The people of Gaza carefully planned how to capture Samson, but they were no match for him, as he carried out a series of quick, decisive actions. Not only did he escape unnoticed from the prostitute’s house, he also stripped the town of its defenses and walked calmly away from their threat. Exactly how Samson managed to remove the gates and escape without anyone noticing is not explained. The emphasis is on the way Samson tricked the people of Gaza. There are links back to the Ehud story, since yet again, a single Israelite outsmarts many foreigners.

But Samson lay till midnight: But is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction since it expresses the ironic contrast between the townspeople waiting outside in the night and Samson lying asleep in his bed. Lay means “lay [in bed],” supposedly asleep, but elsewhere in the Old Testament and in this context, the Hebrew verb here also has sexual overtones. We may say “stayed in bed” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible) or even “stayed with the woman.” Till midnight is literally “until the middle of the night.” This phrase seems to make fun of the Philistines. They had planned to wait “all night” and catch Samson early in the morning. In the meantime Samson is already planning his escape. He only stays at the prostitute’s house until midnight. Languages have many different ways to express midnight and a natural equivalent can be used here. New International Version says “But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night,” highlighting how Samson was always several steps ahead of the Philistines.

And at midnight he arose is literally “and he arose in the middle of the night.” There is no indication that Samson knew about the people’s plan, but he still outwits them. The repetition of the word midnight seems to mock the Philistines. The key Hebrew verb rendered arose (qum) has its regular meaning here: “get out of bed,” but of course, here it is very ironic, since it is the same verb used throughout this book to mark the beginning of each judge’s saving act (see comments on verse 2.16). Here along with its literal meaning, it indicates another occasion when an Israelite hero “arises” to outwit Israel’s enemies.

And took hold of the doors of the gate of the city and the two posts means Samson grabbed these structures with his two hands. The narrator leaves out a step in the narration, and some will want to make explicit that “Samson went to the city gate and took hold….” The doors of the gate may seem an unusual phrase, since in some languages doors and gate may refer to the same thing. The gate of the city refers to a large area, including the entrance, the doors, and an open area or court, where there could also be guard rooms (see verse 9.35). The doors were made of thick wooden planks and were fixed at the outer side of the gate area. They were closed each evening. Often a bar was placed across the two doors to secure them. The locked doors prevented anyone from going in or out of the city. In many languages it may be easier to speak either of the doors or the gate. Good News Translation, for example, says “and took hold of the city gate….” The two posts refers to the posts at either side of the entrance that supported the doors.

And pulled them up, bar and all: This is clearly a superhuman feat, since Samson takes hold of this entire structure, yanking up even the posts that fixed the doors in place. While many languages will express this upward movement with a word such as up, some languages may say, Samson “pulled them out.” Bar and all is a dynamic rendering of the Hebrew, which is literally “with the bar.” The bar refers to a heavy beam of wood that stretched from one doorpost to the other, preventing the doors from being pushed open. When Samson picked up the doors and their posts, the bar came away with them. Good News Translation says “lock,” which is not a good rendering. We might say “he picked up the doors, along with the posts holding them in place and the wood that kept them shut.” Contemporary English Version leaves the word bar untranslated, which is another possible option, but all these details add to the overall impression that this was a truly superhuman feat.

And put them on his shoulders: Samson apparently picks up the doors, the posts, and the bar as though they were a light burden. The Hebrew verb rendered put (sim) is a very common word in this book, which in this context might be translated “lifted” (New International Version) or “hoisted” (Revised English Bible). On his shoulders specifies how he carried these heavy items. This detail is certainly why many illustrators picture Samson as a big man with wide shoulders.

And carried them: After hoisting the doors on his shoulders, Samson carries them off. In some languages this clause may be combined with the previous one, for example, “and carried them away on his shoulders.” However, in Hebrew the use of multiple verbs is a way of heightening the action in the story.

To the top of the hill that is before Hebron: Not only does Samson carry off the heavy doors, but he walks with them about 60 kilometers (40 miles) and carries them up a mountain! This feat adds to Samson’s renown. To the top of the hill is literally “to the head of the mountain.” This mountain was before Hebron (literally “on the face of Hebron”). New International Version is fairly literal with “faces Hebron,” but we could also say “near Hebron” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “across from Hebron” (New Living Translation), or “opposite Hebron” (New American Bible). The Hebrew prepositional phrase rendered before often means “to the east of,” so Revised English Bible says “east of Hebron.” Hebron, an ancient city associated with Abraham and a current city in Palestine, is about 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of Jerusalem. During the period of the judges, it was located in the territory of Judah, on the crest of the mountains that ran north and south (see verse 1.10). The distance from Gaza to Hebron was approximately 60 kilometers (40 miles). This information could be put in a footnote or translators can assert the length of this trek by saying, for example, “all the way to the top of the hill that overlooks Hebron” (Contemporary English Version).

At the end of this verse the Septuagint adds “and placed them there,” but Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives the Hebrew text here an {A} rating, so it can be followed.

The main concern of the storyteller is to highlight Samson’s incredible feat of strength and endurance, as well as to underline the result of his act: the important sea town of Gaza is now utterly defenseless!

A translation model for this verse is:

• But Samson slept until the middle of the night. Then he got up, went to the city gate, and pulled out its doors, including their posts and the bar that closed them. He hoisted them up on his shoulders and walked all the way to the top of the hill, across from the town of Hebron.

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 man departed from the town of Bethlehem in Judah: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “But one day,” even though many versions omit it (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). The man refers to the young Levite mentioned in the previous verse. Some languages may prefer to speak of “This man” (New Revised Standard Version) or “that man” or use the pronoun “He” (Good News Translation). Departed (literally “went”) may be translated “set out” (New American Bible) or “left” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). From the town of Bethlehem in Judah is literally “from the town, from Bethlehem of Judah” (see verse 17.7). Translators may say simply “Bethlehem” (Good News Translation) or “that town,” if the referent is clear.

To live where he could find a place is literally “to sojourn where he finds.” The Hebrew verb translated live is the same one rendered “sojourned” in verse 17.7. The Levite left his place of residence, Bethlehem, to find another place “to live as a stranger or visitor,” probably to seek his living as a priest in another town. For the Hebrew verb rendered find, see verse 1.5, where it is translated “came upon.” The Levite was wandering around, looking for work. Contemporary English Version renders this clause well, saying “to find a new place to live.”

And as he journeyed, he came to the hill country of Ephraim to the house of Micah: This clause is literally “and he came to the mountain of Ephraim to the house of Micah to do his way/road.” Like Revised Standard Version, many versions move the clause “to do his way/road” (as he journeyed) to the beginning of this sentence. New International Version, Revised English Bible, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh render it “On his way,” and New American Bible says “On his journey.” We may also say “While traveling.” However, New Revised Standard Version interprets this clause differently, saying the Levite came to the house of Micah “to carry on his work.” Translators may follow either interpretation. For the hill country of Ephraim, see verse 2.9; for the house of Micah, see verse 17.4. Here the name Micah has its shorter form in Hebrew.

Translation models for this verse are:

• But one day that Levite left Bethlehem in Judah to find somewhere to stay. He arrived at Micah’s house in the hill country of Ephraim to carry on his work.

• That man set out from Bethlehem in search of another place to live. On his way he came to the house of Micah, located in the hills of Ephraim.

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 .

Once again, the wayward ways of the people of Dan are highlighted in this verse. They were unable to capture the land that was allotted to them, so they traveled north. They stole religious objects from Micah and attacked the peaceful people of Laish, burning down the town and killing its inhabitants. Then they changed the town’s name to honor their ancestor, and indirectly, themselves. Now the series of misdeeds comes to a climax as the Danites set up an unholy cult in this place. Contemporary English Version puts a paragraph break here, which the Hebrew allows. However, several versions let the text flow without such a break (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation).

And the Danites set up the graven image for themselves: The Danites install the carved image that they stole from Micah (see verse 18.18-20). The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then,” especially since it would appear the Danites wasted no time in setting up this idol. This is one of the most ironic sentences in this book, since it uses the Hebrew verb qum rendered set up, which occurs throughout the book when the LORD “raises up” deliverers to save Israel (see, for example, verse 3.9, 15). Here with biting irony, it is used to say the Danites set up an idol. Several versions miss or are unable to express the irony (for example, Revised Standard Version and New Jerusalem Bible, which uses the verb “erected”). If no link can be maintained, it may be helpful to include a footnote to explain the irony here. The graven image is the last sacred item in the series cited in verse 18.20 (see comments on verse 17.3). Contemporary English Version says “the idol Micah had made,” which fits this context well (see verse 18.31 below).

And Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites: Up to this point the priest working for Micah has not been named. Many scholars think he is finally being named here: Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses. However, it is also possible that Jonathan refers to yet another priest who came to serve the Danites. The son of Gershom, son of Moses gives the genealogy of this priest, with Gershom being one of Moses’ sons (see Exo 2.22; verse 18.3). This detail is extremely important, as this breaks God’s Law that the priests should be descendants, not of Moses, but of his brother Aaron. In the Bible the typical way of giving the genealogy of a person is to trace the person through his father, grandfather, and so on, but translators should use expressions from their own language. Good News Translation, for example, says “the son of Gershom and grandson of Moses.” However, we must note an important textual variant here. Instead of Moses, the Masoretic Text has “Manasseh,” a reading that is adopted by New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and put in a footnote by Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and New International Version. The name Moses comes from the Septuagint and the Vulgate, but is a reading followed by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and many English versions (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, New American Bible). In Hebrew the two names are very close in spelling, differing by only one letter. And clearly the name Moses fits the context here. This name also occurs at the beginning of the book (verse 1.16, 20), which suggests it forms an inclusio. The reference to Moses adds more irony to the situation, since the Danites have once more strayed far from the teachings of this great patriarch.

And his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites refers to the descendants of Jonathan who served as priests after him. The Hebrew is emphatic here, literally “he [Jonathan] and his sons, they were priests….” Sons has the sense of “descendants” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) in this context. For the tribe of the Danites, see verse 18.1b. While the mention of descendants is usually positive in the Bible, here it underlines that the mistakes made by the first Danites are perpetuated for decades or even centuries. In some languages it may be necessary to use two separate sentences here, for example, “And a descendant of Moses, Jonathan, son of Gershom, served as priest for the tribe of Dan. And his descendants served as priests after him.”

Until the day of the captivity of the land: This clause emphasizes that the Danites continued to disobey Yahweh and practice idolatry for a very long time, that is, until the Israelites went into captivity. The tribe of Dan and the other northern tribes were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. and sent into exile. This clause is extremely interesting to Bible scholars, because it shows that this part of the text must be dated after 721 B.C. Until the day of might be rendered more generally as “until the time of” (New International Version) or “until the period of.” Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say simply “until” the exile. Captivity renders an infinitive of the Hebrew verb meaning “go into exile,” referring here to the capture and the deportation of the people of Israel by the Assyrians. The land renders the same Hebrew word (ʾerets) that is often used to refer to the Promised Land. Here again irony surfaces, since this word brings to mind the LORD’s original plan to have the Israelites occupy the land. Here it refers to the people of the northern kingdom of Israel who were forced into exile. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is quite literal, saying “until the land went into exile.” Good News Translation is more natural with “until the people were taken away into exile.” Contemporary English Version also provides a good model, saying “until the people of Israel were taken away as prisoners by their enemies.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then the people of Dan raised up Micah’s idol to worship it. And Jonathan, son of Gershom and grandson of Moses, along with his descendants, served as priests for the tribe of Dan, right up until the time the people were taken into exile.

• The descendants of Dan set up* the carved image to worship it, and a grandson of Moses, from the family of Gershom, named Jonathan, along with his descendants, served as their priests. These men served as priests for the Danites until the time that Israel was taken into exile.
* The Hebrew verb used here is qum , which is used throughout this book when the deliverers “arose.” Here it is used ironically since the people are clearly disobeying Yahweh.

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 .

(Now the Benjaminites heard that the people of Israel had gone up to Mizpah): This sentence seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative, so Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version place it within parentheses. It is clear that it provides some kind of background information. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh uses a long dash on each side of the sentence to show it is off the story line. Contemporary English Version puts it within in its own paragraph, saying “News about the meeting at Mizpah reached the tribe of Benjamin.” Parentheses are often misunderstood, so if possible, translators should find another way to show this clause is off the story line.

Now renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which here might be translated “Meanwhile” (Good News Translation) or “In the meantime” to introduce the background statement. The Benjaminites is literally “the sons [or, children] of Benjamin,” which contrasts with the people of Israel, literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel,” occurring twice in this verse. The latter expression refers to all the tribes except Benjamin. Normally the Benjaminites were part of the Israelites, but here, because of their behavior and the ensuing war, they are seen as separate. Later the Benjaminites of the town of Gibeah are mentioned, but it seems unlikely that the reference here is only to them. Certainly the Benjaminites refers to both their leaders and the tribe as a whole. They heard about the meeting of the other Israelites certainly by word of mouth, as is typical in oral cultures. The verb tense of had gone up shows that this was a prior action. Once again, the Hebrew verb here (ʿalah) is associated with conflict or military action (see verse 1.1). Translators may say “had prepared for war” or “had gathered for battle.” Good News Translation says simply “had gathered,” which is probably not specific enough here. News of the meeting at Mizpah reached the Benjaminites, no doubt because this town was inside their own territory.

And the people of Israel said: This sentence returns to the story line and there is a shift in subject as well from the Benjaminites to the people of Israel. It may be helpful to begin a new paragraph here, as in Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And might be omitted (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible) or translated “Then” (New International Version). The generic verb said may be rendered “asked” (Good News Translation), since a question follows it. This verb has no object or indirect object in Hebrew. In verse 20.4 it is the Levite who responds to the question, but here the audience seems broader, so the addressee is best left unspecified.

Tell us, how was this wickedness brought to pass? is literally “Speak, how did this evil happen?” Though it is the Levite who will answer in verse 20.4, the Hebrew verb for “Speak” is a plural imperative, so this question is probably addressed to a group surrounding and including the Levite. The Hebrew interrogative word rendered how clearly expresses their horror at what has happened. In colloquial English we might say “how in the world…?” This wickedness can refer to the entire series of events concerning the Levite, with some scholars thinking it extends back in time to when the people of Gibeah did not show hospitality to their fellow Israelites. But it is more likely that this wickedness refers to acts of the men of the town who threatened to rape the Levite and then gang-raped his concubine. Since the text does not make clear what is in focus, it will be good to use a general expression for wickedness. The term in Hebrew (raʿah) can refer to something morally wrong or to something that is dreadful or painful (see verse 2.15, where it is rendered “evil”), and clearly either sense fits here. Good News Translation follows the first meaning, using the word “crime,” while Contemporary English Version follows the second meaning with “horrible thing.” Here the reference to moral evil seems more in focus, so we might say “How [in the world] did this evil thing come about?”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Meanwhile the Benjaminites learned that the rest of the Israelites had gathered together at Mizpah.
Then the Israelites asked, “How in the world did this evil thing occur?”

• In the meantime the Benjaminites heard that the Israelites had gone to Mizpah with war on their minds.
And the people of Israel said, “Tell us how this evil thing came about.”

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 narrator continues to give many details concerning the ambush and the attack on the Benjaminites of Gibeah. Revised Standard Version begins this part of the explanation with the word Now, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. Translators should use an appropriate expression to introduce the background information here.

The appointed signal between the men of Israel and the men in ambush was that …: The Hebrew word rendered appointed signal usually refers to something that is agreed upon, such as a time or a place to meet. Only here in the Old Testament does it refer to a prearranged signal. For the men of Israel and the men in ambush, see verse 20.33. Good News Translation begins this verse well with “The main Israelite army and the men in hiding had arranged a signal….” ver GNTver*’s use of the past perfect tense here in English shows that this is background information. Another possible model is “The main Israelite army and the ambushers had agreed upon a sign…” or “There was an agreement/arrangement between the main Israelite army and the ambushers that….”

When they made a great cloud of smoke rise up out of the city is literally “make big for them to raise up a rising of the smoke from the city.” This seems to be a direct quote of what the signal was to be. The Hebrew verb for “make big” is imperative, but in many versions it is better to cast this clause as an indirect command, as in New International Version (“they should send up a great cloud of smoke from the city”), or as a temporal clause, as in Revised Standard Version. The pronoun they refers to the ambushers. There is no direct reference to a great cloud in Hebrew, but this phrase expresses well what the signal was. This “smoke signal” was probably connected to the Israelites’ setting the town of Gibeah on fire. Evidently, the plan was that once the Benjaminite soldiers had been enticed away from the city, the ambushers would attack and then begin to burn the town. The smoke would indicate to the main Israelite army that it should turn to attack the Benjaminite soldiers who had ventured out of their town. At the sight of the smoke, the Benjaminites would not only be disheartened, but would also know they had no place to flee. Made … rise up renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb ʿalah meaning “go up,” which is used often to describe a military attack in this book (see verse 1.1). It is also the root for the word meaning “burnt offering,” which appeared in verse 20.26. NET Bible renders this clause as “When the men hiding in ambush sent up a smoke signal from the city,” and Good News Translation says “When they saw a big cloud of smoke going up from the town.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Now the main Israelite army and the ambushers had agreed that when the army would see a large cloud of smoke rising from the city….

• Now the arrangement had been made between the main Israelite soldiers and those hiding in ambush that when the ambushers sent up a smoke signal from the city….

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 Benjaminites did so is literally “And the sons [or, children] of Benjamin did thus.” The Israelites convince the Benjaminites and they do as they are told. Thus the Hebrew waw conjunction might be rendered And or “So” (New Living Translation). In some languages, however, this conjunction may be omitted (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). We might say “So the Benjaminites followed their advice” or “The Benjaminites did as they were told.”

And took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off is literally “and they lifted [or, carried off] wives/women to their number from those who danced whom they seized.” The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the content of what the Benjaminites did so. Translators can use any appropriate transition word. Took does not render the common Hebrew word with this sense, but a more specific one, meaning “lifted” or “picked up,” referring to how they carried their new wives off. We might also say “captured” in this context. According to their number means that each of the 200 Benjaminite soldiers needing a wife took a young woman and carried her off. So a total of 200 women were captured. We might simply say “each Benjaminite took a wife.”

From the dancers explains where the Benjaminites got their wives. When the young women came out of Shiloh to dance (verse 21.21), the Benjaminites each grabbed one woman. This phrase may be translated “from the dancing girls” or “from the young women who were dancing.”

Whom they carried off uses a different Hebrew verb than the one rendered took. It is stronger, with a meaning closer to “seized” or “captured.” This is the first time that there is a hint of resistance on the part of the women. Since Shiloh was in the territory of Ephraim, this means that these women were not only forced into marriage, but as they were carried off, they were separated from their families as well.

Then they went and returned to their inheritance: The pronoun they refers to the Benjaminite soldiers, but of course, by now each one had his “wife” with him. Went renders the generic Hebrew verb meaning “go,” and returned translates the key Hebrew verb shuv (see verse 2.19, where it is rendered “turned back”). Their inheritance refers to the land Yahweh gave to the tribe of Benjamin. For inheritance see verse 2.6 and verse 18.1b. The use of this word is certainly another ironic allusion to Israel’s glorious past. It also forms an inclusio around the entire book. Though many versions use a more general term here, such as “territory” (Good News Translation, NET Bible) or “land” (Contemporary English Version), it seems important to retain this reference to their inheritance.

And rebuilt the towns, and dwelt in them: The Hebrew verb rendered rebuilt is simply “built.” However, Gibeah and other Benjaminite towns were destroyed in the battle mentioned in verse 20.36b-48, so they needed to be rebuilt. Dwelt in them means the Benjaminites inhabited those towns. New International Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh say “settled in them,” and Contemporary English Version has “started living in them again.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the Benjaminites did what they were told. When the girls came out to dance, each man captured a girl and carried her off. They took them back to the land of their inheritance, where they rebuilt their towns and lived there.

• The Benjaminites did as the Israelites said. As the young women came dancing out of the town, each Benjaminite soldier picked up a young woman from among them and carried her off. They returned to the land they were allotted as their inheritance. There they rebuilt their towns and lived there again.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This book begins with the typical introductory expression in Hebrew, wayehi (literally “And it was”). Though many versions do not render it, some languages may have a natural equivalent to begin a new episode or story. We might say “It happened that….” New Jerusalem Bible begins with “Now.”

After the death of Joshua is a solemn way of beginning the story and sets this book in a given time period. A similar phrase referring to the death of Moses opens the book of Joshua. Joshua was the successor of Moses, the great leader who led Israel out of Egypt (Exo 12.41). He was responsible for getting the Israelites across the Jordan River into Canaan and supervising their occupation of that territory. Joshua’s death is recorded in verse 24.29, but is also mentioned as a point of reference twice in this book (here and in verse 2.8).

Possible models for this phrase are “After Joshua’s death” (Good News Translation), “After Joshua died,” “When Joshua died,” and even “Joshua’s having died.” These words assume the readers know who Joshua is. In some languages it may be more natural to begin this verse with “Now [it happened that] Joshua died. Following his death….”

Not all the material in this book is given in chronological order. Thus at verse 2.6 Joshua is referred to as though he is still alive, and then his death and burial are described in verse 2.8-9. This has led a few scholars to propose changing Joshua to “Moses” here. However, this suggestion has no textual support and should not be followed.

The people of Israel inquired of the LORD: The people of Israel is literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel,” an expression used throughout the Old Testament, and especially in the final sections of this book (verse 20.26; verse 21.5-6). Translators should try to be consistent in their rendering of this expression. From the beginning of this book, the narrator gives the impression that the people of Israel are unified and make up a single nation. However, as the stories in this book show, during this time period, this is not necessarily the case. The people of Israel are, in fact, a grouping of related tribes or clans. One of the major themes here is that there was no overall leader or king in Israel at this time in Israel’s history (see verse 18.1). Another Hebrew expression used in this book is literally “the people [ʿam] of Israel,” and it seems best to maintain a distinction between the two expressions. Thus translators could render the expression here literally “the sons/children of Israel” or refer to “the Israelites,” thus keeping distinct the expression with “people.”

The Hebrew word rendered inquired simply means “asked” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The text does not say how the Israelites consulted God, though in other parts of Scripture (for example, Exo 28.30), priests determined God’s will by casting lots or by using objects called Urim and Thummim. In the last sections of this book (verse 20.18, 27), the narrator again refers to meetings or assemblies where the tribes of Israel gathered to inquire of the LORD. Some languages use a technical term, such as “consult” in such contexts. We might say “the Israelites consulted the LORD, asking.” In some languages it may be necessary to make explicit, especially early on in this book, that “the Israelites met [or, came together] to ask the LORD.”

The LORD translates the Hebrew word YHWH, which New Jerusalem Bible renders as “Yahweh.” This is the most common name used for God in the book of Judges. It occurs 172 times, while the generic Hebrew name for God, ʾelohim, occurs much less frequently.

Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites…?: This is the first in a series of exchanges between Yahweh and the Israelites, rendered as direct speech in Hebrew. Translators will have to decide whether to translate these quotes as direct or indirect speech in their language. Punctuation should follow standard practices in the target language.

Who is an interrogative pronoun used for human beings. Here it refers to a tribe or group of people, so we could also say “Which tribe,” “Which clan,” or “Which of our tribes” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

Go up renders a key Hebrew verb (ʿalah) occurring throughout this book. Though its primary meaning refers to movement in an upward direction, in this book it has a variety of meanings, the most common being “attack” (Contemporary English Version) or “fight against.” Some languages may have a similar idiom that can be used here. The verb is marked as singular masculine in Hebrew, but refers to a group of people or a tribe. Thus Good News Translation says “Which of our tribes should be the first to go…?”

Go up first for us means to lead the rest of the Israelite tribes into battle, so we could rather say “lead us into battle” or “lead the invasion” ( NET Bible). For us refers to the Israelites as a group.

The Canaanites is a broad term for the various groups of people who lived in Canaan, sometimes referred to as “the inhabitants of the land” (verse 1.32-33). Their territory, located west of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, seems to be named after Canaan, the fourth son of Ham (Gen 10.6). This territory, known today as “Palestine,” is at times linked to the Phoenicians (see verse 5.12 in the Septuagint). In Hebrew this word here is singular “the Canaanite,” but virtually all versions render it as a plural. For translation we can say “the people of Canaan” or “the inhabitants of Canaan.” Some languages will have special suffixes or idiomatic expressions that can be used, such as “the Canaan-people” or “the Canaan-children.”

To fight against them: This infinitive phrase describes the purpose of “going up.” Fight renders a common Hebrew verb (lacham) meaning “go to battle,” “make war,” or “attack.” Some versions prefer to use one verb to express go up … to fight, as in Contemporary English Version “attack.” But most versions prefer keeping two verbs: “to go … attack” (Good News Translation), “to march … to make war” (New Jerusalem Bible). Against them in Hebrew is literally “against him,” but most versions use a plural here.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Now, after Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who should lead us into battle against the Canaanites?”

• After Joshua’s death, the tribes of Israel came together and asked Yahweh, “Which tribe should lead the attack against the inhabitants of Canaan?”

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 .