And the men of the city said to him: The men of the city may be the thirty Philistine companions of Samson, but they are more likely all the men of Timnah, including Samson’s companions. Translators may be more explicit, for example, “the men of Timnah.” The pronoun him refers to Samson, which Contemporary English Version makes explicit.

On the seventh day before the sun went down: The men waited until the last moment of the feast before telling Samson what the solution to his riddle was. This was a ploy to draw out the suspense and to humiliate Samson even more. The men had succeeded in turning Samson’s own bride against him and they won the bet as well. Of course, the number seven often has symbolic meaning in the Scriptures. Thus in this negative situation, it is probably used with some irony. The seventh day was the last day of the party (see verse 14.12). The unusual Hebrew word for sun, together with the verb rendered went down, has led some commentators to change the text here. For example, instead of before the sun went down, Revised English Bible has “just before he entered the bridal chamber.” Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible are similar with “before Samson/he went into the bedroom.” However, there is no textual support for such changes, with Hebrew Old Testament Text Project giving the Hebrew text an {A} rating. So translators are advised to follow the Hebrew text as Revised Standard Version has done. As in Contemporary English Version, many languages will prefer to place this time clause at the beginning of the verse: “Before sunset that day….”

What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?: In verse 14.14 Samson gives his riddle in parallel lines, saying:

Out of the eater came something to eat.
Out of the strong came something sweet.

The men of Timnah do not answer the riddle directly and say “A lion with bees inside of it.” They answer with a set of parallel lines, literally:

What [is] sweeter than honey?
What [is] stronger than a lion?

The men answer in the opposite order of the riddle, beginning with sweeter, and moving to stronger. Their answer is given in a question form, which may have been a culturally acceptable way to answer a riddle. There is no verb present here in Hebrew, but most versions insert the verb “is.” Out of the six Hebrew words in the answer, five begin with the sound m, which certainly communicates some kind of mocking tone. Affirmative statements may be used in the place of questions, for example, “There is nothing sweeter than honey; there is nothing stronger than a lion” or “Honey is sweet; a lion is strong.” Contemporary English Version gives a good model, saying:

A lion is the strongest—
honey is the sweetest!

ver CEVver* indents these two lines to show clearly that their answer, like the riddle itself, has a poetic form.

And he said to them …: Samson has lost the bet, and all he can do is reply. However, he uses figurative language to say what he is thinking. As elsewhere, an appropriate connector may be used for the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And, for example, “Then,” or it may be omitted. The general verb said may be translated “replied” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “responded” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle: Samson’s response is probably an angry one (see verse 14.19). He has been deceived by his fiancée, her family, and their guests at the party. Perhaps correctly, he blames the men of Timnah rather than his bride. His response is in the form of a proverb, but presented as a condition-consequence statement.

If you had not plowed with my heifer is the condition. The Hebrew conjunction rendered If usually introduces a condition that did not happen, but here it introduces a condition that occurred. The meaning is that the men had indeed pressured his fiancée and forced her to act, perhaps contrary to her own conscience. The pronoun you refers to the men of Timnah, including Samson’s companions. The imagery here comes from the world of farming. Where the soil was hard, farmers plowed their fields, turning the soil over to make it ready for planting seeds. There are many ways in which farmers plowed their fields, but here Samson is thinking of cows or bulls pulling a plow. The Hebrew word for heifer refers to a young female cow. Here it is an image for Samson’s wife. Cultures differ concerning the symbolic meaning of various animals. In Song of Songs a woman of beauty is compared to a horse (Song of Songs 1.9), which in many cultures would be an insult rather than a compliment! Calling his wife my heifer was probably not an insult in the culture of that day. Plowed with my heifer is a figurative way to describe what the Philistine men did. Some see here an implicit sexual reference, which is a possibility. However, this expression may just be referring to extreme pressure, including threats of death to the woman and her family Their pressure and threats are compared to plowing. Because it is figurative language, it is important for translators to render the text literally if possible. Samson is being sarcastic, and it is better to allow the reader to work out the meaning. If the meaning is really not understandable from the context, translators can add a footnote, such as “The heifer refers to Samson’s bride.” If it is really necessary to make the meaning explicit, translators may say “If you had not threatened [or, pressured] my bride [so mercilessly

You would not have found out my riddle: This clause presents the consequence of the condition. If the men had not threatened Samson’s wife, they would not have been able to solve the riddle. In many languages a consequence begins with a word such as “then.” Though there is no such conjunction in Hebrew here, it may be added if necessary. In English the modal verb would is used in this kind of condition-consequence statement, but translators will need to use appropriate verb forms in their language. Found out renders the normal Hebrew verb for either finding an object or discovering a solution. For found out my riddle, see verse 14.12. We might say “solved my riddle” (New International Version, New Living Translation), “found the answer to my riddle,” or “discovered the solution to my riddle.” In some languages it may be helpful to place this consequence before the condition by saying “You would not have solved my riddle, if you had not plowed with my heifer.”

Translation models for the second half of this verse are:

• Samson said to the men, “You would not have discovered the answer to my riddle, if you had not plowed with my heifer.”*
* “Heifer” refers to Samson’s bride. These men pressured and threatened her and thus obtained the solution to the riddle.

• Then Samson said to the men, “If you had not plowed with my cow, you would not have found the answer to my riddle.”

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 .

For a third time Delilah attempts to learn Samson’s secret. It would appear that Delilah is now losing patience.

And Delilah said to Samson: This new incident begins with the full names of Delilah and Samson. In most languages there will be a new paragraph here, as in Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version.

Until now you have mocked me, and told me lies: Until now refers to the two previous incidents. Delilah was tricked two times, so these opening words may be marked by anger or frustration. For you have mocked me, and told me lies, see verse 16.10. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “You have been deceiving me all along; you have been lying to me!”

Tell me how you might be bound: This is the same request as in verse 16.10, but probably with a much harder tone. Delilah no longer says “please,” and this shows she is becoming really impatient.

And he said to her: Once again Samson pretends to tell Delilah his secret. As he did before (verse 16.7, 11), he uses a condition-consequence statement. The general verb said may be rendered “replied” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version) or “answered” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

If you weave the seven locks of my head with the web: This time Samson comes closer to revealing his secret. The audience knows, in fact, that his strength comes from Yahweh, to whom he was consecrated as a Nazirite. Part of this vow was never cutting his hair (verse 13.5). The Hebrew verb rendered weave does not occur often in the Old Testament. While it usually refers to weaving cloth, here Samson suggests that Delilah weave or plait his hair.

The seven locks of my head seems to provide information not yet mentioned. According to these words, Samson’s long hair, which had never been cut, was divided into seven braids or dreadlocks. Seven is a sacred or divine number, indicating completeness. The Hebrew word for locks refers to “braids.” Here it probably refers to hair that was twisted or bunched together as seen with the dreads of some modern-day singers. Samson’s hair had never been cut, so it must have been extremely long and unwieldy. The Hebrew text specifies that the dreadlocks were on my head, but in many languages this phrase will be redundant and need to be omitted (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

The Hebrew word for web comes from a root meaning “weave.” Some scholars think it refers to a loom, while others think it refers to cloth that is in the process of being woven on the loom. Most think Samson is speaking about his hair being tied to a loom, the wooden structure where weaving is done.

And make it tight with the pin refers to pulling or tightening Samson’s hair. This clause is not in the Hebrew text, but is referred to in verse 16.14. Scholars think that the copyist’s eyes went from the word pin in verse 16.13 to the same word in verse 16.14, omitting the material between these two words. But the Septuagint, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, and most modern versions retain this material, believing it was part of the original text. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is one of the few versions that omit it. Good News Translation adds a footnote explaining that this material is not in the Hebrew text, but in an ancient version. The Hebrew verb for make … tight is the same one used to describe Jael’s hammering of a tent peg into Sisera’s skull in verse 4.21, where it is rendered “drove.” The pronoun it probably refers to Samson’s unwieldy hair. Make it tight may be rendered “pack it down.” The Hebrew noun for pin can refer to a tent peg that is hammered into the ground (so verse 4.21) or a peg nailed to the wall to hang things up. In this context of weaving it refers to the long piece of wood on a loom used to pack down the cross threads onto the vertical threads. If weaving with looms is known in the receptor culture, there may be a technical term for pin. But if not, translators may speak of a “weaving stick.”

Then I shall become weak, and be like any other man: See verse 16.7. As noted above, these two clauses are not in the original Hebrew text. With the exception of New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, most English versions follow the Septuagint and include them. Translators are free to decide how to handle this problem.

Besides the textual problem, scholars are also not agreed about what is being described. Some think Samson may be telling Delilah that if she tightly weaves his long hair into the cloth being woven on a loom, then he will lose all his strength (New International Version). Others believe he is telling her to weave his hair tightly into a big loom, which would be difficult or impossible to move (Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version thinks he is telling her to nail the loom to the wall, a possible but not very likely interpretation. The text does not give any more information, so translators should render the text as it stands.

For the last half of this verse we might say:

• He replied, “If you weave/tie/attach my seven braids of hair tightly into this piece of cloth and fasten it with a pin, then I will lose my strength and be like anyone else.”

• He said to Delilah, “Weave my seven braids of hair onto a loom and pack it down with the weaving stick. Then I will become weak and be just like any other person.”

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 to them: The young Levite responds to the Danites. The general verb said may be rendered “answered” (Good News Translation) or “replied” (Contemporary English Version).

Thus and thus has Micah dealt with me is literally “Like this and like this Micah did to me.” It is hard to know if the Levite really spoke these words (a kind of vague summary) or if he enumerated his benefits (see verse 17.10). A similar Hebrew idiom occurs in verse 2 Sam 17.15 and verse 1 Kgs 14.5. We might say “Oh, Micah has done several things for me” or “Micah has done quite a few things for me.” Good News Translation‘s “I have an arrangement with Micah” does not render the text well. Another way of handling this clause would be to use indirect speech: “The Levite told them what Micah had done for him.”

He has hired me: The first thing the Levite notes is that Micah provided him with employment. For the Hebrew verb rendered hired, see verse 9.4. Translators can find a natural equivalent in their language, for example, “he employs me” or “he pays me.”

And I have become his priest: The Levite makes it clear that Micah has hired him as a priest (see verse 17.12). We could say “he took me on as his priest” or “he hired me to serve him as his priest.” Some commentators note that the Levites were not truly priests, but more like assistants, so this answer may be yet another indication that something is not right with the system that Micah and the Levite have put in place.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the Levite told them what Micah had done, that he had hired him to become his priest.

• And he replied, “Oh, Micah has done a number of things for me, and he has given me a job as his priest.”

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 on the fifth day he arose early in the morning to depart is literally “And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to go.” Once again the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And can be omitted, with the temporal information on the fifth day being moved to the front of the sentence. The pronoun he refers to the Levite, but his whole group is in view here, so it may be rendered “the Levite and his group” or “the Levite and his concubine.” For arose early in the morning, see verse 19.5.

And the girl’s father said: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and can be translated “but” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), as everyone is hoping that the father-in-law will let them leave. This, however, is not the case. For the girl’s father, see verse 19.3.

Strengthen your heart is literally “Sustain your heart please” (see verse 19.5). Good News Translation says “Eat something, please.”

And tarry until the day declines: For the Hebrew verb rendered tarry, see verse 3.26, where it is translated “delayed.” Here the verb is imperative, which in some cultures may sound harsh, while quite acceptable in others. We might say “Stay on,” “Wait” (Good News Translation), or “Please wait.” New Revised Standard Version emends the Hebrew text to read “they lingered” (similarly New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), changing the imperative verb to an indicative one, but according to Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, this change is not necessary.

Until the day declines is literally “until the day stretches out [or, bends],” an idiomatic expression for the sun going down. In many cultures journeys in midday with overhead sun is not advisable. The journey would be too hot. We might say “until a little later in the day” or “until the sun goes down a little.”

So they ate, both of them: Here the Hebrew waw conjunction is well rendered So. The pronouns they and them refer to the Levite and his father-in-law. As in verse 19.6, the focus is once again on these two major characters and their good relationship. It does not mean that nobody else ate. Some ver Septuagintver* manuscripts add “and they drank” here (so also New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible; compare verse 19.4, 6), but Hebrew Old Testament Text Project does not recommend this addition.

A translation model for this verse is:

• On the fifth morning the Levite got up early in the morning to get ready to go. But the woman’s father said to him, “You should have something to eat. Stay until later in the day.” So the two of them ate together.

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 Israelites demand justice, asking that the tribe of Benjamin hand over the men of Gibeah responsible for the crime.

Now therefore, which is literally “And now,” renders the same introductory Hebrew expression as at the beginning of verse 20.9. On the basis of the charges just mentioned, the people of Israel want to see justice done. We might say “So now.”

Give up the men: Give up may be rendered “hand over” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), “surrender” (New International Version), or “deliver.” Once again the word men comes to the forefront, as it has throughout this story.

The base fellows in Gibe-ah: This phrase describes the men the Benjaminites are to surrender. For base fellows (literally “sons of Belial”), see verse 19.22.

That we may put them to death: In Old Testament times the community was responsible for carrying out justice. According to God’s Law, these men deserved to die. The pronoun we refers to the Israelites, not including the Benjaminites, so it is an exclusive pronoun. Put … to death renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “die,” so we might say “so we can kill them” (similarly Good News Translation) or “so we can execute them” (New Living Translation). This is the same sentence structure as the words spoken by the evil men of Gibeah, who said, “Bring him out the man who came into your house, that we may know him” (verse 19.22). This similar structure might be a coincidence, but is probably yet another stylistic feature the narrator uses to bring irony to the story.

And put away evil from Israel: The Old Testament views murder as an act that pollutes the entire community as well as the land. Removing the offender is an act of cleansing and removes guilt from that community. Examples of this are Achan in verse 7 and the Gibeonites in verse 2 Sam 21. Put away renders a Hebrew verb meaning “burn,” but here it is used figuratively to mean “remove completely.” For the Hebrew word rendered evil, see verse 20.3, where it is translated “wickedness.” In this context it refers to immorality. If possible, it is good to maintain the same rendering within this passage. Israel may refer to the people as a whole or to the land. Both are possible interpretations. So translators may say “remove this evil from the nation/people of Israel” or “… from the entire land of Israel.”

But the Benjaminites would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the people of Israel: Here is yet another very sad comment that has great significance as the story here unfolds. Though clearly related by blood, the Benjaminites would not listen to the rest of the Israelites, their own brothers. There is an interesting shift here. In verse 20.12 the narrator mentions “the tribes of Israel” and “the tribes of Benjamin,” but here he uses the expressions “the sons [or, children] of Benjamin” (the Benjaminites) and “the sons [or, children] of Israel” (the people of Israel). Certainly these phrases underline the fact that these tribes were all “children” of the same ancestor, Jacob (see Gen 29.1–30.24). But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, since the Benjaminites did not respond as expected. They were obviously guilty of a wrongdoing, but they would not admit it. Would not listen renders two verbs in Hebrew, literally “were not willing to listen.” The Hebrew verb rendered listen (shamaʿ) can also mean “obey” (see verse 2.2), and here it means the Benjaminites refused to hand over the criminals from the town of Gibeah. Listen to the voice of is a very strong expression in Hebrew (see verse 2.20), here meaning they refused or rejected the Israelites’ request.

For the Hebrew word rendered brethren (ʾach), see verse 18.8. As in many languages and cultures, this term can refer to cousins, and more widely to any relatives, no matter how distant the relation. Even though these tribes had been in existence for centuries, still their origins went back to the same ancestor, Jacob. Thus these tribes were brethren. The use of this term foreshadows and underlines the tragedy of the bloody civil war to follow. Here their brethren is parallel to the people of Israel (literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel”). The use of the word “children” certainly emphasizes the fact that all the Israelites were children of the same ancestor. The Hebrew word for brethren is a general term, which can include females, so translators might use a wider term, such as “kinsfolk” (New Revised Standard Version) or “relatives.” New International Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh speak of “fellow Israelites,” but this rendering does not communicate the strong message behind the word brethren.

The narrator tells this story from the viewpoint of the rest of Israelites, so he strongly condemns the Benjaminites for what they did. Translators should try to convey the sad and solemn tone here.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So now, hand over those evil men from Gibeah so we can execute them and wipe away this evil from our land!” But the Benjaminites refused to listen to their brothers, the Israelites.

• Now then, hand over those wicked men to us, so we can put them to death and get rid of this evil in Israel.” However, the Benjaminites rejected this request of their [own] blood relatives, the [other] Israelites.

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 six hundred men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon: This clause seems to be a repetition of what is reported in verse 20.45, but in reality it tells the audience that 600 Benjaminite soldiers were able to escape. But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since it introduces the contrast between the Benjaminites who were killed and those who managed to escape. We might say “However, 600 men were able to escape to Rimmon Rock in the desert.”

And abode at the rock of Rimmon four months: These 600 men were able to hide in the rocky area at Rimmon and avoid death, as is clear from verse 21.13. Abode renders a Hebrew word (yashab) that simply means “live,” “inhabit,” or “stay” in a location (see verse 1.9, where it is translated “dwelt”). However, in this context it might be rendered “hid.” The rock of Rimmon is repeated here, but in many languages it will be better to say simply “there” (Good News Translation). The Hebrew word for month refers to the new moon. In many languages there is a similar connection (see verse 19.2). We might say “and they stayed there for four moons.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• But 600 men escaped and ran to Rimmon Rock in the desert, where they hid out for four months.

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 general statement in verse 1.9 is now followed by details of an attack on Hebron, a town that plays an important role throughout the Old Testament. There is another break in the Hebrew text here, which leads some versions (for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) to begin a new paragraph. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which many versions omit, probably because here it does not introduce the next event, but gives details of what precedes.

Judah went against the Canaanites: Went renders the general Hebrew verb meaning “go,” rather than the ones for “going up” and “going down.” However, combined with the preposition against, it has the meaning “attack” or “engage in a battle with.” The same verb appears in verse 1.11. For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1.

Who dwelt in Hebron: For dwelt see verse 1.9. Hebron is a town in the central mountain region, which eventually became part of Judah’s territory. It is mentioned again in verse 1.20 and later in the Samson story (verse 16.3). It is here King David was later crowned and where he set up his capital before moving to Jerusalem (verse 2 Sam 2.1-4; verse 5.5).

(Now the name of Hebron was formerly Kiriath-arba): The narrator provides this historical note, which Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh put in parentheses. New Jerusalem Bible separates this material off by long dashes. Contemporary English Version chooses to put this information at the end of the verse: “At that time, Hebron was called Kiriath-Arba.” Translators can decide how to best present this background material. Revised Standard Version translates the Hebrew waw conjunction here as Now, which is a good transition.

The name of Hebron was formerly … reflects the Hebrew structure and many languages will be able to follow this model. However, several versions prefer to shorten the independent sentence and say “Hebron was formerly called….” Good News Translation says Hebron “used to be called….” Formerly is literally “to faces,” which New Jerusalem Bible renders as “in olden days.”

Kiriath-arba or “town of Arba” was the former name of Hebron. According to verse 15.13, “Arba” is the name of Anak’s father, that is, the ancestor of the people known as “Anakim,” who were so tall they were sometimes called “giants.” Thus the town had been named after the “giants” who inhabited it. To the Israelites, capturing such a town represented a great victory, which may be one of the reasons this town is mentioned here.

And they defeated Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai: The initial Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the results of the attack. The pronoun they refers to the people of Judah, also accompanied by the soldiers from the tribe of Simeon, though not overtly mentioned. For defeated see verse 1.4.

Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai are three men who were descendants of Anak (see verse 1.20, and verse 15.14), and here their names represent their descendants. Thus Good News Translation makes explicit “the clans of…” (similarly Contemporary English Version). Revised Standard Version respects the Hebrew structure by translating and each time there is a waw conjunction. However, in many languages commas may replace some of the conjunctions. For example, we might say “Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.”

Translation examples for this verse are:

• They attacked the Canaanites who lived in the town of Hebron, formerly known as “the town of Arba”* and they defeated the clans of Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai.
* Arba was the name of Anak’s father, and Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai were Anak’s sons. The people of Anak or the “Anakim” were called “giants” because they were so tall (Num 13.33).

• They fought the Canaanites who lived in Hebron. This town was formerly called Kiriath-arba. There they defeated the descendants of Anak: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.

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 .

Unlike Moses, who was buried outside the Promised Land, Joshua’s resting place was within the territory allotted to his clan. In Israelite culture, as in many cultures around the world, the place of burial is very significant. Gen 23 recounts how Abraham bought a cave to serve as a burial place for his family, where he eventually buried his wife Sarah. He himself was laid to rest next to her (Gen 25.10). Thus there were often family tombs, where bodies of the same family were placed together. To not have a recognized burial place was considered a terrible fate.

And they buried him: This verse is very closely linked to the preceding one by the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And. New Revised Standard Version has “So.” The impersonal pronoun they refers to the Israelite community. The Hebrew verb translated buried (qabar) is a general word, meaning to put the body of the deceased in a designated place, without specifying what kind of place that was. In Israel people buried their kin often in rocks and caves—not always underground as in many cultures. Translators should thus try to use a general verb here. Some languages opt for a passive verb here, for example, “He was buried” (Good News Translation).

Within the bounds of his inheritance means that Joshua was buried inside the borders of the land his clan had been given. Bounds renders the same Hebrew word translated “border” in verse 1.36 to indicate a boundary line. Many take the word inheritance to refer here not to the land given to his tribe but to the land accorded to him personally (verse 19.49-50). The word inheritance forms an inclusio here (verse 2.6, 9), appearing again at the end of the book, where it is part of another inclusio. Thus it would be helpful to use the same expression throughout the book.

In Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, north of the mountain of Gaash: Joshua was one of the descendants of Ephraim, and the narrator takes great care to tell where he was buried. This specification parallels the later detailed accounts of where Gideon and Samson were buried (verse 8.32; verse 16.31).

Timnath-heres was the name of a town in Ephraim. Joshua had settled there some time before his death (verse 19.50). There is a minor textual problem here since the text of verse 19.50 and verse 24.30 gives the name as Timnath-serah, reversing the consonants of the second half of the name. Good News Translation makes this change here for consistency. Contemporary English Version keeps the Hebrew form without a footnote, but Bible en français courant adds a footnote that says, “Timnath-Heres is also called Timnath-Serah. See Josh 19.50; 24.30.” Note that some versions insert a hyphen between the two words, while others do not. Some capitalize the second term, while others do not. Translators can decide how to handle these issues that have little impact on the story.

In the hill country of Ephraim, north of the mountain of Gaash defines the location of the town more precisely. For the hill country, see verse 1.9. Ephraim is cited in verse 1.29 as an Israelite tribe, but some readers may not yet know that a certain region also bears this name. If so, we might speak of “the hill country promised [or, allotted] to [the descendants of] Ephraim.”

For north see verse 1.9. The exact location of the mountain of Gaash is unknown, but some believe Joshua was buried around 30 kilometers (19 miles) southwest of Shechem. Mountain renders the same Hebrew word (har) as hill country. This term can refer to a range of hills, or to a single big hill or mountain.

Some translation examples for this verse are:

• They buried Joshua within the land he inherited [from the LORD] at Timnath Heres, in the mountains of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.

• Joshua was buried in Timnath-serah, in the mountains of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash, in the land he had inherited [or, the land God gave him].

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 .