This brief verse ends the episode.

And when the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead is an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “And the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead.” Here the phrase the men of Israel uses the generic Hebrew term for “man” (ʾish), where hearers might expect the word for “people” (ʿam). Once again the narrator reflects that there was some kind of Israelite unity at this time, a view that does not fit the historical facts. Translators should render the men of Israel as it stands, even though it is only a small portion of the Israelites who saw Abimelech die. For this phrase see verse 7.23. Since not all the people physically saw the body of Abimelech, some versions may want to say “learned,” “heard,” or “realized.”

They departed every man to his home is literally “and they went [each] man to his place.” This clause signals the end of the revolt led by Abimelech and his men. His attempt to gain power came to an end, and with it, this first attempt to establish a kingdom in Israel had ended. Translators should use language here that is appropriate for a conclusion. Good News Translation has “they all went home,” but the narrator again uses the Hebrew term ʾish (“man”). Though such stylistic features will be hard to render in translation, it is clear that the narrator is marking this text in a very particular way.

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 .

Israel then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying: Here Jephthah continues to tell the story of the Israelites. There is probably quite a time gap between the events described in verse 11.16 and here. Therefore a conjunction such as “Later” might be more appropriate than then. There is a certain sense in which this “story within a story” reflects Jephthah’s present situation. As he sends his messengers to the Ammonite king, so the Israelites of that day sent messengers to the king of Edom (see verse 11.12). Edom was the territory to the southeast of the Dead Sea, with Moab on its northern border (see verse 5.4). The Edomites were related to the Israelites, but very early on they became their enemies.

Let us pass, we pray, through your land is the appeal of the Israelites to the king of Edom. Let us pass is literally “Let me pass,” since Israel as a nation is speaking here. However, like Revised Standard Version, many languages will prefer to use a plural expression here. For the Hebrew verb translated pass (ʿavar), which is found in many Old Testament books, see verse 3.26. We pray renders the Hebrew particle naʾ, which may be translated “Please” (Contemporary English Version). The phrase through your land shows that the Israelites recognized the Edomites’ claim to this territory. Land renders the Hebrew word ʾerets, which often refers to the Promised Land in Judges (see comments on verse 11.12). Good News Translation uses indirect discourse for this embedded quotation by beginning this verse with “Then they sent messengers to the king of Edom to ask permission to go through his land.” This may be a helpful model for other languages.

But the king of Edom would not listen: The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause introduces a contrast, so but is a good rendering. We may also say “Despite their pleas.” The king of Edom would not listen is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, which does not mean that he did not hear, but rather that he did not grant their request. We might say “But the king of Edom would not allow them to do so” or “But the king of Edom did not agree.”

And they sent also to the king of Moab: Sent renders the Hebrew verb shalach, which occurs frequently in this book (see, for example, verse 4.6; verse 6.35; verse 9.31). In some languages it will be necessary to supply an object for this verb, such as “messengers” or “a message.” This clause may be rendered “They also asked the king of Moab for permission to pass through his land.”

But he would not consent: The king of Moab was not willing either to let the Israelites pass through his land. Consent renders a Hebrew verb meaning “agree” or “be willing.” This clause may be translated “but he was not willing either” or “but he would not let them pass through his land either.”

So Israel remained at Kadesh: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since this clause closes an incident. The verb remained is literally “settled” or “lived,” and appropriate equivalents may be used here.

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 .

He had forty sons and thirty grandsons … is literally “And it was to him forty sons and thirty sons of sons….” This verse begins in the same way as verse 12.9 (see comments there). Abdon had even more children than the judges before him. The Hebrew word for sons can refer to children in general, but male descendants are probably in focus here. The numerals forty, thirty and seventy have symbolic value, reflecting Abdon’s social status and power. The number seventy is, of course, the sum of forty sons and thirty grandsons. This numeral also played a key role in the stories of Gideon and his son Abimelech (see, for example, verse 8.30; verse 9.2).

Who rode on seventy asses means that each child and grandchild rode on a donkey. This was an important sign of wealth in Old Testament times (see verse 10.4). Contemporary English Version omits the word seventy, but this number is an important literary feature, so it should be kept.

And he judged Israel eight years: Elon, the minor judge between Ibzan and Abdon, was a leader in Israel for the longest of the three (ten years), while Abdon led Israel one year longer than Ibzan and two years longer than Jephthah. The Hebrew phrase rendered eight years (shemoneh shanim) adds poetic flavor to this account.

A translation model for this verse is:

• He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, and each of the seventy had his own donkey to ride. Abdon led Israel for eight years.

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 the woman ran in haste and told her husband is literally “And the woman hurried and she ran and she told her husband and she said to him.” And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, but many versions omit it here (New International Version, NET Bible). Good News Translation translates it “so,” or we could also say “Then.” The woman is Manoah’s wife. Revised Standard Version combines the verbs “hurried” and “ran,” saying ran in haste. Her sense of urgency may also be expressed by saying “ran quickly” (New Revised Standard Version) or “hurried as fast as she could.” Revised Standard Version also reduces the repetitive clauses “she told her husband” and “she said to him” by keeping only the first one, which may be done in other languages. However, the narrator has purposely drawn out this sequence of events with the woman still in focus.

Behold, which renders the Hebrew word hinneh, introduces a surprising statement once again, with a meaning something like “This is wonderful!” or “What a surprise!” Translators might also use an ideophone showing surprise or excitement here.

The man who came to me the other day has appeared to me: The order of this sentence is reversed in Hebrew, which is literally “he has appeared to me, the man who came to me on the day.” Either order is certainly acceptable. The man is the woman’s way of referring to the man of God (see verse 13.6). This abbreviated form reflects her excitement, but also shows that she is still not sure whether this person is a prophet or an angel. The Hebrew expression rendered the other day (literally “on the day”) normally means “today,” but here it refers to the day when the LORD’s angel first appeared to the woman, so Revised Standard Version‘s rendering is correct. The Septuagint says “that day,” which refers back to the original appearance. Translators should use a natural expression here. For appeared see verse 13.3.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the woman ran as fast as she could to her husband and said, “My husband! He has appeared again, the man who came to me the other day!”

• The woman ran quickly to where her husband was and said, “You won’t believe it. The man who came the other day appeared to me 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 .

Revised Standard Version omits the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this verse, but it might be rendered “So” (New Living Translation) or “Then.”

She wept before him the seven days that their feast lasted: For wept before him, see verse 14.16. Good News Translation says “wept about it,” which is a helpful model. Time reference in this story is still a problem. The text here states that Samson’s bride cried for the whole seven days of the party, while the previous verse suggests that she used this tactic only for the last four days. Translators need to render the text as it stands. For feast see verse 14.10. The pronoun their certainly refers to the groom and those who participated in the feast, but in most languages it will not be necessary to make this explicit. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version omit this pronoun, which is an acceptable solution.

And on the seventh day he told her is literally “and it was on the seventh day and he told her.” On the last day of the groom’s party, Samson gives in and tells his bride the solution to of the riddle. The Hebrew expression wayehi (literally “and it was”) marks this important moment in the story. We might say “So, finally, on the seventh day….” The number seven is important in this episode, but if necessary, translators may say “So, finally, on the last day….” The short clause he told her occurs at this high point in the story with no full nouns. The verb told appears once again.

Because she pressed him hard: The Hebrew particle ki rendered because introduces the reason Samson gave in to his bride. Evidently he could no longer stand her crying. Pressed … hard renders a Hebrew verb meaning “oppress” or “put pressure on.” We might say “pestered” (Revised English Bible) or even “nagged” (Good News Translation). However, though the woman might appear to be nagging, it must be remembered that her own life and that of her family are in danger. Contemporary English Version reverses the order of this clause and the previous one, saying “But that seventh day she put so much pressure on Samson that he finally gave in and told her the answer.” For some languages this will be a helpful model.

Then she told the riddle to her countrymen: Samson’s bride goes immediately to tell the Philistines what the riddle meant. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered Then might be translated “As soon as Samson told her.” The riddle refers rather to the answer to the riddle and in many languages, this will need to be made explicit. For her countrymen (literally “the sons/children of her people”), see verse 14.16.

Translation models for this verse are:

• She pleaded with him throughout the seven days of the celebration. Finally, on the last day he told her the meaning of the riddle, because she had put so much pressure on him. Then she went and told her people the answer.

• She cried throughout the seven days of the party, and she had pestered him so much that finally on the last day, he gave in and told her what the riddle meant. Then she went and told her own people.

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 .

So Delilah took new ropes and bound him with them: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. As is often the case in Hebrew, the narrative “mirrors” the dialogue and the same vocabulary is used. See verse 16.11. For bound him with them, see verse 16.8.

And said to him, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!”: See verse 16.9. Certainly there is a time lapse between the time Delilah binds Samson and the time she cries out.

And the men lying in wait were in an inner chamber: See verse 16.9. The Hebrew expression here is shorter than the one in the previous incident, but the vocabulary and their meaning is essentially the same.

But he snapped the ropes off his arms: As in the previous incident, Samson snapped the ropes that bound him. See verse 16.9. However, here the narrator adds a new element: off his arms. The Hebrew word for arms can refer to either a person’s arms or wrists (see verse 15.14). The narrator does not specify whether his arms are tied down to his sides, or whether his arms are tied at the wrists behind or in front of him.

Like a thread: The Hebrew word for thread is different than the one for “string” in verse 16.9, but it has a similar meaning. In many languages this comparison may need to be made more explicit, for example, “He snapped the ropes off his arms as if they were made of [a very fine] thread.” In some languages it may also be necessary to add that the ropes “fell off,” for example, “But Samson snapped the ropes on his arms as if they were threads, and they fell to the ground.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• So Delilah took some new ropes and very tightly tied him up. Then she called out, “Samson, the Philistines are here!” As before, an ambush had been set, but Samson broke the ropes on his arms as easily as if they were threads.

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 .

When they were by the house of Micah is literally “They were with the house of Micah.” Most versions take the preposition “with” to mean “near” (New Jerusalem Bible), “in the vicinity of” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or “at” (New Revised Standard Version). Once again the phrase the house of Micah appears, probably again with an ironic connotation. Translators may reduce the text if it seems too repetitive, for example, “When they were near Micah’s place,” “While at the house” (Revised English Bible), or “While they were there” (Good News Translation). However, doing so would remove the thematic link here.

They recognized the voice of the young Levite: This clause could mean that the spies knew the Levite, or that they recognized his accent, since they were all from the same southern region. Good News Translation takes the latter approach, saying “they recognized the accent of the young Levite.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “they knew from his accent that he was from the south.” The young Levite is literally “the young man, the Levite” (see verse 17.7). In many languages it may be more natural to speak of “the young priest.”

And they turned aside and said to him means the spies turned to speak to the Levite, but in this book the Hebrew verb rendered turned aside (sur) often indicates an irresponsible act. Samson turned aside to see the lion’s carcass filled with honey, leading him to break his Nazirite vow (verse 14.8). Here too the Danites have dubious motives. The same verb is used at verse 18.15 in a similar context. We might say “they went up to him” (Good News Translation) or “they went over to him,” but these renderings would again remove a significant thematic repetition. In this context the general verb said may be translated “asked” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation).

A series of three questions follows. A set of three questions is a common feature in the Old Testament literature (see, for example, Job 39.19-20), but it is hard to know the tone of the questions here. They could mean the Danites are surprised that the Levite is there and not in one of the cities designated for Levites. Or, there could be disapproval in their voices, since it was not normal for Levites to work for private citizens. Alternatively, the tone could be more neutral, with the men simply wondering what this Levite was doing there. At the very least the questions suggest that the Levite is in an unusual place, doing something that is not expected.

Who brought you here?: This question implies that someone is responsible for the Levite being there. Brought renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “come.” This question may be translated “Who asked you to come here?”

What are you doing in this place?: This question is more pointed. The Danites may know the young man is a priest, so they are surprised to find him there. They may be asking why he is working as a priest in a private home, rather than a recognized religious center. However, another possibility is that they are asking why he is in the north of the country, when he clearly comes from the south. The text does not give more details, so the question should be rendered as it stands.

What is your business here?: This final question is very brief in Hebrew, literally “and what to you here?” This question resembles the one Achsah’s father asked her in verse 1.14. Sometimes such expressions are a way of asking about the advantage or disadvantage of a given situation. Here it could mean “What benefit is there for you here?” or “What do you get out of being here?” However, the meaning may also be “Why are you here?” or “How does it happen you are here?” Several versions follow Revised Standard Version here (New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible), whose rendering seems slightly reproachful. New American Bible conveys a more neutral tone with “What is your interest here?” Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version use only two questions here, omitting this one, but if possible, all three questions should be kept.

Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version reverse the order of these questions, saying “What are you doing here? Who brought you here?” Some languages make find reversing the questions gives a more natural rendering.

Translation models for this verse are:

• While they were with at Micah’s house, the Danites heard the young Levite speaking and recognized his accent. They approached him and asked, “Who sent you here? What are you doing here? Why are you here?”

• While there, they heard the young Levite speaking and they recognized his voice. So they approached him and asked him who sent him there, why he was there, and what he was doing in such a place.

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 .

Despite Revised Standard Version‘s rendering, the Hebrew text of this verse has four independent clauses, each introduced by the waw conjunction: “And the man rose up to go and his father-in-law urged him, and he returned and he lodged there.” ver RSVver* presents most of the clauses as dependent. Translators will need to decide how to best render these clauses and the conjunctions accompanying them.

And when the man rose up to go is an independent clause in Hebrew, as noted above. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces the next step in the narration, but can be omitted here. The man, which renders a key Hebrew word (ʾish) in this section, refers to the Levite. Rose up renders another ironic use of the Hebrew verb qum, which occurs throughout this section (see comments on verse 19.5). Though this verb is used often to describe the heroes of Israel, here it describes the anti-hero getting up to leave. For those who know the story, he is not going toward any victory, but rather heading toward disaster. We can simply say “The man started to leave” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or keeping the ironic link, “As the Levite rose to go home.”

His father-in-law urged him: If the previous clause is rendered as a dependent one, the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause can be omitted, as in Revised Standard Version. However, if the preceding clause is rendered as an independent one, this conjunction might be translated “but” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). Otherwise, a sequential “Then” might be appropriate. For father-in-law see verse 19.4. The Hebrew verb rendered urged is the same one used in the story of Lot in Gen 19.3 when he encourages visitors to spend the night. It means to “press” or “pressure” someone. In many cultures it would be virtually impossible to refuse such an invitation, without causing a loss of face, especially since it involves the father-in-law. Many languages will need to add that he was persuading the Levite “to stay.” For example, Revised English Bible says “but his father-in-law urged him to stay.”

As noted above, till he lodged there again is literally “and he returned and he lodged there.” Some languages will introduce this consequence with “So.” The pronoun he refers to the Levite, but his concubine, his servant, and anyone else in his party are also in view. Translators can decide whether the singular he or a plural “they” would be more appropriate. The Hebrew verb for “returned” is shuv, which occurs often in this book (see verse 2.19). Since it does not seem that the Levite had already left, here the verb seems to mean that the Levite “changed his mind.” Revised Standard Version uses the adverb again to express this verb. For lodged see verse 19.4. The adverb there refers to the father-in-law’s house.

Translation models for this verse are:

• The Levite got up to leave, but his father-in-law urged him to stay, so he spent the night there again.

• When the Levite was about to leave, his father-in-law insisted he stay. So they remained one more night.

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 .