Some time may have passed since the events recorded in verse 13.1-24, but in Hebrew this verse begins only with the waw conjunction (literally “And”). Revised Standard Version does not render this conjunction. However, Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say “One day,” while New Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh begin with “Once,” both good models. Translators should look for an expression that can begin a new episode.

Samson went down to Timnah: Names rather than pronouns are often used in Hebrew at the beginning of episodes and paragraphs, thus Samson is mentioned by name. The Hebrew verb rendered went down (yarad) is a keyword in this section. Though Samson probably descended to Timnah, the direction is not very relevant to the story, so translators may use any verb that fits the context, for example, “went” (Contemporary English Version). Timnah was a Philistine town probably located between Zorah and Ekron, not far from Beth-shemesh (see verse 19.43). Since this is the first time this town is mentioned, translators may say “a town called Timnah” if necessary. Both this clause and the next one are independent clauses in Hebrew, but some translators may prefer to cast the first one as a dependent temporal clause, for example, “One day when Samson went to Timnah….”

And at Timnah he saw one of the daughters of the Philistines is literally “and he saw a woman in Timnah from the daughters of the Philistines.” Revised Standard Version places the phrase at Timnah at the beginning of this clause. However, in Hebrew it is not in this emphatic position. The repetition of Timnah gives a folktale-like style to the story, but also puts emphasis on the fact that Samson is looking for a wife where he should not be looking. If the repetition is acceptable, translators can keep it. If not, at Timnah may be rendered “there” (New International Version, Revised English Bible). Here the verb saw means not just that Samson saw this woman, but that he “noticed” (Good News Translation) her. He found her attractive. Revised English Bible changes the order of this clause, saying “and there a woman, one of the Philistines, caught his notice.” More idiomatically in English, we might say she “caught his eye.” The narrator does not say whether Samson actually met her or whether he noticed her from a distance. One of the daughters of the Philistines is literally “a woman … from the daughters of the Philistines,” which is an idiomatic way of referring to a Philistine woman, who here is a young woman of marriageable age. Translators can refer to “a young Philistine woman” or “a Philistine girl,” according to uses in the target language. For the Philistines, see verse 3.3.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Once Samson went down to Timnah. There he saw a young Philistine woman.

• One day, when Samson went to the town of Timnah, a Philistine girl caught his eye.

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 he came to Lehi: Though in reality, some men of Judah are bringing Samson bound to the Philistine camp, the narrator presents the scene as if Samson is coming of his own free will. Lehi is where the Philistines were camped in Judah (see verse 15.8). The town’s name means “jawbone,” and now this meaning will come into special focus as it occurs eight times in verse 15.14-20. Later in this episode the narrator will explain how this town got its name. Here it is best rendered Lehi, as in verse 15.8. Since there is a change in location here, Good News Translation inserts a paragraph break. If translators follow this model, it will be helpful to use Samson’s name instead of the pronoun he, for example, “And as Samson approached Lehi.”

The Philistines came shouting to meet him is literally “and the Philistines shouted to meet him.” As the Philistines saw Samson approaching, they became agitated. Good News Translation says “the Philistines came running toward him, shouting at him,” but it is far more likely that they shouted in triumph, as their enemy was brought bound before them (compare Jer 50.15). To meet him describes the Philistines and the people of Judah moving toward each other. The Philistines were coming from their camp near Lehi, and the people of Judah were coming with Samson from the cave at Etam Rock. However, the text specifies him, since the main object of interest is Samson himself. Revised English Bible renders this clause as “the Philistines met him with shouts of triumph,” and New Jerusalem Bible has “the Philistines came running towards him with triumphant shouts.” These are good models to follow.

And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him: This is a high point in this episode. When Samson is seemingly at his weakest, the LORD empowers him. See the comments on verse 14.6.

And the ropes which were on his arms …: This clause makes it clear that the ropes tying Samson were on his arms. The Hebrew word for arms can refer to a person’s arms, wrists, or hands. Since there were two ropes, one could have tied his wrists and the other could have encircled his upper arms and torso.

Became as flax that has caught fire: This simile says the strong new ropes became weak and ineffective. Flax is a small plant whose stalks are dried, split and combed to produce fibers that can be woven to make linen cloth. These stalks are quite inflammable, so they burn easily. That has caught fire is literally “that they have burned in the fire” (see comments on verse 12.1 for this redundant expression). The point of this comparison is that the ropes became weak or even dissolved under Samson’s mighty strength that came from the LORD’s Spirit. Translators will have to reflect on how to best present the comparison, especially if flax is unknown. A related but common term can be used. For example, Contemporary English Version says “as though they were pieces of burnt cloth.” Good News Translation is similar with “as if they were burnt thread.”

And his bonds melted off his hands: This clause continues the imagery of fire. The verb melted describes the effect of fire. The Hebrew root for melted is used elsewhere in the Bible to speak of snow melting (Psalm 147.18) and manna dissolving (Exo 16.21). Here it is used figuratively to describe the weakening or falling away of Samson’s bonds. Off his hands is literally “from on his hands.” The narrator only speaks of hands here even though Samson’s arms may have been bound also. The use of this word is very appropriate at this high point in the story. If the figurative language of this clause is not effective, translators may say “and the ties on his hands fell away [or, dropped].” Contemporary English Version‘s rendering is quite effective: “and Samson broke the ropes, as though they were pieces of burnt cloth.” However this rendering says more than the text. A better model is “and the ropes that bound his arms and hands fell away like pieces of burnt cloth.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• When Samson reached Lehi, the Philistines came out to meet him with shouts of triumph. Then Yahweh’s power suddenly took hold of him. The ropes that bound his hands fell off like pieces of cloth burned by fire.

• When the people of Judah brought Samson to Lehi, the Philistines came running, shouting with joy. But then the spirit of the LORD seized him and the ropes that bound him became like dust and fell off his hands.

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 .

The “one-two” wordplay continues here as Samson grasps two pillars, one with his right hand and the other with his left.

And Samson grasped the two middle pillars upon which the house rested: And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, may be translated “Then” (New International Version) or “So” (Good News Translation). Some versions omit this connector (Contemporary English Version), but translators should use a transition that fits this high point in the narrative. The Hebrew verb rendered grasped usually includes the idea of turning and twisting something. Indeed, there are two possible interpretations of this verb here, one being that Samson “embraced” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) the two pillars to pull them inward and bring them down. Revised English Bible follows this interpretation with “put his arms round.” The other possibility is that Samson “put his hands on” (New Living Translation) both the columns to push them outward and thus bring them down. The translation of grasped will depend on which view is taken. A more neutral rendering would be “took hold of” (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible) or “grabbed.”

Clearly there were more than two pillars holding up the roof of Dagon’s temple, but Samson grabs the two middle pillars upon which the house rested. See verse 16.26. Obviously the two middle pillars are the crucial ones. New International Version calls them “the two central pillars,” and Good News Translation, “the two middle columns.”

And he leaned his weight upon them: This rendering seems to confirm the idea that probably Samson pushed out rather in. Samson pushed against the two central pillars to bring down the temple. See the discussion on verse 16.26. However, the Hebrew verb rendered leaned his weight is different from the one translated “lean” there. It may be expressed as “braced himself” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible) or “pushed” (similarly New Living Translation).

His right hand on the one and his left hand on the other is literally “one in/by his right and one in/by his left.” Somewhat surprisingly, the word for hand does not occur in Hebrew at this high point, but usually the Hebrew words for right and left are understood to refer to the right and left hands. Sometimes these words are used to refer to directions, as in a move “to/toward the right and to/toward the left,” but that does not seem the meaning here. Right and left are important notions in this book (see verse 3.15), and in the Old Testament they often express the notion of totality. While this may be the case here, with Samson going all out to destroy Israel’s enemies, from a practical point of view, it is clear that Samson has figured out the best way to knock out the support of the large roof and kill the largest number of Philistines he possibly can.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then Samson reached out to the two central pillars supporting the temple and pushed toward his right and toward his left.

• Samson put his hands on the two middle columns supporting the roof of the building. Then with his right hand, he pushed one side, and with his left, the other.

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 .

The irony continues here since the Levite forgets what Micah has done for him and willingly goes off with the Danites.

And the priest’s heart was glad: This is the Levite’s reaction to the proposal of the Danites. It pleases him, so he immediately accepts it. And renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, which introduces the Levite’s reaction here. However, in many languages it may be necessary to begin with “At this proposal” or “Hearing this.” The priest’s heart was glad is literally “the heart of the priest was good,” so this clause links back to the Danites’ question at the end of 18.19, where the Hebrew root meaning “good” is rendered “better.” The narrator again calls the Levite a priest, continuing the irony. In Hebrew the heart is the seat of thought, will, and emotions (see verse 5.9). In this context, however, it is used as the seat of emotions. Translators can use any idiomatic expression to describe the Levite’s joy. We might say “the priest was [very] happy” or “the priest was overjoyed.” If at one point the Levite feared for his life, he is now happy to learn that he will not be killed. Many scholars note how quickly his decision was made. Obviously he is an opportunist, as his loyalty to Micah quickly fades.

He took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image: This clause begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, omitted by Revised Standard Version, but which some languages may prefer to express. For example, Good News Translation uses the connector “so.” Once again the verb took is in focus (see verse 18.17). However, now it is not the Danites who are removing the sacred items but the priest! If possible, the same verb took should be used throughout this passage. To convey some of the irony, we might say “the priest himself took [or, picked up]….” For the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, see verse 17.3, verse 5. Note that here “the molten image” is missing, but this does not seem to have great significance.

And went in the midst of the people is literally “and he came in the middle of the people,” that is, the Levite joined the Danites. The Hebrew word for people (ʿam) is often used to refer to all the people of Israel (see verse 2.4), but here it refers to a part of the tribe of Dan, intent on stealing from a fellow Israelite. Translators will have to decide whether they can keep this ironic reference to the people, or whether they have to specify “the Danites.” New Jerusalem Bible says “and went off among the people,” but New International Version expresses a slightly different nuance: “and went along with the people.” In any case, this clause underlines the Levite’s willingness to leave Micah to now serve the Danites.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Hearing this, the priest was very happy, and he took the ephod, the household gods and the carved image, and joined the Danites.

• At this, the priest was overjoyed, so he took the ephod, the household gods and the carved image, and left with the Danites.

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 men would not listen to him: But is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since the men of Gibeah refused to accept the old man’s suggestion. Presumably they refused because they wanted the Levite and not the women. The Hebrew verb for listen (shamaʿ) has the sense of “obey” or “do as asked” here (see verse 2.2). The pronoun him refers to the old man. We might say “But the men refused to listen [or, accept his offer].”

So the man seized his concubine: Who is the man in this clause? In this passage this expression is used to refer both to the Levite and to the old man, though usually the old man is referred to by a longer or different expression (see verse 19.23). The last masculine singular form refers to the old man, and he has already offered the Levite’s concubine to the men, seemingly without any discussion with her husband. However, it is also possible and perhaps more likely that it is the Levite who seized his concubine. Seeing that the old man was willing to offer his own virgin daughter, the Levite may have impulsively forced his wife outside. Many versions accept this latter interpretation by rendering the man as “the Levite” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “the husband” (New American Bible). Like Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh preserves the ambiguity here, but it may be better to simply make a choice and follow through with it in the next clause. Seized renders the same Hebrew verb translated “made … stay” in verse 19.4 (see comments there), coming from a root meaning “strength.” Good News Translation and New International Version use the verb “took,” which seems too weak in this context. A better rendering is “grabbed” (Contemporary English Version).

And put her out to them: Put … out renders the same Hebrew verb translated “bring out” in verse 19.22 (see comments there). The subject here would be the same as in the previous clause, either the old man or the Levite. The pronoun her refers to the Levite’s concubine. Even though the old man also offered his daughter, evidently only the concubine was put outside. The pronoun them refers to the men who surrounded the old man’s house. This clause may be rendered “and pushed her outside to them.”

And they knew her: Even though the men refused the offer of the old man, once the concubine was outside, they forgot about her husband and attacked her. The Hebrew verb rendered knew appears in verse 19.22, where it refers to a homosexual act. Here it refers to the gang-rape of the concubine by the men of Gibeah. Contemporary English Version is very direct: “The men raped her.”

And abused her all night until the morning: The Hebrew verb rendered abused means “deal ruthlessly” or “treat badly,” but in this context it implies sexual abuse. Translators will have to find a term that will imply sexual mistreatment. All night until the morning is an emphatic temporal expression, stressing the continuous abuse of this woman. We might say “all night long until the morning.”

And as the dawn began to break, they let her go is literally “and they sent her away when the dawn came up.” Revised Standard Version reverses the order of these two clauses in Hebrew, which other languages may prefer to do as well.

As the dawn began to break adds a note of sadness to the story. Usually a new day is a sign of hope. Here it signals the end of a life. Thus this may be yet another touch of irony added by the storyteller. The Hebrew word for dawn refers to the very early time in the morning when the first light can be seen. Some languages will say “when the sun came up” or “when morning came.”

They let her go renders the key Hebrew verb meaning “send” (shalach), which is often used at the beginning or end of important conflicts (see verse 1.25). The text here really means “they sent her away,” but as will become evident, she is in no state to go very far. We might even say “they threw her aside.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• But the men didn’t listen to the old man. So the Levite grabbed his concubine and pushed her out to them. They gang-raped her and abused her all night. Then in the morning, as the sun came up, they let her go.

• But the men rejected the old man’s offer, and the Levite seized his concubine and shoved her outside to them. They raped and abused her all night long. Then early in the morning as the dawn was breaking, they abandoned her.

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 people of Israel went up against the Benjaminites on the third day: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) to introduce the next event. Once again the people of Israel and the Benjaminites are literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel” and “the sons [or, children] of Benjamin.” These two phrases underline the disaster that has come upon Israel, as the descendants of brothers fight against each other. For went up against, see verse 1.1. On the third day sets the time of this attack in relation to the second attack (verse 20.25). These words might suggest that there were three battles on three successive days, or possibly that this attack took place on the third day after the LORD gave his go-ahead. Given the enormous casualties, the movement of troops, and the efforts made to consult the LORD, this later scenario seems more realistic. It is possible in this context that the word day may mean “occasion” or “time.” For example, New American Bible says “for the third time.” Many languages will prefer to put this time phrase at the beginning of the verse.

And set themselves in array against Gibe-ah: Set themselves in array renders the same Hebrew verb translated “drew up [the battle] line” in verse 20.20. The Israelite troops positioned themselves for battle.

For as at other times (literally “as footstep by footstep”), see the comments on verse 16.20. While most of the Israelites were in hiding, waiting in ambush, many took battle positions as they always had, giving the impression that they were simply arranged for battle, as previously. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “as before,” which is a good rendering.

A translation model for this verse is:

• Then the Israelites went to attack the Benjaminites a third time, positioning themselves for battle against Gibeah, as they had previously.

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 .

One unusual feature of the Hebrew text here is the many pronominal references referring to distinct groups. Clarifying who is referred to by each pronoun is vital to understanding and translating this verse meaningfully.

And Benjamin returned at that time: The 600 Benjaminite soldiers who had hidden at Rimmon Rock now went back home. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “So” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version), since it introduces a result of the peace proclamation. Returned renders the key Hebrew verb shuv (see verse 2.19), which is often used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean “restore.” Here the Benjaminites are clearly returning home. The phrase at that time marks the time of their return as significant, so we might emphasize it in a sentence-initial position: “So at that time the Benjaminites went back home.”

And they gave them the women …: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and indicates that the virgins were given to the Benjaminites after they returned home. Another possible connector is “Then.” The pronoun they refers to the Israelites, who handed over the captured women to the Benjaminites (them). If there is any confusion with these pronouns, they may be replaced by full nouns (see second model below). In this context the verb gave means “gave in marriage,” which Contemporary English Version makes clear by saying “the Israelites let them marry the young women from Jabesh.” Instead of women, translators may say “virgins” or “brides” if that is more appropriate in this context. During those times, women captured in war were regularly given to other men as wives or slaves, as made clear in the Song of Deborah (see verse 5.30).

Whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead: The pronoun they refers to the Israelites. Had saved alive renders the Hebrew verb meaning “be alive,” but here it might be translated “had spared” ( NET Bible). Good News Translation says “had not killed.” The phrase of the women of Jabesh-gilead may seem redundant, but it underlines the fact that most of the women in this town were killed. Good News Translation reduces Jabesh-gilead to “Jabesh,” which is an acceptable change.

But they did not suffice for them is a dynamic rendering of the Hebrew, which is literally “and they did not find for them so.” Since there were only 400 virgins found, obviously there were not enough for each of the remaining 600 soldiers. The Hebrew verb for “find” forms an inclusio with “found” in verse 21.12, closing off this subsection. The pronoun they refers to the young women, and the pronoun them points to the Benjaminites. Again it may be necessary to use nouns rather than pronouns here. We might say “but there were not enough women for every man to have a wife.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So at that time the Benjaminite soldiers went back home. The Israelites gave them the young women from Jabesh-gilead whom they had spared. However, there were not enough women for everyone to have a wife.

• At that time the Benjaminites returned home. Then the Israelites gave the young women taken from Jabesh to the Benjaminites to marry, but there were not enough young women for each of them.

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 .