There is an important step left out of the narration here, namely that Gideon and his men arrived at the town of Succoth. Good News Translation tries to make the transition more natural by beginning with “When they arrived at Sukkoth….” Contemporary English Version is similar with “The town of Succoth was nearby, so he went there….” In many languages it will be necessary to add this transition material. The previous verse mentions that Gideon and his men were hungry, so the logical thing is for them to look for food.

So he said to the men of Succoth: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, since Gideon and his men are hungry. Depending on the transition, the conjunction may be omitted (so New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The pronoun he refers to Gideon, which may be made explicit. The men of Succoth refers to the inhabitants of Succoth, not just its males. The town of Succoth was on the east side of the Jordan River, probably near the mouth of the Jabbok River, which flows into the Jordan. The Hebrew name Succoth means “huts” or “shelters,” as in the Festival of Shelters (Lev 23.34). The people living in this town were presumably from the tribe of Gad.

Pray, give loaves of bread to the people who follow me: Gideon politely asks for food from the people of this town. Pray renders the Hebrew politeness marker naʾ, which may be translated “Please” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “I beg you” (see comments on verse 1.24). Loaves does not render the same Hebrew word translated “cakes” in verse 7.13. This word is plural, so it certainly refers to several loaves. However, the Hebrew word for bread (lechem) can also refer to any kind of food, so Contemporary English Version renders loaves of bread as “some food.” The people who follow me is literally “the people who [are] at my feet.” People renders the key Hebrew word (ʿam) often used in this book to refer to the Israelites in general (see verse 2.4), but in this context Gideon is obviously referring to his soldiers, so Contemporary English Version says “my troops.”

For they are faint, and I am pursuing … repeats in dialogue form two keywords that occur in the narrative in verse 8.4 (see comments there). This is typical Hebrew style. For renders the Hebrew particle ki, which clearly introduces a reason here. We can say “because” or “since.”

And I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian: And is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since Gideon is giving an additional reason for his request of food. In 8.4 the text says all of Gideon’s men were “pursuing” the Midianites. However, here Gideon says specifically and emphatically I am pursuing…. Gideon was probably a known figure in the region. With the emphatic I, Gideon is making a personal request, based on his status in the area. There may also be a note of pride here, because Gideon claims that his troops are exhausted, but he, Gideon, is still pursuing the enemy. It is also possible that Gideon meant to leave his men there, while he continued on. Though it is possible to change the singular I into a collective “we” (Contemporary English Version), it is better to stay closer to the pronoun in the original text. Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian probably represent the last Midianite threat. The names Zebah and Zalmunna mean “sacrifice” and “protection is refused” respectively. Translators can choose whether to transliterate these names or render their meaning. Contemporary English Version, which often translates names, does not do so here. Most commentators believe that there are wordplays on these unusual names. For the Hebrew word rendered kings (melek), see the comments on verse 1.7. There may be some irony here since Gideon had told the Ephraimites that they had accomplished a great deed by killing “the princes of Midian” (verse 8.2-3). Obviously complete victory has not yet been achieved, since the two top leaders, the kings of Midian, are still loose in the territory. Many languages may prefer to change the word order in this clause by saying “I am still trying to capture the [last] kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Having arrived in Succoth, Gideon said to the men of the town, “Please give my warriors some food. They are really tired, and I am still pursuing the Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmunna.”

• When they arrived in the town of Succoth, Gideon said to the people there, “Please give my men and me some bread. They are completely exhausted, but I have to keep pursuing Zebah and Zalmunna, the Midianite kings.”

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 all the citizens of Shechem came together, and all Beth-millo: There is a time lapse here, since Abimelech and his men have returned to Shechem, and perhaps have already told the townspeople what they had done. Thus the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And could be translated “Later,” “Sometime later,” or “After their return.” Since there is a shift in location and new participants as well, a new paragraph can also begin here. For all the citizens of Shechem, see verse 9.2. These leaders came together, that is, they “gathered” (New International Version) or “met together.” And all Beth-millo is a puzzling expression that could refer to a second group in another location or could be another way of referring to the leaders of Shechem. Many versions see a reference to two separate places. Thus NET Bible says “All the leaders of Shechem and Beth Millo assembled” (similarly Good News Translation, New International Version). Though some propose that Beth-millo (literally “the Millo house”) was the name of the meeting place normally used by the leaders of the town, there is yet another possibility. The name Millo seems to come from the Hebrew root meaning “fill,” and could refer to an area inside the town which was made level by filling it with dirt. Jerusalem has an area referred to in this way (verse 2 Sam 5.9), and indeed, in Shechem a similar area has been uncovered by archaeologists. However, since this meaning is uncertain, it is probably better to follow Good News Translation and others by saying “Later all the leaders of Shechem and Beth-millo got together.” The double occurrence of the word for all in Hebrew shows the next act is based on a unanimous decision.

And they went and made Abimelech king: The verb went may be redundant in some languages. Nevertheless, it is clear the people of Shechem moved to a special location where they made Abimelech king. For the first time in the book of Judges, the Hebrew verb rendered made … king (malak) is used for an Israelite leader. In the previous references to Israelite leadership the Hebrew verb was mashal (see verse 9.2, where it is rendered “rule”). Now Abimelech is set up as the king to rule over the town of Shechem and its nearby areas. Despite verse 9.22, which says “Abimelech ruled over Israel,” he probably controlled only a part of Israelite territory. Made Abimelech king is literally “kinged Abimelech king,” a very emphatic expression in Hebrew. This clause and the exaggerated phrases all the citizens of Shechem and all Beth-millo put a great deal of emphasis on this event. Translators should look for a strong expression here. They may say “they declared Abimelech their king” or “they installed Abimelech as their king.” Some languages have idiomatic expressions, such as “they made Abimelech eat the royalty” or “they seated Abimelech on the royal chair.” In Hebrew the verb for went (halak) contains two letters (l and k) that are also in the word for king (melek), so there are repetitive sounds or assonance here.

By the oak of the pillar at Shechem: According to Gen 12.6, there was a special oak tree was growing in Shechem, which had some religious significance. It probably was a place of worship. For oak see verse 4.11. The Hebrew participle rendered pillar poses real problems for interpreters and translators, as indicated in the footnote of New Revised Standard Version. Some ancient versions suggest that the original text read “which stood,” which seems behind Good News Translation‘s “the sacred oak tree at Shechem.” However, Revised English Bible renders the Hebrew participle here as “propped-up,” so it says “beside the propped-up terebinth at Shechem.” Some scholars propose that a rock was propped up against the oak tree. So New Jerusalem Bible has “at the oak of the cultic stone at Shechem.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “at the tree next to the sacred rock in Shechem.” Given the difficulty here, it might be well to add a footnote saying “Hebrew uncertain.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• After this all the leaders of Shechem and all those from Beth-millo gathered at the large tree near the sacred rock in Shechem. There they made Abimelech their king.

• Later all the leaders of Shechem and Beth-millo gathered together and went to the oak tree near the sacred pillar in Shechem. There they declared Abimelech their king.

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 indirectly reports the victory of Abimelech. It is a pivotal verse between this episode concerning Abimelech’s battle against Gaal and the next episode concerning his battle against the people of Shechem (verse 9.42-45). Contemporary English Version sets this verse apart in its own paragraph, but many other versions join it to the end of this episode (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). By mentioning Gaal and his kinsmen, the narrator closes the inclusio begun in verse 9.26.

And Abimelech dwelt at Arumah: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And signals the conclusion of this episode. It may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version) or even “After that [event/victory].” The Hebrew verb rendered dwelt is the same one translated live at the end of this verse, so it forms an inclusio here. New American Bible changes this verb to read “returned,” but the verb dwelt makes more sense here, and is supported by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. The Hebrew verb for dwelt (yashab) is sometimes used to imply authority, as when Deborah “used to sit” to preside over the people (verse 4.5). Thus Revised English Bible says “established himself.” Arumah was a town about 8 kilometers (5 miles) southeast of Shechem. It is on the basis of this verse that some biblical scholars have emended verse 9.31 to read “Arumah” instead of “Tormah” (see comments there).

And Zebul drove out Gaal and his kinsmen: This clause makes it clear that, unlike many of his men, Gaal himself survived Abimelech’s attack. It also gives credit to Zebul rather than to Abimelech for driving out Gaal and his men from Shechem. This fits the general presentation of Abimelech in this book, who is portrayed as a weak and immoral leader. For drove out, see verse 2.3. Here this verb is emphasized, since it occurs in the middle of the inclusio formed by the Hebrew verb rendered dwelt and live. It also carries some irony since especially in the beginning of this book, the Israelites are not able to “drive out” their enemies. For Gaal and his kinsmen, see verse 9.26.

So that they could not live on at Shechem is literally “from dwelling in Shechem.” Zebul succeeds in banishing Gaal and his brothers from Shechem. Not only are they no longer in control in the town, they are also prevented from even living there. As noted above, live renders the same Hebrew verb translated dwelt. If possible, translators should try to render it in the same way at the beginning and end of this verse. We might say “and they were no longer permitted to live in Shechem” or “Zebul prevented them from [even] living in Shechem.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So Abimelech established himself at Arumah, while Zebul drove Gaal and his brothers completely out of Shechem. They were [even] prevented from living there anymore.

• After that Abimelech went to live in Arumah, and Zebul drove Gaal and his brothers out of Shechem, not allowing them to live there any longer.

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 said, “Go”: Perhaps due to the emotion of the moment, Jephthah’s response is a very brief imperative Go. The verb said may be rendered “replied” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). If the command Go sounds quite harsh in the target language, we might say “You may go” (New International Version, New Living Translation) or “Go ahead.” Translators should find an appropriate response. Some languages may prefer to use indirect speech here. For example, Good News Translation has “He told her to go.”

And he sent her away for two months: The Hebrew verb rendered sent (shalach) is used frequently in this book, often in negative contexts (see, for example, verse 9.23). However, when Jephthah sent her away, he was not banishing his daughter. New Jerusalem Bible says “and he let her go away for two months.”

And she departed, she and her companions: And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, introduces a result here, so a better connector might be “So” (New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible). Departed renders the same Hebrew verb as Go. She and her companions is a typical Hebrew construction that highlights this main character and adds poignancy. It mirrors a similar construction in verse 11.37 (“I and my companions”). More simply we can say “So she went away with her friends.”

And bewailed her virginity upon the mountains: See the comments on verse 11.37. The Hebrew verb for bewailed is singular. Probably all the girls cried, but here Jephthah’s daughter is in focus.

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 Manoah took the kid with the cereal offering …: Manoah complies with the angel’s request. So, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, may also be translated “Then” (New International Version) or omitted (Revised English Bible) here. Took may be rendered “picked up” or “took hold of.” It would be easy for one man to pick up a small goat. Manoah also took a cereal offering, which renders the most general Hebrew word for any kind of religious sacrifice (see verse 6.18, where it is translated “present”), but here it refers to an offering of grain. It could be raw grain, finely ground grain, or grain made into cakes and then baked or fried. Instructions for the cereal offering are found in Lev 2.1-16 and verse 6.14-23. Good News Translation has “some grain.” Other possible renderings are “grain offering” (New International Version, New Living Translation) and “food offering.”

And offered it upon the rock to the LORD: Offered renders a causative form to the Hebrew verb ʿalah meaning “go up,” which is used throughout this book (see verse 1.1). Here it means to completely burn a sacrifice (see verse 6.26). The pronoun it refers to the burnt offering of the young goat and its accompanying grain offering. The rock seems to imply that there was a particular rock on which offerings were made in Manoah’s hometown of Zorah. Traditionally, a large rock was used as an altar, as was the case in the Gideon episode. Good News Translation makes explicit that Manoah “offered them on the rock altar.”

To him who works wonders is literally “and an extraordinary thing to do.” This clause can describe the LORD as “the one doing wonders” (as in Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and English Standard Version), or it can be combined with what follows by saying “and an amazing thing happened” (similarly Contemporary English Version, New International Version, NET Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Wonders renders the same Hebrew root (p-l-ʾ) as the word for “wonderful” in verse 13.18 (see verse 6.13, where the same word is translated “wonderful deeds”). This word refers to the extraordinary acts of the LORD which some may qualify as miraculous. But since the word “miracle” does not appear here, it may be better to speak of “the LORD, the one who does marvelous/amazing things,” or if the alternative interpretation is chosen, to say “an amazing thing happened.” Both interpretations are acceptable. Taking the first approach, Revised English Bible says “to him whose works are full of wonder.” Taking the second one, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “and a marvelous thing happened.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh includes a footnote to say that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain, but if a footnote is included, it is probably better to put in the alternate interpretation.

The Hebrew text actually has another clause at the end of this verse, which is literally “and Manoah and his wife were watching.” Some versions combine this clause with the previous one. For example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “and a marvelous thing happened while Manoah and his wife looked on.” New International Version is similar with “And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched.” However, this clause also occurs in the next verse, where it seems more logical and appropriate. Therefore some scholars believe it was copied into this verse by mistake. This is certainly what led Revised Standard Version to omit it here. This is a textual problem, so translators may want to acknowledge it in a footnote.

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 .

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 .