verse as “Here is the song Deborah and Barak sang on that day:….” Other possibilities are:

• On that day Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam sang this song. They said:….

• Here is the victory song Deborah and Barak sang on that day/occasion:….

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 hand of Midian prevailed over Israel means Israel was completely dominated by the powerful Midianites. And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, seems to introduce the result of the LORD’s handing the Israelites over to the Midianites. An appropriate transition here might be “So.” This is the second time that the phrase the hand of Midian is used in this narrative (see verse 6.1), showing once again the role the keyword hand plays in this book. The verb rendered prevailed comes from a Hebrew root meaning “be strong” (see comments on verse 3.10). This verb suggests that every time the Israelites attempted to overthrow the Midianites, they were unable to do so. For this whole clause Revised English Bible has “The Midianites were too strong for Israel,” and Good News Translation says “The Midianites were stronger than Israel.” Translators can also use idiomatic expressions, for example, “Midian bore down heavily on Israel” (New Jerusalem Bible). In some languages it may be better to present this clause from the viewpoint of the Israelites by saying “The Israelites were [constantly] oppressed by the Midianites” or “… were powerless before the Midianites.”

And because of Midian is literally “from faces of Midian.” It introduces a clause telling what happened as a result of the Midianite oppression. There is no conjunction in Hebrew here, but many versions add and, as Revised Standard Version has done. The repetition of the proper name Midian for the third time here in two verses emphasizes the power of these people. This phrase may be rendered “Because of the Midianites,” “Because of the attacks of the Midianites,” or “Because of the Midianite oppression.” New American Bible has “For fear of Midian,” and New Jerusalem Bible says “To escape from the Midianites,” which is a good model. We could also repeat the previous clause by saying “The Midianites oppressed the Israelites so much that….”

The people of Israel made for themselves the dens which are in the mountains, and the caves and the strongholds: Because of the Midianite oppression, the Israelites are forced to go into hiding. The phrase the people of Israel also occurs at the beginning of verse 6.1. If this repetition is not natural, a pronoun can be used here. Made for themselves is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. New International Version says “prepared … for themselves.” However, in light of the objects mentioned, dens … caves … strongholds, a more specific verb may be needed, for example, “arranged.” In some languages each of the objects may need its own specific verb. For themselves renders an idiomatic expression in Hebrew that can be kept, if it is natural. Otherwise, it can be omitted.

The use of three similar terms, dens, caves and strongholds, emphasizes to what extent the Israelites had to go to protect themselves. This detailed list seems to evoke a note of sadness or shame, as if to say, “Look to what extent we were humiliated!” This humiliation will later contrast with the greatness of God’s victory in this region (verse 7.22). The Hebrew word rendered dens occurs only here in the Old Testament, so its meaning is uncertain. However, most scholars believe it refers to natural openings or holes where wild animals such as lions and wolves live. In languages where this word does not exist, translators can refer to “holes where animals live.” These dens were in the mountains, showing that the Israelites were pushed back, moving away from the cities and plains, which were open to attack. These mountains, which were probably located on the western side of the Jordan River, enabled the people to hide from their aggressive enemies. For the Hebrew word rendered mountains (har), see verse 1.9, where it is translated “hill country.” Like dens, caves are also natural openings in the mountains and so can be used as hiding places. If a word for caves does not exist, translators might say “holes [or, openings] in the rocks” or “hollow places in the mountains.” If two words cannot be found for dens and caves, one expression may serve for both. The Hebrew word for strongholds can refer to fortified structures or fortresses such as the citadel of Jerusalem, but in this context the word probably refers to places that were difficult to reach or inaccessible, perhaps rocks at the tops of the mountains. What is clear is these are all places where Israelites could hide and feel safe. As noted above, translators will need to find the proper verbs for preparing each of these objects. The Israelites probably did not actually dig dens and caves, but more likely found spots that could be turned into hiding places. In many cultures where mountains are not known, it may be better to reduce the number of locations mentioned. For example, the clause may be rendered “the Israelites found holes in the ground and high rocks to hide themselves from their enemies” or “… had to find places far away to hide from their enemies.” ver GNTver* and ver CEVver* also shorten this clause. Good News Translation says “the people of Israel hid from them in caves and other safe places in the hills.” Contemporary English Version provides a good model: “many Israelites ran to the mountains and hid in caves.”

Other translation models for the last sentence of this verse are:

• The Midianites pressed them so hard, the Israelites were forced to hide themselves in the caves in the mountains.

• For fear of the Midianites, the Israelites went into hiding, making places to stay in the caves and dens of mountains and in other places where they could be safe.

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 .

Gideon is not satisfied with the results of the first test, so he wants further reassurance from God. Gideon’s speech here is wordy and pleading, since the expressions this once and pray occur two times each. Gideon realizes that his demands for a new sign do not seem justified.

Then Gideon said to God: Then renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. Contemporary English Version uses the connector “But,” which expresses counter-expectation here. This is a good rendering, because the narrator is expressing surprise at Gideon’s reaction. For said to God, see the comments on verse 6.36. Contemporary English Version says “prayed to God again,” but most versions see this episode as a kind of dialogue, so they retain the verb said.

Let not thy anger burn against me is literally “Do not let your nose heat up [or, burn] against me.” See verse 2.4 for this idiomatic expression. Here Gideon uses it to introduce his next request. He seems to know that he is pushing God’s patience. Translators should look for an appropriate idiom in their language or use nonfigurative language, for example, “Don’t be angry with me” (Good News Translation). Some languages will need to include a vocative by saying “LORD, please don’t get mad at me.” The pronoun thy is once again an old English form used when addressing those who are intimate or superior.

Let me speak but this once is literally “and I will speak only this time.” Gideon is telling God that he has one final request. Revised Standard Version‘s language seems somewhat old fashioned. We can say “Let me ask one more thing” or “I have one last request.” Contemporary English Version has “Let me try this just one more time,” which is too familiar for a discussion between the LORD and a human being.

Pray, let me make trial only this once with the fleece: Once again Revised Standard Version‘s wording is not modern. Pray renders the Hebrew politeness particle naʾ (see verse 1.24). In modern English we would say “Please,” but translators can use any expression with the same meaning, for example, “I beg you.” The Hebrew verb rendered make trial means “test,” “try,” or “prove” (see comments on verse 2.22, where it is translated “test”). In the Old Testament this verb can have a positive or negative connotation: God tests his servants, but Israel is forbidden to test God (see Deut 6.16). Gideon’s fear of asking for another test can thus be understood. The Revised Standard Version rendering only this once is problematic, since this is the second time Gideon is asking for a sign with the fleece. It would be more natural to say “just one more time” or “only once again.” There is strong repetition here of a Hebrew noun (paʿam), since Gideon first asks to speak this once and here wants to test God only this once. Good News Translation provides a good model, saying “Please let me make one more test with the wool.”

Pray, let it be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew: This time Gideon asks for a reversal of the previous sign. Some believe this second request is more difficult, since the fleece would be more likely to attract moisture than the ground. For the vocabulary used here, see verse 6.37. The repetition of the Hebrew politeness particle naʾ rendered pray seems to show how scared Gideon is.

Translation models for this verse are:

• But Gideon said to God, “Don’t be angry with me! Let me request one more thing. I beg you, let me try just one more test with the fleece. This time, let the fleece be dry and the ground be wet.”

• Then Gideon said, “LORD, please don’t get mad at me. Let me ask one more thing. Let me test just once more with the fleece. This time, please let the fleece be dry, and let the ground [around it] be wet [with dew/moisture].”

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

Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor …: Now renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. “In the meantime” is another good connector to tie this unit to what precedes. New Living Translation is similar with “By this time.” Zebah and Zalmunna have been mentioned before (verse 8.5-7). However, since this is a new episode, it may be helpful to say “the two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmunna” or “the two enemy kings….” These kings fled with their troops to Karkor, a city about 160 kilometers (100 miles) east of the Dead Sea. Certainly this city was in Midianite territory, but it was a long way from where the previous action took place. In Karkor is literally “in the Karkor,” which probably refers to the desert region around Karkor. Some languages may prefer to say “in the desert region of Karkor.”

With their army, about fifteen thousand men: Their army is literally “their camp” (see verse 7.1). We can say “their troops,” “their soldiers,” or even “their men.” About renders a Hebrew preposition that often means “like” or “as,” but here it means “approximately” or “around.” Translators may prefer to render fifteen thousand as a figure (“15,000”) rather citing the words. For the Hebrew word rendered thousand, see verse 1.4. This word can sometimes refer to a military unit, rather than to the actual number.

All who were left of all the army of the people of the East qualifies the 15,000 Midianites. This information connects back to the incident reported in verse 7.15-23. After Gideon’s surprise attack, only a portion of the Midianite army remained. The repetition of the word all emphasizes that the enemy army was strong, but also that the massacre was great. Once again army is literally “camp.” For the people of the East, see the comments on verse 6.3. If the repetition of all is not acceptable, there may be other ways to express this clause, for example, “the only ones who were left of the whole army from the eastern desert.” Revised English Bible begins a new sentence here, saying “Those were all that remained of the entire host of the eastern tribes.” Good News Translation combines this clause with the number fifteen thousand, saying “Of the whole army of desert tribesmen, only about 15,000 were left.”

For there had fallen a hundred and twenty thousand men who drew the sword is literally “and those who had fallen [were] a hundred and twenty thousand men who drew the sword.” For, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, introduces the reason so few enemy soldiers were left. Contemporary English Version uses the connector “because.” Fallen renders the same Hebrew verb (nafal) that is used to describe the deaths of King Eglon (verse 3.25) and General Sisera (verse 4.22; verse 5.27). It is a euphemistic way in Hebrew to speak of those who died. Translators can use a similar figurative expression, or they can use a nonfigurative verb, such as “killed” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “slain” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). In English the past perfect verb had fallen shows that this event occurred prior to the present story line. Translators should use verbal tenses or aspects that are appropriate to this context. A hundred and twenty thousand may be rendered “120,000” (Good News Translation) or “120 military units” (see the comments above). Men who drew the sword refers to soldiers who were capable of drawing a sword from its scabbard and using it. Here this phrase is a figurative expression used to refer to any soldiers who were armed and ready for battle. It occurs frequently in the last major section of this book (verse 20.2, 15, 17, 25, 35, 46). It may be rendered “men who carried weapons,” “armed men,” “fighting men” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or simply “warriors” (Contemporary English Version).

Translation models for this verse are:

• In the meantime, the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna, along with their army, were in the region of Karkor. One hundred twenty groups of soldiers had already died in the battle. Only fifteen groups of soldiers from the tribes of the eastern desert were left.

• Now Zebah and Zalmunna and their 15,000 soldiers were in Karkor. They were all that was left of the army of the eastern tribes, because 120,000 of their warriors had been killed in the battle.

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 .