When the men of the city saw them, they caught up their weapons and ran out of the city to the top of the hill: Revised Standard Version notes a textual problem here. Some authorities add “on the top of the hill” to the first clause. If this is done, the phrase top of the hill appears twice in this verse, and most scholars think that one of the occurrences is a mistaken scribal repetition. The textual problem is compounded by grammatical ambiguity. What does the phrase top of the hill modify? The first occurrence of the phrase can be understood three ways:

(1) When the men of the town who were on top of the hill saw them….
(2) When the men of the town, which was on top of the hill, saw them….
(3) When the men of the town saw them on top of the hill….

The second understanding is the most natural way to understand both the Greek and the geography. The third one is the least likely possibility, in spite of the Revised Standard Version note. The Assyrian soldiers are coming up from the plain.

The second occurrence of top of the hill can be understood two ways:

(1) They ran outside the town to the top of the hill….
(2) They ran outside the town, which was on top of the hill….

The second understanding is most likely with the town on top of the hill. The first one seems to have the defenders putting the town between them and the approaching Assyrian soldiers.

The textual question is whether one of these two phrases is a mistaken addition to the text, and if so, which one. It is important to note that in both cases the phrase top of the hill follows immediately after the phrase the city, in the same grammatical form and spelling. It would have been quite easy for a scribe to repeat the phrase at the second occurrence by moving his eyes to the first the city and writing the descriptive phrase a second time. One also could easily reason, as some do, that the first occurrence of the phrase is the mistaken addition. On the other hand, it could have been a conscious repetition, so it is original. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible is alone in going this way.

Translators will be in good scholarly company, whatever choice they make. However, the following solution, which is suggested by Gonzáles and Alonso-Schöckel, appears to be defensible and simple:

• When the men of Bethulia saw them coming, they grabbed their weapons and ran out of the town, which was on top of the hill.

This satisfies the Greek since top of the hill most likely modifies city. It also fits the geography since the city was surely on top of the hill, not halfway up. Finally it supports the tactics. The defenders can repel the Assyrians and have the safety of their city at their back. This translation avoids repetition by naming Bethulia at the first occurrence of the city. Translators are urged to follow this solution.

All the slingers kept them from coming up by casting stones at them: Slingers were men who used stones as weapons. By whirling the sling with the stone about his head several times, and then letting go one end of the sling, the stone was propelled forward with great force.

Good News Translation builds this explanation into the text unnoticed, although “rained” presents a problem with “Every man” as subject of the verb. The whole mass of slingers could “rain” stones on the enemy, but a single man could hardly do it. The form of the verb “cast/throw” used here does suggest a “rain” of stones, however. But in some languages it will be unnatural to talk about “raining stones on.” In such cases Contemporary English Version‘s translation will be helpful: “They were able to stop the Assyrians from getting any closer by using slings to throw stones at them.” We may reorder the clauses and say, for example, “Some of the men used slings to throw stones at the Assyrians. This stopped them from coming up any closer.”

The Greek does not specify those being stopped by the slingers; it simply says them, but translators may feel the need for a noun here. It must be well chosen, however. It should be consistent with the noun used in 6.7, 10-11 (whether Holofernes’ servants, slaves, or soldiers). When Good News Translation reads “Holofernes’ soldiers” it is being consistent with its rendering “my men” in 6.7 and “men” in verses 10-11. If a translation has opted for “servants” or “slaves” in 6.7, 10-11, it should do the same here.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Judith. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.