And the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites: Once Jephthah’s troops had defeated the Ephraimites, they tried to prevent those who had managed to escape from getting back across the Jordan River to their own territory. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” (New Revised Standard Version) or omitted as in Good News Translation. In some languages this change of scene may warrant a paragraph break (New Living Translation). The Gileadites is literally “Gilead,” which may be rendered “the army of Gilead” (Contemporary English Version) or “the soldiers of Gilead” in this context. Took the fords of the Jordan means they took control of the places where people could cross the Jordan River (see comments on verse 3.28). Took may be rendered “captured” or “seized.” The fords of the Jordan refer to “the places where the Jordan could be crossed” (Good News Translation), which played an important role in the defeat of Israel’s enemies (see verse 3.28; verse 7.24). We might say “the river-crossings of the Jordan.” The Hebrew phrase rendered against the Ephraimites is ambiguous, because the preposition for against can also mean “belonging to,” “toward,” or “at.” New International Version understands it in the sense of “toward” by saying “leading to Ephraim.” However, Revised Standard Version and most other versions see this preposition as signaling that it was to the Ephraimites’ disadvantage that the river-crossings were seized. For example, New Jerusalem Bible says “Gilead then cut Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan,” and Good News Translation is similar, but reorders the phrases in this clause: “In order to keep the Ephraimites from escaping, the Gileadites captured the places where the Jordan could be crossed.”

And when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said: Here the narrator begins to tell what happened at the fords during the war between the people of Gilead and Ephraim. And when is literally “And it was that” (wehayah ki in Hebrew). This expression introduces a state of affairs that continued over time, implying this happened over and over. New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and New International Version say “Whenever.” We might also say “Every time.” Fugitives renders the same Hebrew word as in the previous verse, but here it refers to the Ephraimites who managed to run away from the battle with the people of Gilead. Certainly this is the narrator’s way of making fun of the people of Ephraim, as this “insult” is now applied to them. Translators should reflect on whether it will be possible to retain the ironic tone here. We might say “Anytime an Ephraimite trying to escape [or, run away] would say.”

Let me go over: The soldiers of Gilead blocked the river-crossings of the Jordan, so the Ephraimites had to ask for permission to cross. Go over renders the key Hebrew verb ʿavar translated “crossed [over]” in verse 12.1, 3. If the same verb can be used here, this will help maintain the literary flavor of the book. This direct quote should be kept, if possible, because it shows that the Ephraimites were now at the mercy of the Gileadites. But if this is not possible, indirect speech may be used by rendering this clause and the previous one as “Whenever any Ephraimite running away would ask for permission to cross.” There is also a slight problem for translators here since in Hebrew the sentence begins with a plural “the fugitives of Ephraim” and the quote has a singular “Let me,” but Revised Standard Version presents a good model here: And when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over.”

The men of Gilead said to him: The narrator does not say how many men of Gilead were stationed at the river-crossings, but the word men in other contexts implies there were more than a few. Contemporary English Version calls them “guards.” Since a question follows, this clause may be rendered “the men of Gilead would ask him.”

Are you an Ephraimite? was the question the Gileadites would ask any Ephraimite trying to cross the Jordan River. This river formed the boundary between Gilead and Ephraim, so the Gileadites were busy carrying out a border check on those who wanted to cross. They asked this question to establish a person’s identity. In some languages it may be necessary to put this question in indirect speech by combining it with the previous clause as follows: “the men of Gilead would ask him if he was from Ephraim [or, if he was an Ephraimite].”

When he said, “No” is literally “and he said, ‘No.’ ” When renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, but we could also say “If” (Good News Translation, New International Version). A simple No may not be adequate in some languages and the person will need to respond more fully, for example, “No, I am not [an Ephraimite].” Here again indirect speech may be used: “If he would say he was not from Ephraim.” Obviously, each Ephraimite asked this question would answer “No,” because he wanted to cross the river unharmed.

A translation model for this verse is:

• At that time the soldiers of Gilead controlled the crossing points of the Jordan River and blocked them so the Ephraimites could not cross. Whenever an Ephraimite fugitive would arrive and ask for permission to cross, the soldiers of Gilead would say, “Are you from Ephraim?” If he would answer, “No,”….

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 .