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 .