Bacchides found this out on the sabbath day, and he with all his army crossed the Jordan: This entire verse is a problem. It is obviously very similar to verse 43, leading to suggestions that it either belongs before verse 43 or is simply a scribal error duplicating verse 43 and should be omitted. Though some (for instance, Doran) defend its placement here, it creates great difficulties in the narrative. Assuming that the verse belongs here, why does it matter when Bacchides found out that Jonathan and his men went to the wilderness of Tekoa? In the narrative beginning with verse 43, the question of fighting on the Sabbath comes up, but that is not involved here. Then, the verse seems to suggest that Bacchides is on the east bank of the Jordan River, and crosses over. Why would he have been there? We have no reason to think he was over there. Further, if verses 34 and 43 refer to the same Sabbath, there is too much going on for one day—everything in verses 34-49. Further, the subject of verse 35 (which is literally “he” in Greek) is clearly Jonathan. If verse 34, with Bacchides as subject, belongs where it is, it makes nonsense of verse 35. New American Bible and Goldstein omit the verse. Good News Bible and New Jerusalem Bible place it in parentheses, adding a footnote. The parentheses are there not because of the textual problem (this is the purpose of the footnote); the parentheses simply indicate the interruption of the narrative at this point. Abel places the verse in parentheses, but does not question the text. So far it seems there are three alternatives for the translator:

1. Follow Revised Standard Version (also New English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) in translating the verse as it stands.
2. Follow Good News Bible and New Jerusalem Bible in placing the verse in parentheses.
3. Follow New American Bible and Goldstein in omitting the verse.

However, we are not yet in a position to decide, for this problem is tied to another. In verses 43-49 a battle between Bacchides and Jonathan is described as taking place on the banks of the Jordan. After the battle Jonathan swam across the river to escape, but it is not clear at all on which bank the battle took place, and whether Jonathan was swimming to the east bank or to the west bank. The reason the two problems are related is the terminology used in verses 34 and 43 to refer to crossing the river. In verse 43 the Greek does not indicate which side of the river Bacchides was on. In verse 34 it is definitely said in the Greek text that he crossed from west to east, so presumably in verse 43 he was on the east bank as well. In Josephus’ narrative the battle is on the west bank, and some scholars (and New Jerusalem Bible) follow him in this.

It seems best to us, however, to go with Dancy, Goldstein, and Schiffman, in placing the battle on the east side of Jordan. Here is how we reconstruct the events: Jonathan, who was west of Jordan near Tekoa, sent his brother John on a mission to the Nabateans east of the Jordan (verse 35). While John was in the area, the Jambri tribe kidnaped and killed him (verse 36). Word got back to Jonathan at Tekoa (verse 37). Jonathan, Simon, and their men went to Nadabath, across the Jordan, and ambushed a wedding party to avenge the death of John (verses 38-40). They then came back to the marshlands around the Jordan, but did not cross the river (verse 42). Bacchides learned where they were and moved against them (verse 43). The Jews saw that they were trapped between Bacchides and the Jordan, apparently within a bend in the river (verse 45). There was a bloody but indecisive battle in which Bacchides escaped from Jonathan (verses 47, 49). The Jews swam across the Jordan back to Judea, and the Syrians did not follow (verse 48). Goldstein thinks it significant, and it may well be, that the narrative has Jonathan coming back into the land from the east (like Joshua), not running away from the Holy Land itself.

Since it is not clear from verse 43 alone on which side of the river Bacchides was, someone could have written on a manuscript an explanation that Bacchides had crossed to the east bank, and that comment eventually became verse 34. This is Goldstein’s explanation; the explanatory comment on verse 43 was somehow misplaced at verse 34. It is possible that the author himself put this verse exactly where it is, trusting the reader to follow him in the following passage. (If that is the case, his trust has proved to have been misplaced). Zeitlin believes the author wrote the verse, but that it belongs just before verse 43, and has somehow been misplaced (see Good News Bible‘s footnote). But why should the author—or anyone else—put that remark here? If the Maccabees were hiding in Judea, why would Bacchides cross over to the east bank?

Our own feeling is that verse 34 is original to the author. The wording is so different from verse 43 that it is hard to think of it simply as an erroneous scribal repetition. We agree with those who think it is out of place. But we believe it should be placed after verse 36. That, it seems to us, is the only place where it really clarifies the narrative. Bacchides heard, not that Jonathan was hiding in Judea, but that he had sent a group of his followers (probably women and children) over into Nabatea, where they had been attacked by a local tribe. Realizing that Jonathan was certain to seek revenge, he himself crossed the Jordan to wait for the Jews to return.

So translators have four options on how to handle verse 34. Not only the three suggested above, but our own contribution to the debate. Any translators choosing option 1 or 2 may use Good News Bible as a model, including or omitting the parentheses as they like (though we would suggest including them). Translators may well want to choose option 3, in which case a note should advise the reader that verse 34 appears to be a duplication of verse 43 and has been omitted in translation. Our option is to move the verse after verse 36, with this footnote after verse 33: * Verse 34 has been placed after verse 36.

We offer no textual justification for the move after verse 36. (But neither is there textual justification for suggesting that it belongs after verse 42.) It is based on translational grounds. It is perhaps a drastic translational move, but like other translational modifications, it is done in order to make the text clearer to the reader. Our model for verse 34, placed after verse 36 with no parentheses, is:

• Meanwhile, one Sabbath day, Bacchides learned what was happening. He then led his army across the Jordan River, to the east side.

Why are we told that Bacchides learned on the Sabbath of the Maccabees’ action? We don’t know. Maybe that brief remark was copied by a scribe from verse 43. Maybe it is intended to give the reader the impression that all the while that Jonathan was fighting the Jambri tribe, Bacchides was sitting over there east of the Jordan for a whole week, just waiting to trap Jonathan when he tried to get back to Judea. This, for whatever it’s worth, is our opinion.

Whatever solution translators adopt to this complicated problem, they should make it clear each time Jonathan or Bacchides crossed the Jordan which direction he was moving in.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.