Charles Ellicott Commentary Judges 5:30

"Have they not found, have they not divided the spoil? A damsel, two damsels to every man; To Sisera a spoil of dyed garments, A spoil of dyed garments embroidered, Of dyed garments embroidered on both sides, on the necks of the spoil?" — Judges 5:30 (ASV)

Have they not succeeded? Have they not divided the prey? —Literally: Are they not finding? Are they not dividing the spoil? Is not the wealth of their booty the cause of their delay? (Compare to Exodus 15:9: The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil.)

To every man. —Literally, as in the margin, to the head of a man. (Numbers 1:2; 1 Chronicles 12:23.)

A damsel or two. —Literally, a maiden, two maidens; only that the word used is strongly contemptuous, as if a captive Hebrew girl could only be described by a term of scorn. In these internecine wars the men were killed and the women reserved as slaves (Numbers 31:17–18). Commentators quote a remarkable parallel from Gibbon (volume 2, chapter 11), where he says that two or three Gothic female captives fell to the share of each of the soldiers of Claudius II. (“Tantum mulierum cepimus, ut binas et ternas mulieres victor sibi miles possit adjungere.”—Trebellius Pollio, 8). The reading of the Peshito is, “a heap, two heaps,” as in Judges 15:16.

Of various colours. —Literally, of dyed robes.

Of various colours of needlework. —Of dyed robes of embroidered webs.

Of various colours of needlework on both sides. —A dyed robe, two embroidered webs.

Meet for the necks of those who take the spoil? —Literally, as in the margin, for the necks of the spoil.

As this makes no good sense, our version follows those which here understand “spoil” as equivalent to “spoiler.” The old versions take “spoil” in apposition to the rest of the sentence: e.g., the Septuagint has, dyed robes of embroidered webs for his neck, as spoils, and a similar meaning is involved in the loose paraphrase of the Vulgate. Others explain it to mean that the dyed robes are to be carried on the necks of the female slaves and the captive cattle.

Ewald reads shegal (“queen”) for shellal (“prey”)—a brilliant and probable conjecture; for if the booty of the soldiers and the general is mentioned, the royal ladies would be hardly likely to forget themselves. In any case, the mother of Sisera is characteristically described (as Bishop Lowth has pointed out) as talking neither of the slaughter of the enemy nor the prowess of the warriors, but only of the gay and feminine booty. (Compare to “Faemineo praedae et spoliorum arderet amore,” Aeneid 11.728.)

Nothing can exceed the power and skill with which, in a few words, the vanity, levity, and arrogance of these “wise princesses” are described, as they idly talk of colours and embroidery and, as it were, gloat over the description; while, at the same time, an unwomanly coarseness (racham, for “maiden”) mingles with their womanly frivolity. Only we must bear in mind that they too, like Deborah and Jael, though in an ignobler way, are the creatures of their age and circumstances.