1. all who knew not the wars of Canaan. The translation mirrors the looseness of the Hebrew syntax, although this clause clearly modifies “Israel.”

2. to teach them warfare, which before they did not know. Here an entirely different reason for the incompleteness of the conquest is introduced: Israel had to learn the skills of war in gradual stages through conflict with the Canaanites before it was prepared to conquer them.

4. to test Israel . . . to know whether they would heed the command of the LORD. Now the writer reverts to the theological explanation for the incompleteness of the conquest put forth in 2:21–23.

7. the Asheroth. In the plural feminine form, a different Canaanite goddess is evoked, not Ashtoreth but Asherah, the consort of the sky god El.

8. Cushan Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim. There are two oddities in this name and title. Rishathaim, which means “double-evil,” sounds more like a symbolic epithet than an actual name. Aram Naharaim is Mesopotamian Aram (there were Arameans closer to the eastern border of Israel), which would be a long distance from which to exert temporary dominance over any population west of the Jordan.

9. Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s young brother. He has already figured in the narrative both in this book and in Joshua as the conqueror of Hebron. In that instance, however, his military prowess was not enabled by the descent of the spirit upon him, according to the pattern of the Judges. His appearance now as the first judge is no doubt intended to establish a bridge between the period of Joshua and the period of the Judges. All the elements of the Judge paradigm are evident: Israel’s defection, its subjugation, its crying out, God’s response in raising up a rescuer, the descent of the spirit, the ensuing victory. But only the outline of the pattern appears—no details are offered of Othniel’s exploits.

15. the Benjaminite. The tribe of Benjamin, as the subsequent narrative will affirm, was noted for its skill in battle.

a left-handed man. The literal sense of the Hebrew idiom is “a man impaired [or bound up] in his right hand.” Ehud’s left-handedness plays a crucial part in his assassination of Eglon.

in his hand. Though the idiom means “through his agency,” with verse 18 making clear that there are at least several people physically bearing the considerable tribute, the use of “hand” picks up the appearance of the ominous left hand in the previous verse and its lethal deployment in verse 21.

16. a gomed. This measure of length occurs only here, but it has an evident cognate, garmida, in rabbinic Aramaic, which is a cubit, about seventeen inches. This would be short enough to conceal the weapon strapped to the thigh. The double edge of the straight sword makes it a thrusting weapon. Typical swords of this period were single-edged and sickle-shaped and were wielded by slashing.

17. Eglon was a very fat man. The name Eglon strongly suggests ʾegel, “calf.” In this satiric view of the enemy, he is a gross fatted calf, ready for slaughter.

19. Pesilim. This appears to be a place-name, but it means “the idols” (there is a definite article), and so it is probably a cultic site.

Silence! The Hebrew hass is onomatopoeic, something like shhh! When Ehud tells Eglon that he has a secret to convey, these words elicit exactly the response intended by the assassin: the king doesn’t want anyone else to hear, so he tells Ehud to keep quiet and orders everyone else out of the chamber. It should be noted that Ehud’s words to the king are abrupt, lacking the language of deference (“my lord the king”) required when addressing a royal personage. Eglon, in his eagerness to hear the secret, takes no note of this.

20. A word of God. At first, Eglon might have thought that the secret word was some piece of military intelligence that this supposed collaborator was offering him. Now Ehud presents it as an oracle, something that would be especially likely if Eglon is aware that he has arrived by way of Pesilim. (In this second bit of dialogue, Ehud is even more abrupt, now omitting the title “king.”) Eglon rises either because this is the proper posture in which to receive an oracle or because of his eagerness to hear the “word of God” up close. By standing, of course, he makes himself a perfect target for the sword thrust.

21. Ehud reached with his left hand. Because Eglon does not see this as the weapon hand, Ehud gains a decisive moment as he whips out the sword before Eglon can make a move to evade it.

22. the hilt, too, went in after the blade. The image of the weapon entirely encased in Eglon’s corpulence is deliberately grotesque.

the filth. The Hebrew parshedonah clearly shows the element peresh, excrement. The anomalous ending of the word may be a scribal duplication of the ending of misderonah, “to the vestibule,” which is the third word after this one in the Hebrew text. The release of the anal sphincter in the death spasm adds a scatological note to the representation of the killing of Eglon.

23. Ehud went out to the vestibule. The exact meaning of the Hebrew noun is uncertain, and our knowledge of the floor plan of Moabite palaces remains imperfect in this regard, though one scholar, Baruch Halperin, has made a heroic effort to reconstruct the architectural scene. But this would have to be some sort of courtyard or rear chamber on the other side of the king’s special chamber from the anteroom in which his attendants await him. The closing and locking of the doors, then, would be pluperfect: Ehud locks them from within and goes out through another, unspecified, exit.

24. and, look, the doors of the upper chamber were locked. The use of the presentative hineh, “look,” to mark a shift to the characters’ point of view is tactically effective here and in what follows: the courtiers are confronted by locked doors, and perplexed.

He must be relieving himself. The scatological detail is comic here: they can clearly smell the consequences of the released sphincter, and they use their inference to explain both the locked doors and the long delay.

25. they took the key and opened them. These doors evidently can be locked or unlocked from either side.

and, look, their master was fallen to the ground, dead. The management of narrative point of view is both eloquent and dramatic. They look and first make out “their master” (which is how they would have silently referred to him), take in the fact that he is sprawled on the floor, and then realize, at the very end of the syntactic chain, that he is dead. (With the short sword entirely buried in his belly, it is possible that no blood would be visible.)

26. And Ehud had escaped while they tarried. The courtiers’ long wait while they supposed their king was relieving himself gives the assassin ample time to get away.

27. he blasted the ram’s horn. It often happens in biblical narrative that two juxtaposed scenes are linked by the repetition of a term, in a different sense. The verb taqa‘ means “to stab” or “to thrust” and is used for Ehud’s killing of Eglon. But it also means “to blast” (on a ram’s horn or trumpet), which is what he does now as a signal to rally fighters around him.

28. Come down after me. The received text says ridfu ʾaḥaray, which means “pursue me,” an idiom that always suggests hostile intent. The Septuagint reads redu, “come down,” and it is very likely that the extra consonant, generating a wrong meaning, was inadvertently introduced through scribal copying in the Masoretic Text.

29. every stout fellow. The Hebrew adjective shamen usually means “fat” but here has the sense of “stalwart” or “strong,” a double meaning also exhibited by the English term “stout.” Its use here, however, clearly plays back ironically against the corpulence of Eglon.

30. eighty years. In this case, it is twice the formulaic forty.

31. Shamgar son of Anath. Anath is the Canaanite warrior-goddess. Some scholars think Shamgar may incorporate the name of the Hurrian sun god. It is a puzzle that this judge should sport two eminently pagan names. It is possible that the folk-traditions on which the tales of the Judges draw might actually reflect a fluid and syncretic situation in this early period in which on occasion a warrior of Canaanite lineage might have fought alongside some Israelite group.

with an ox-goad. This unconventional weapon anticipates Samson’s slaying Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey. The very oddness of this detail—the sole detail we are given about Shamgar’s exploits—might suggest an actual memory of a fighter who used an improvised destructive implement, though the number of six hundred killed (six hundred is a set figure for military contingents) is unlikely.