In 15.4-5 Samson has been acting alone. Now the Philistines come on the scene, so some versions begin a new paragraph here (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). It seems to be common knowledge that one of their group actually gave a wedded daughter to another man.

Then the Philistines said: Then renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which some versions leave untranslated (Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible). Since it introduces a result here, it may also be translated “So” or “And.” Throughout this incident there is a distinction made between the family of Samson’s wife in Timnah, who are themselves Philistines, and the rest of the Philistines who interact with Samson. Contemporary English Version shows the distinction by rendering the Philistines as “Some of the Philistines.” We may also say “the rest of the Philistines” or “the Philistine authorities/leaders.” In this context the general verb said may be rendered “asked” (Good News Translation, New International Version) or “demanded” (Revised English Bible).

Who has done this?: This question expresses the strong emotion of the Philistines because of the extensive devastation. If necessary, this direct quote may be expressed indirectly by saying “So the Philistine leaders asked who had done this.” Good News Translation is similar with “When the Philistines asked who had done this.” However, using indirect speech robs the narrative of its strong impact.

And they said: The referent for the pronoun they is not immediately clear. It must refer to other Philistines, not those who asked the question. So this pronoun may be rendered “some others.” Another possibility is to use a passive expression, for example, “they were told” (New International Version, New American Bible). Good News Translation suggests “they learned.” In both these renderings the pronoun “they” refers to the same Philistines as in the first sentence.

Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite: This is the answer to the question, Who has done this? Many languages will be able to follow the Hebrew here, which has no verb, but some may need to say “It was Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite [who did this].” This clause seems to remove any doubt about the marriage having taken place or not, since Samson is referred to as the son-in-law of the woman’s father. The Timnite means Samson’s father-in-law was from the town of Timnah. Contemporary English Version calls him “that man in Timnah.”

Because he has taken his wife and given her to his companion: Because renders well the Hebrew particle ki, which introduces the reason Samson destroyed the crops of the Philistines. The pronoun he refers to the father-in-law of Samson, and the two occurrences of the pronoun his refer to Samson. As in verse 1.12, the verb given carries the sense of “give in marriage.” For his companion, see verse 14.20. If the receptor language has a special verb tense for flashbacks, it may be used here, for example, “for that man from Timnah had taken Samson’s wife and had given her to Samson’s [best] friend.” Another possible model is “That man took Samson’s wife and married her to Samson’s friend. That is why Samson did this.” It seems clear here that the community recognizes this was not the right thing to do.

And the Philistines came up, and burned her and her father with fire: This sentence shows that it did not help Samson’s wife to reveal the solution to the riddle, since the threat against her and her family is now carried out (verse 14.15). It also shows that the solidarity among the Philistine people was not too strong. Instead of siding with the father-in-law against Samson, these people turn against him even though he was a fellow Philistine. They punish Samson’s father-in-law for bringing this trouble upon their people. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces their reaction, so it might translated “So” (Good News Translation, New International Version) or “then” (New Jerusalem Bible). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh uses a stronger conjunction, “Thereupon.” The Philistines may be rendered “those Philistines,” since this phrase appears to refer to yet another group. Came up renders the key Hebrew verb ʿalah meaning “go up,” which is often used in military contexts (see verse 1.1). Here it introduces the violent act of burning. In some languages it may be rendered simply “went” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation). Contemporary English Version says “went to Timnah,” which is probable, but not in the text.

For burned her and her father with fire, see verse 14.15. Burned … with fire is redundant in many languages, but since the word fire is emphasized here and throughout the book of Judges, it should be kept it if possible. The pronoun her refers to Samson’s wife, which Contemporary English Version makes explicit. Instead of her father, the Septuagint and some other ancient versions have “her father’s house.” They add the word “house” to harmonize the text with verse 14.15. This is the reading followed by Good News Translation. However, despite this smoother text, there seems no reason to make this change here. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives a {B} rating to the Hebrew text, so it should be maintained. We might say “burned Samson’s wife and her father to death.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then the Philistine leaders asked, “Who did this?” and they were told, “It was Samson, the son-in-law of that man from Timnah. He gave his daughter in marriage to Samson’s friend. That’s why Samson did this.” So the Philistines went to Timnah and burned to death the woman and her father.

• Then the Philistines said, “Who did this?” And they learned it was Samson, the son-in-law of the man from Timnah—the man who had taken Samson’s wife and given her to Samson’s friend. So they went to Timnah, and they set fire to the father and his daughter, burning them both to death.

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 .

Because of the shift of focus to the Philistines, many versions begin a new paragraph here (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). Without divine power, Samson is easily captured. A series of four verbs follows in quick succession expressing the speed with which the Philistines deal with their prisoner: seized, gouged out, brought … down, and bound. The verse ends with the sad picture of Samson: blind, in chains, and forced to do humiliating work. The situation is drastic.

And the Philistines seized him: And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version), “Then” (New International Version, Revised English Bible), or even “Suddenly.” Translators should choose a connector to carry the story forward and to emphasize the change in Samson, from confident hope to painful powerlessness. For the Hebrew verb rendered seized, see verse 1.6, where it is translated “caught.” Here it may be rendered “grabbed” (Contemporary English Version), “took hold of,” or “captured.” Obviously, the Philistines are not ready to lose Samson again.

And gouged out his eyes: This very cruel way of treating prisoners was meant to inflict pain, as well as to humiliate the enemy and render him helpless (see also verse 2 Kgs 25.7). The Hebrew verb rendered gouged out is not used often. It describes digging out something forcefully. Many languages will have a special expression for this kind of torture, for example, “poked out his eyes” (Contemporary English Version) or “put his eyes out” (Good News Translation). Just saying they “blinded him” might not be sufficient here.

And brought him down to Gaza: Brought … down renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb yarad meaning “go down” (see verse 14.1). There may be actual downward movement here, since the road from Delilah’s house to Gaza on the Mediterranean coast was actually downhill. For Gaza see verse 1.18. New International Version says they “took him down to Gaza.” Contemporary English Version‘s “They took him to the prison in Gaza” anticipates the end of the verse.

And bound him with bronze fetters: Bound is a keyword in this chapter (see verse 16.5-8, 10-13; and comments on verse 15.10). It may be rendered “tied [him] up.” The Hebrew word for bronze fetters refers to bronze chains used to bind a criminal or enemy. Bronze is a very strong metal, so translators should try to communicate this important feature. New Jerusalem Bible says “a double chain of bronze,” which renders the Hebrew dual form here. This dual form could also refer to two shackles, one for the feet and one for the hands. If bronze is not known, translators may say “strong/heavy metal chains.” Though these chains were very heavy, they did not keep Samson from walking and moving around, as the next clause shows.

And he ground at the mill in the prison: This clause could be the beginning of a new paragraph. Along with the next verse, it constitutes a kind of turning point in the story. We understand it as a concluding remark for this incident. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “At that time.” He ground is literally “he was one grinding.” The Hebrew construction here indicates ongoing action. The Hebrew verb for ground refers to grinding grain into flour. The phrase at the mill does not occur in Hebrew but designates the place where grain is ground into flour. He ground at the mill may be rendered “he became a grinder at the mill.” Though the text is not explicit, many illustrations show a blind but strong Samson walking in a circle pushing a millstone, as an ox would normally do. In the prison is literally “in the house of those who were bound,” with the same the Hebrew verb that appears earlier in this verse. We might say “At that time Samson was held in a prison, where he was forced to grind grain.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then the Philistines captured Samson, put his eyes out, and took him down to the town of Gaza. There they bound him with strong metal chains and forced him to work, grinding grain in the prison.

• So the Philistines grabbed hold of Samson and gouged out his eyes. Then they took him down to Gaza, where they tied him up with [two] bronze chains. In the prison there, he was forced to grind grain into flour.

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 .

And they passed on from there to the hill country of Ephraim: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” (Contemporary English Version) to indicate that this clause gives the next stage in the Danites’ journey. The text does not say how long they remained at Kiriath-jearim. For the key Hebrew verb rendered passed on (ʿavar), see verse 3.26 and verse 11.29. Revised Standard Version gives one interpretation for it here, but the clause can also mean “Then from there they passed over the mountains of Ephraim.” For the hill country of Ephraim, see verse 2.9.

And came to the house of Micah: See verse 18.2. The intrigue becomes more complicated, as the irony of the situation becomes evident. Earlier, the Danite spies had stopped at Micah’s house and found out about his idols. Here 600 armed Danite soldiers, who were sent out to find a new place to live (their “inheritance”), end up at Micah’s house, where all they can find to do is rob one man of his idols.

A translation model for this verse is:

• From there they passed on into the hill country of Ephraim and came to Micah’s house.

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 .

And he lifted up his eyes, and saw …: Coming from the fields and arriving in the town square, the old man (he) looks around and sees the group of travelers. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces the next action, but many versions omit it (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). New International Version prefers to cast this clause as a dependent clause, saying “When he looked and saw…” (similarly NET Bible). He lifted up his eyes, and saw renders a well-known Hebrew idiom, which if translated literally, would be unnatural in most languages. Translators can use some natural equivalent, for example, “he caught sight of” or simply “he saw.”

The wayfarer in the open square of the city: The wayfarer is literally “the man, the traveling one,” which refers to the Levite. Here the Hebrew word for “man” (ʾish) appears yet again, as it does throughout this section. In most languages the wayfarer may be translated “the traveler” (Good News Translation, New International Version) or “the stranger.” The text does not say how the old man recognized the Levite as a stranger but this was probably obvious from his clothes, his donkeys, and so on. Also, the fact that the Levite was sitting in the open square of the city (see verse 19.15) waiting for help may have indicated that he was a foreigner. Obviously the old man sees not just the Levite but the whole group.

And the old man said: Naturally in this culture, he would have addressed the husband, rather than the concubine or the servant. The old man may be rendered simply “the man” or “he” (New Living Translation) if this is more natural in the target language. In many languages it will be necessary to first say the man approached the Levite and his group before speaking, so translators might say “and he went up to them, and he said.” In this context the general verb said may be translated “asked.”

Where are you going? and whence do you come?: These two questions are the old man’s polite way of beginning a conversation with the Levite. However, in many languages an initial word such as “Welcome” might be necessary. These questions are similar to those which the angel of the LORD asks Hagar in Gen 16.8. Here as there, they are questions of information, not rhetorical questions, and the Levite immediately answers them. Where are you going? asks for the Levite’s final destination, while whence do you come? asks for his starting point. In many languages it will be more natural to put these questions in reverse order. Whence is an old English word meaning “from where.” The second question may be rendered “Where are you coming from?” or “Where have you come from?” The Hebrew pronoun for you is singular, but in many languages it will be better to use a plural “you.” We might say “Where have you [all] come from? And where are you headed?” For those languages that prefer indirect speech here, see the second model below.

Translation models for this verse are:

• And when he saw the travelers in the town square, he approached them and said, “Greetings, friends. Where have you come from? And where are you going?”

• As he was coming, the old man saw the stranger waiting in the middle of the town and asked him where he had come from and where he was going.

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 .

But the people, the men of Israel, took courage …: But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. Despite what happened, the Israelites were not discouraged. They continued fighting. The Hebrew word for people (ʿam) is often used to refer to the people of Israel (see verse 2.4). Its use reminds the audience of all that Yahweh has done up to now for his people. The narrator quickly qualifies this word by adding the men of Israel, which refers more specifically to “the Israelite army” (Good News Translation). This phrase includes all the people except the Benjaminites. The Hebrew verb rendered took courage is literally “strengthened themselves” (see verse 7.11, where a different form of the verb is used). This verb describes the moral character of the Israelites. Instead of giving up after the huge defeat, they “rallied” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). We might also say they “did not lose courage” or “did not give up.” New International Version‘s “encouraged one another” does not seem strong enough to explain their determination at this point.

And again formed the battle line in the same place where they had formed it on the first day: The Israelites regrouped to fight again. They decided to go back to the same place and go into the same formation as the previous day. The audience will certainly wonder if this was a good strategy, in view of the previous day’s defeat. This detail may show how courageous and determined they were. Again formed the battle line is literally “they added to arrange [for] battle.” The Hebrew verb here is the same one rendered “drew up [the battle] line” in verse 20.20 (see comments there). The same verb is repeated in the next clause as well.

In the same place where they had formed it on the first day is literally “in the place that they arranged there on the first day.” This clause may be translated “in the same place they had lined up for battle the day before.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Despite that, the Israelites renewed their courage and once again lined up for battle in the same place where they had stood on the first day.

• Nevertheless, the Israelite soldiers were courageous and took position in the same place as the previous day to fight [the Benjaminites] once again.

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 .

This verse gives a summary of the Israelite advance into the Promised Land. The LORD gives the Israelites victory, but they are unable to do as he instructed, that is, they are unable to drive the inhabitants out of the land.

The Hebrew expression wayehi (literally “And it was”), rendered here as And, shows that a new episode is beginning. Some versions take this expression to be the verb for the following clause, and so do not render it in their translation. But it is more likely this expression is a discourse marker introducing the important fact that the LORD was with the people of Judah. Translators should look for a good transition word or expression to mark this important comment.

The LORD was with Judah is literally “YHWH with Judah,” a common expression in the Old Testament, indicating that the LORD was alongside the people, helping them. As elsewhere, the singular Judah refers to “the people of Judah” or even “the army of Judah.” Good News Translation has “The LORD helped the people of Judah,” and Contemporary English Version is similar with “The LORD helped the army of Judah.”

And he took possession of the hill country explains what the army from Judah was able to do with God’s help. In some languages the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and can thus be translated “so.” Yahweh enabled these warriors to capture the mountainous regions. Once again the singular pronoun he refers collectively to the men of Judah. Took possession of renders a key Hebrew verb (yarash) in this unit. Its repetition underlines the contrast between the Israelites’ victories and their failures. Revised English Bible says “occupied,” while New Jerusalem Bible has “made himself master of,” but we might also simply say “took” or “captured.” For the hill country, see verse 1.9.

But he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain: This clause introduces the first negative note in the book. From this point on, there will be victories, but these will all be tarnished by various shortcomings and defeat. But renders the Hebrew conjunction ki, which normally means “since” or “for.” However, most see a contrast or counter-expectation here, so but is a good rendering. New Jerusalem Bible is similar with “however.”

The pronoun he refers once again to Judah’s army. In Hebrew the verb rendered drive out is the same yarash, but here it is an infinitive form preceded by the negative marker, rendered in many versions as “dispossess” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), that is, make people leave a place by force. This is the second of seventeen occurrences of this verb in Judges, most of them appearing in the first part of the book (verse 1.19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; verse 2.21, 23). It also occurs three times in verse 11.23-24. Contemporary English Version says here “Judah was not able to make them leave or to take their land.” We might also say “they could not chase the inhabitants away.” For inhabitants see verse 1.11.

The Hebrew word for plain refers to a valley or low point. In Israel the plain is mostly on the coast. It was good for farming and therefore much desired. Some languages may find this a difficult term to render. We could say “flat land,” “good farming land,” or even “land by the coast.”

Because they had chariots of iron: This clause gives a brief explanation of why the warriors of Judah were unsuccessful in their attack. Because is a good rendering of the Hebrew particle ki, which could also be translated “for” or “since.” The pronoun they refers to the inhabitants of the plain, the Philistines. Some languages will need to specify “the inhabitants of that place.” The Philistines had a monopoly on the production of iron (see verse 1 Sam 13.19-22), so they had stronger weapons, including chariots of iron.

Chariots were small vehicles, as big as carriages or carts, pulled by horses. They were used mainly for war, and usually carried one or two soldiers. Most languages will not have a word for chariot, but some may say “car of war” or “war cart.”

Iron is one of the strongest metals known and its use revolutionized the peoples who had access to it, since their weapons were stronger and more effective. Most languages should have a term for this metal. Today scholars note that these chariots could not have been made entirely out of iron, because they would have been too heavy to move. Probably the expression chariots of iron means that the rims of the wheels of the chariots were covered with iron strips. Thus the chariots could be driven quickly over all kinds of terrain and last longer. Most translations say chariots of iron, but some may prefer to say “chariots with iron-rimmed wheels” or “chariots strengthened with iron.”

If necessary, the clauses in this second half of the verse can be reversed, as in the following model:

• The people who lived on the coast had chariots made strong with iron, so the people of Judah were not able to chase/drive them out of the land.

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 .

This repetitive verse sets the pattern for the judges’ episodes that follow. It makes clear that the LORD hears the cries of his people and has pity on them. He therefore raises up a leader or judge to save Israel. The important Hebrew root sh-f-t (“judge”) occurs three times here.

Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them is a time clause meaning “Every time the LORD….” The emphasis is on Yahweh initiating the action. For raised up, see the discussion at verse 2.16. Judges is a plural noun referring to the heroes or leaders God appoints and sends to deliver his people (see comments on verse 2.16). The pronoun them refers to the Israelites, and can be made explicit if need be.

The LORD was with the judge: The name of the LORD, Yahweh, appears three times in this verse, making clear that it is the LORD and he alone who saves Israel. Here he is said to be with the judge. This phrase is used often in the Old Testament, for example, for Joseph (Gen 39.23), and in this book, for Judah (verse 1.19). It means more than just being with a person. It implies that the LORD is enabling and giving power to a person for a specific task. Good News Translation translates “the LORD would help that leader.” Another solution might be to say “Yahweh gave the leader power.” While the first occurrence speaks of judges in the plural, here there is a singular form judge, which surely means “each judge.”

And he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: Whereas in verse 2.14 the Israelites were “sold … into the power [hand] of their enemies,” here they are saved … from the hand of their enemies (see comments on verse 2.14 and verse 2.16). The pronoun he seems ambiguous, since it could refer to the LORD or to the judge he raised up. However, Yahweh is the subject of the preceding clause, so it is more likely that he is the one who is acting here. Thus the majority of English versions take the subject of saved to be Yahweh (Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), while Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version remain ambiguous. Contemporary English Version, however, takes a different position, seeing the judge as the one who delivers the people: “He would choose a judge and help that judge rescue Israel from its enemies.” Translators will have to make a choice here as to which interpretation to follow.

All the days of the judge suggests that during the lifetime of the particular judge, the Israelites were safe from further attack from their enemies. Thus the verb saved seems to also carry an idea of protection. For all the days, see verse 2.7. Since this phrase often refers to the life of a person, we can render all the days of the judge as “throughout the life of the one serving as judge,” “throughout the lifetime of that leader,” or perhaps “as long as that leader lived.”

This first half of the verse may be rendered as follows:

• Each time the LORD sent Israel a leader, the LORD helped that leader and saved the people from their enemies. They were safe as long as that leader was alive.

For the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning: In the episodes that follow, before the LORD raises up a judge, there is usually a statement that says the people “cried to the LORD” (verse 3.9, 15; verse 4.3; verse 6.7; verse 10.10). Here this information comes as an explanation introduced by the conjunction for, rendering the Hebrew particle ki. Versions treat this particle differently. While some take this as a causal conjunction, introducing the reason the LORD had pity on the people (Revised Standard Version, New International Version, English Standard Version), it is omitted in others (Good News Translation, NET Bible). Some reorder the elements to conform to chronological order: “the people groaned and the LORD had pity on them” (so Contemporary English Version).

Was moved to pity is an English idiom, meaning “had compassion [on them]” or “felt sorry [for them].” The Hebrew root of the verb here (n-ch-m) expresses the reaction of an outside party to a person’s unfortunate situation. Translators are free to use idiomatic expressions in their language, for example, “[their] pity hit [the LORD]” or “pity entered into [the LORD].” In this book the LORD’s anger and his pity are two dominant themes.

By their groaning (literally “from their groaning”) shows what sparked God’s reaction. In English it is more natural to say “because they groaned,” as in Good News Translation. Groaning is a cry or other sound expressing agony and suffering. The Hebrew term for groaning is rare, occurring only here in this book and only three other times in the Old Testament. However, it seems significant that is also used to describe the people’s groaning during the time they were in slavery in Egypt (Exo 2.24). A possible translation is “their cry of agony caused the LORD to feel pity for them.” In some languages it may be necessary to make explicit that the LORD heard their groaning prior to having pity, for example, “when the LORD heard their cries of suffering, he had pity on them.”

Because of those who afflicted and oppressed them: Because of is literally “from the face of,” which introduces the source of the suffering, leading to these groans. Because of or “caused by” fit the context well. Those who afflicted and oppressed them renders two Hebrew verbs that describe how the enemies of the Israelites treated them. The first verb rendered afflicted means literally “to press” or “to squeeze.” It is used, for example, when Balaam’s donkey has to squeeze through a tight place (Num 22.25), and to describe figuratively the oppression of the Egyptians in Exo 3.9. It is also used in this book in verse 1.34, where it refers to the enemy pushing back the Danites into the mountains. The second verb translated oppressed is a rarer verb, meaning “to crowd,” as in Joel 2.8, describing the jostling of soldiers. Both Hebrew verbs are participles here, describing those who afflicted the Israelites. However, the emphasis seems to be rather on the people undergoing the suffering rather than on those who did the oppressing. So for this clause we might say “because they were oppressed and suffering.” If the language does not have two distinct verbs for afflicted and oppressed, one verb can be used with a modifier, for example, “because they were greatly oppressed” or “because their enemies oppressed them terribly.” Good News Translation ties this clause to the Israelites’ groaning, saying “because they groaned under their suffering and oppression,” which provides another model.

Contemporary English Version switches the order of certain elements here, giving a very clear rendering: “When enemies made life miserable for the Israelites, the LORD would feel sorry for them.” This adjustment puts the reason before the result and so makes the sentence easier to understand, though “made life miserable” seems slightly weaker than the notion of “oppression.” Another possible model is:

• The LORD felt sorry for them when he heard their cries of suffering and saw the affliction and oppression they endured.

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 .