Good News Translation combines verses 25-26 in such a way that it is difficult to separate the information in one verse of Revised Standard Version from the other. Both verses of Revised Standard Version have been listed above alongside Good News Translation. Revised Standard Version, of course, follows the Hebrew text more closely, but translators may find Good News Translation‘s rearrangement easier to handle. The following discussion treats both verses together.

Zipporah was Moses’ wife, and Good News Translation again makes this information explicit. She took a flint, that is, “a sharp stone,” or “a flint knife” (New International Version). And cut off her son’s foreskin here means that she completely removed the loose skin (prepuce) covering the end (glans) of her son’s penis. Zipporah’s action, as noted in the introduction to this section, was what is termed “circumcision.” In many cultures a literal translation of the sentence, Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, would shock the intended audience. In such cases it will be necessary to soften the translation by using roundabout language (euphemisms). Some cultures will already have a technical term for circumcision that acts as a euphemism, for example, “cutting ceremony,” and can translate this sentence as “Zipporah performed the cutting ceremony on her son and took the skin and….” However, in other languages there will be no term like this for circumcision, and in some cultures the practice is unknown. In such cases it will often be necessary to use a euphemism. And touched Moses’ feet with it is literally “and she touched [it] to his feet.” It is incorrect to say that she “cast it” or “threw it” at his feet (King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible [New American Standard Bible]); the word never has this meaning in the Bible.

It is not at all certain that it was Moses’ feet. Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have added Moses to the text because of the reference to bridegroom later in the verse. (But see the comment on this below.) Since the pronoun “his” follows the reference to the son, it seems to refer to the son’s feet, and this interpretation is entirely possible. Some scholars believe the mother intended to smear some blood from the foreskin onto her son’s feet as a visible sign that the circumcision was completed. If the interpretation of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation is followed, however, a footnote should be added to inform the reader that the Hebrew only says “his feet,” not Moses’ feet.

Some translations (Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel: Nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (Luther) have interpreted feet in this verse as a euphemism for the genitals. (See the Good News Translation footnote.) This is certainly possible, for the term seems to be used this way in Isa 6.2 and 7.20. But here, if we accept it as a euphemism, it would more likely refer to “the genitals of Moses” (Jerusalem Bible), for it is the son’s foreskin that has just been removed. Translating it in this way does not allow for other interpretations of the story that are just as valid. It is better to translate the word according to its basic meaning—feet, or “legs” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh)—and add a footnote as Good News Translation has done.

And said presents another difficulty, for the text does not indicate to whom she is speaking. The words Surely you could refer to either Moses or the son. Good News Translation has added “she said to Moses” because of the reference to bridegroom, but even that word may be translated differently. (See the next paragraph.) Surely translates a Hebrew word that is sometimes used to emphasize what follows, but Good News Translation and others take it only as a marker of direct speech, like a quotation mark. Other ways to translate Surely are “For certain…,” or “You certainly are….”

You are a bridegroom of blood to me! This expression probably comes from some ancient ritual or formula now unknown to us. Literally, it means “You are a marriage-relative of bloodshed to me.” The word chathan, translated as bridegroom or “husband,” is a general term referring to a person who becomes related to another family through marriage, and so it is sometimes translated as “son-in-law.” If it is pronounced chothen, it means “one who has a son-in-law,” or “father-in-law.” In the Arabic language chathan means “to circumcise,” and chothen means “circumciser.” This is why some scholars believe that here it means “one who is circumcised.” In this sense the mother is speaking to her son, not her husband, and saying “You are a blood-circumcised one with regard to me.”

The basic idea seems to be that of a relationship (through marriage) that in some way is brought about by blood. One may be able to say “Through this bloodshed you are now marriage-related to me.” If this is not possible or desirable, the translator will have to choose Moses or the son as the one to whom Zipporah speaks. If we choose the son, we may say “Through this bloodshed you are now my circumcised child”; but if it is Moses, one may say “I have shed this blood, so now you [Moses] are related through marriage to me.”

Most translations prefer the second choice, that Zipporah is speaking to Moses. In either case, a footnote can explain that the term may mean either “a blood-circumcised one” in reference to the son, or “a bridegroom/husband of blood” in reference to Moses. But since there is little evidence to suggest that Zipporah was angry or disgusted, the negative connotation of “bloody husband” (King James Version) should be avoided.

So he let him alone is literally “and he desisted from him.” This may be understood as “so the LORD spared Moses’ life” or “Yahweh let him live” (Jerusalem Bible). The pronoun him must refer to the same person as the “him” mentioned in verse 24. (See the comment there.) So, depending on how translators interpret the previous verse, one may say either “So Yahweh let Moses live” or “So Yahweh let the boy live.”

Then it was translates a Hebrew word that also means “At that time” (New American Bible, New International Version). If this is how it is intended here, it means she spoke the words only once, as they are given in verse 25, not twice, as Revised Standard Version may suggest. Good News Translation combines verses 25 and 26 in order to make this clear, and uses the phrase “Because of the rite of circumcision” to cover the rest of verse 26, which is probably an editorial comment explaining why she had spoken, not when.

She said introduces only the difficult words bridegroom of blood that were spoken by Zipporah in verse 25. The words You are have been added by Revised Standard Version; they are not in the Hebrew text. Because of the circumcision explains why Zipporah had spoken. If the words are understood as part of a formula related to an ancient ritual (see the comment above), it is better to say “Because of the rite of circumcision” (Good News Translation). Some translations include this phrase within the quotation (New English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), but this is possible only if verse 26 reports a second speech by Zipporah in addition to her speech in verse 25. Because of the circumcision may also be rendered as “Because she had circumcised her son” or, following New International Version‘s model below, one may translate the whole verse as “So Yahweh [or, the LORD] let him live. (At that time she called him ‘a bridegroom of blood,’ which referred to the circumcision.)”

As explained above, it is better to interpret all of verse 26 (after the words So he let him alone) as an explanation of the formula spoken in verse 25. New International Version has helpfully placed this in parenthesis: “(At that time she said ‘bridegroom of blood,’ referring to the circumcision.)” New International Version‘s model is a good one for translators who do not combine verses 25 and 26.

Alternative translation models for verses 24-26 are:

• The LORD confronted Moses and tried to kill him at a place where he and his family were resting as they traveled to Egypt. Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, and cut off the skin at the end of her son’s penis [or, genitals] and touched Moses’ feet with it. She said, “By shedding this blood you are now related to me by marriage.” So the LORD let him live. (At that time she called him “a bridegroom of blood” because she had circumcised her son.)

• As they [Moses and his family] were traveling to Egypt, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met Moses and tried to kill him. But Zipporah, Moses’ wife, took a knife made from a sharp stone and circumcised her son. Then she took the piece of skin she had removed, touched his feet with it, and said, “Through this bloodshed you are now my circumcised child.” (She pronounced these words because of the ritual.) And so the LORD let Moses live.

Quoted with permission from Osborn, Noel D. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Exodus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1999. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .