As happened with Gideon (verse 8.32), Samson was buried in the tomb of his father. In this final verse of the Samson story there are many links back to the story’s beginning. The name Manoah (verse 13.2) forms an inclusio, as does the phrase between Zorah and Eshta-ol (verse 13.25).

Then his brothers and all his family …: Then renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, introducing the next event after Samson’s death. His brothers and all his family refers to Samson’s extended family. Samson’s father and mother appear several times in this story (see, for example, verse 14.2, 9), but it is only at his death that his other relatives are mentioned. This is certainly because his parents are now deceased, as becomes clear below. All his family (literally “all the house of his father”) may be rendered “the rest of his family” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “his other relatives” (similarly New Living Translation).

Came down and took him and brought him up and buried him: This series of four verbs reflects a typical Hebrew style. However, it is important to note that in this final journey for Samson, his family came down and then brought … up his body for burial. This final use of the Hebrew verbs meaning “go down” (yarad) and “go up” (ʿalah) seems to have special significance (see verse 14.1-2). If possible, these verbs should be kept. In many languages it will be necessary to speak of Samson’s body, rather than him at this point. We might say “Then Samson’s brothers and the rest of his family came down and took his body back for burial….”

For between Zorah and Eshta-ol, see verse 13.25. This fact, which seems insignificant, is actually very pertinent. It was between Zorah and Eshta-ol that Yahweh first empowered Samson. This fact is a reminder that Samson, despite all his faults, was empowered by the LORD and was truly a hero in Israel.

In the tomb of Manoah his father: No mention has been made of the death of Samson’s father, but of course it was a very common practice to keep the bones of a family in the same place (see verse 8.32). Tomb refers to the actual place where these bones were kept, usually in a cave or underground. The Hebrew word for tomb comes from the same root as the verb rendered buried. If the notion of tomb is hard to express, we might simply say “in the same place his father Manoah was buried.”

He had judged Israel twenty years: See verse 15.20. This is the narrator’s final note on Samson’s life. In this summary statement Samson’s name does not appear, but rather an emphatic pronoun for He in Hebrew. In many languages it will be necessary to mention Samson’s name here, as in Contemporary English Version and New Living Translation. The Hebrew verb for judged (shafat) is yet another case of this word having a broader sense than someone judging legal cases (see verse 3.10). There is no evidence Samson ever acted in this way, but it is clear he was a national hero. So it very important that translators use the exact same terminology used when describing the other leaders or heroes in this book. We can say Samson “led,” “was a leader,” or even “was [a major] hero.” In this context Israel refers to the area around the Philistine region, but since this way of speaking is a major feature of this book, no modification should be made here. Twenty years is the time that Samson was active in the land. Though it is a long period, it is only half the time that the Philistines oppressed the Israelites (verse 13.1).

As far as we know, Samson is the only judge to die an unnatural death, this at his own hand. Though premeditated murder is against God’s Law (Exo 20.13; Deut 5.17), other cases of suicide are known in the Old Testament, notably when Saul falls on his own sword (verse 1 Sam 31.4).

History’s view of Samson is mixed. Though empowered by Yahweh, Samson broke his Nazirite vow on several occasions, and in several ways strayed far from the standards of the more righteous Israelite leaders. His connection to foreign women who trick him is particularly and universally condemned. However, more space is allotted to this “hero” than to any other one in this book. And despite the fact that his contribution to Israel’s history seems limited to acts of vengeance, he is known throughout history for gaining spectacular victories over Israel’s enemies, all empowered by Yahweh’s “spirit” and strength. Nevertheless, most scholars consider him as part of the lesser leaders of Israel, and in many ways he can be seen as at the bottom of the “downward spiral” in this period of Israel’s history. Perhaps significantly, he is the last “judge-hero” to appear in the book.

The sections that follow (17.1–21.25) are considered appendices. Indeed, in terms of sheer horror, immorality and chaos, they surpass all the previous stories in this book. Interestingly, they also follow the same general pattern as the judges’ episodes. Beginning with a troubling story of idolatry and thievery among the Israelites, the appendices continue on with an horrific account of a bloody civil war.

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 they shouted to the Danites: And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, introduces the next event, but in many languages it can be omitted. The pronoun they refers to Micah and his neighbors. Shouted renders the Hebrew verb meaning “call,” which figures so prominently in the Samson story. Here Micah and his people cried out in a loud voice to catch the Danites’ attention. This clause conveys some humor, since this handful of men is trying to “shout down” and stop hundreds of people.

Who turned round renders an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “and they turned their faces.” As Micah and his band are calling out to them, the Danites turn around to see who is shouting. Contemporary English Version gives a good rendering with “They turned to face him [that is, Micah].”

And said to Micah: The general verb said may be rendered “asked” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) since a question follows.

What ails you…? is literally “What to you…?” (compare the last question in verse 18.3). In most languages translators may say “What do you want?” Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible say “What is the matter with you…?” This rendering carries a note of contempt, which seems appropriate in this context.

That you come with such a company is literally “that you were called out,” which has the same Hebrew verb as in verse 18.22. We might say “Why did you bring all these men?” (Contemporary English Version) or “Why have you called out all these people?” Again there is sarcasm here, as the Danites far outnumber Micah’s men.

Translation models for this verse are:

• They shouted for the Danites to stop, and so they turned around and asked Micah, “What do you want? Why have you called out all these people [against us]?”

• They called out to the Danites, who looked around and said to Micah, “What’s the matter? Why did you bring all these men?”

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 scene now changes from that of the night of horror and abuse and the woman near death lying at the doorstep to the people inside the old man’s house who seem unconcerned about her fate. This is yet another ironic contrast, certainly intended to shock the audience. Some people might qualify this passage as one of the saddest in the Old Testament.

And her master rose up in the morning: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. Some languages may prefer to omit it at this high point in the story. Others may prefer to cast this clause as a dependent one by saying “When her husband rose in the morning,” adding to the suspense. For the ironic use of her master, see verse 19.26. Once again the Hebrew verb qum rendered rose up appears. Used throughout this book to describe how Yahweh “raised up” a deliverer for his people (verse 2.16), here the Levite ironically rose up to discover his wife brutalized by his fellow Israelites. However, he seems oblivious to his own responsibility in the events leading to civil war in Israel. If at all possible, the same verb should be used here as used previously in the book, thus preserving this important literary link. If this is not possible, then we might say he “woke up” (Contemporary English Version), “got up” (Good News Translation), or “got out of bed.”

And when he opened the doors of the house renders an independent clause in Hebrew, literally “and he opened the doors of the house.” New Revised Standard Version and Contemporary English Version maintain an independent clause here. However, like the previous clause, this one and the next lead up to the climax of this episode, which is the discovery of the dead concubine. In many languages the use of subordinate clauses here and even in the first three clauses of this verse will be effective in building suspense. New International Version‘s rendering is especially striking: “When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way.” The Hebrew word for doors is plural, suggesting a door with two sides (see comments on verse 19.26, where a different Hebrew word is used). Of the house is a repetitive expression that slows down the story right before the climax, which is typical of Hebrew narrative.

And went out to go on his way (literally “and went out to go on his road”) means the Levite left the old man’s house ready to continue on his journey. He had no concern for his concubine. The Hebrew verb rendered went out (yatsaʾ) occurs often in this section. The men who surrounded the house asked the old man to “bring out” the Levite (verse 19.22), but his concubine was “put out” in his place (verse 19.25). Now the Levite “goes out.” In many languages different verbs may need to be used in each of these contexts.

Behold, there was his concubine … is literally “and behold the woman, his concubine….” Here the Hebrew word hinneh rendered behold marks the high point of the story, as the Levite discovers his concubine on the doorstep. It expresses his surprise at finding her there. Translators should look for some way of expressing this important word. Some will use a word such as “Look!” or an equivalent of the French word voici. In other languages a conjunction or an ideophone expressing surprise may be used. In the Hebrew text there is repetition and heavy emphasis on his concubine, literally “the woman, his concubine.” Many versions omit one of these expressions, but if possible, both of them should be kept for emphasis, as in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh. The use of this phrase also shows the impersonality of this entire account. Neither the Levite, his concubine, nor the old man are given names.

Lying at the door of the house: Lying renders the Hebrew verb nafal meaning “fall,” this keyword that most often describes the enemies of Israel as they lay dead, defeated by the Israelites (see verse 19.26). Here ironically it is used to describe an Israelite woman raped and murdered by her own people. Lying renders a Hebrew participle, a verb form that often occurs with hinneh (behold). The woman was probably lying face down. At the door of the house is another repetitive phrase (see verse 19.26), possibly emphasizing the breach of hospitality.

With her hands on the threshold is literally “and her hands upon the doorsill.” These are powerful words and they paint a pitiful picture. Throughout this book, the Hebrew word for hands occurs continually to describe how the heroes of Israel defeat their enemies, starting with Ehud, the left-handed man, and continuing with Jael, Gideon, and Samson. Here the woman’s hands are inert, stretched out in a pitiful appeal for help. The woman, overcome by the abuse, was lying face down with her hands outstretched, grasping the threshold, which refers to the piece of wood at the bottom of the doorframe. If she could have made a sound, presumably someone would have heard her. Translators must try to maintain the keyword hands. In some languages it may be necessary to supply a verb by saying “her hands grabbed the threshold” or “with her hands she grabbed the door opening.” Clearly the narrator is trying to paint a picture of her agony and suffering, and translators should try to convey the emotion here. For example, Good News Translation says “he found his concubine lying in front of the house with her hands reaching for the door.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Her husband arose the next morning and opened the doors to go out and continue his journey. To his surprise, he found the woman—his concubine—lying in the entrance, her hands reaching out toward the threshold.

• The next morning the Levite got up and opened the door, ready to go on his way. Surprise! There was his wife, lying there with her hands clutching the doorsill.

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

This verse slows down the narrative and heightens the suspense before the surprise victory of the Israelites. The Benjaminites, lulled by past victories, were tricked into thinking that they would win, as the Israelites drew them further and further into the open.

And the Benjaminites said: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” in this context. The general verb said may mean “shouted” (New Living Translation) as the Benjaminites (literally “the sons [or, children] of Benjamin”) anticipated yet another victory. However, it is more likely that the quotation here portrays their thoughts, so we might say “thought” (New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or “said to themselves.” As in the account of Sisera and his mother (verse 5.28), dialogue reveals the inner thoughts of the characters in the story. Both here and in Deborah’s victory song, Israel’s enemies (in this case, Benjamin) gloat over past victories and fall into the eternal trap: pride.

They are routed before us, as at the first: As the battle rages, the Benjaminites are tricked into thinking they are winning. They declare their victory, even as they fight. The Hebrew verb rendered routed can mean “strike,” “stumble,” or in this context, “defeat.” Before us is literally “before our faces.” Good News Translation says “We’ve beaten them,” but New International Version seems closer to the meaning with “We are defeating them.” We might also say “They’re falling, right before our eyes.” Contemporary English Version‘s “We’re mowing them down” seems too colloquial here.

As at the first is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Good News Translation and New International Version say “as before,” and Contemporary English Version has “like we did before.”

But the men of Israel said: But is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, because it introduces the contrasting words of the Israelites and highlights the trick they are about to play on the Benjaminites. It may be translated “But unknown to them” or “But unfortunately for them.” In some languages “Meanwhile” might also be a possibility. The general verb said may be rendered “said to each other.”

Let us flee: The Hebrew verb rendered flee (nus) means “run away,” as when Sisera fled on foot from the battle against Deborah and Barak (see verse 4.15). However, here the Israelites are not fleeing because of fear, trying to escape. Rather, they are pretending to flee. To avoid confusion, translators might prefer to say “Let’s retreat” (New International Version) or “Let’s move back.”

And draw them away from the city to the highways: By retreating the Israelites want to draw the Benjaminites away from Gibeah. For draw away, see verse 20.31. The city is Gibeah, the place of refuge for the Benjaminite soldiers. The highways refers to the two roads mentioned in verse 20.31 (see comments there).

Several versions have changed from direct to indirect speech here (so Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant). Though this is acceptable, it robs the narrative of some of its liveliness and suspense. Some possible models for this verse are:

• Then the Benjaminites cried out, “We’re beating them, like the first time!”
But [unknown to them] the Israelites gave the order, “Retreat and draw them away from the town out onto the roads!”

• Then the Benjaminites thought to themselves, “We’re defeating them, just like we did before.”
Meanwhile the Israelites said, “Let’s draw back and entice them out on the roads, away from their town.”

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 they said: Here the speech of the Israelite leaders continues, so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, and New Living Translation omit this quote frame. If maintained, the general verb said may be rendered “agreed,” since they agree on a course of action here.

There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin is literally “An inheritance of [the] escaped remnant of Benjamin.” The words There must be are clearly implied. The Hebrew word for inheritance often refers to the land that the Israelite tribes inherited. However, the Septuagint changes the Hebrew text to read “How will there be any descendants for Benjamin…?” (similarly New Jerusalem Bible), which speaks about the problem of the future survival of the tribe of Benjamin. New International Version follows this reading by saying “The Benjaminite survivors must have heirs” (similarly Revised English Bible, New American Bible). But there seems to be no adequate reason for this change. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text. Some versions see the word inheritance as a reference to the preservation of the tribe of Benjamin, thus NET Bible says “The remnant of Benjamin must be preserved.” The Hebrew word for survivors (peletah), occurring only here in this book, refers to the 600 soldiers who escaped destruction (see verse 20.47). They are the “escaped remnant.”

That a tribe be not blotted out from Israel renders an independent clause in Hebrew, literally “and a tribe will not be wiped out from Israel.” However, Revised Standard Version treats it as a purpose clause, which is appropriate here. Thus the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered that may be translated “in order that” (New Revised Standard Version) or “so that” (New International Version). The Hebrew verb rendered be … blotted out is a strong one, indicating the complete destruction of the tribe of Benjamin, which the Israelites want to avoid. Once again as they speak, the Israelites carefully use a passive verb form to distance themselves from their own responsibility in the matter. For languages that cannot use a passive here, we might say “so that one of our tribes does not disappear” or “so that one of the tribes of Israel does not die out” (similarly Contemporary English Version). Another possible model is “otherwise one of our tribes will die out.” In many languages this clause may be placed before the previous one (see second model below).

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then they agreed that the surviving Benjaminites must have descendants.* Otherwise, one of their tribes would be lost.
* This is the reading of the Septuagint. The Hebrew texts speaks of an “inheritance” instead of “descendants.”

• Then they said, “One of our tribes must not disappear, so a way must be found to get heirs for Benjamin.

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 Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which seems to link back to what precedes. Interestingly, this conjunction does not introduce the information occurring with the tribes mentioned in the following verses (verse 1.30, 31, 33). Certainly this link is due to the fact that Manasseh and Ephraim were brothers and their names almost always appear together. Since a negative clause follows this conjunction, in some languages negative introductory words such as “Neither” or “Nor” might be used here.

Ephraim was the second son of Joseph, but his descendants became more famous than those of his older brother, Manasseh. Indeed, this tribe became so important that the name Ephraim began to be used to refer to the entire northern kingdom of Israel, located in the central hills between Manasseh and Benjamin. Its territory extended north from Bethel to Shechem and from the Jordan River down to the Mediterranean Sea. The words rendered Ephraim and Canaanites both occur in the singular in Hebrew, but as usual refer to a collective plural. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19.

The town of Gezer was located on the southern border of Ephraim’s territory, in the lowlands toward the coast. The Israelites captured this city and killed its king (verse 10.33; verse 12.7, 12). Though there were many important cities in Ephraim, Gezer is the only one cited here. This is probably due to its importance and wealth. During the time of Solomon, the king of Egypt captured this city and gave it to his daughter as a wedding present when she married Solomon. Later, Solomon rebuilt the city (verse 1 Kgs 9.15-17).

But the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them: But, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, seems slightly out of place. Some versions omit the conjunction altogether. Good News Translation and New American Bible provide a good transition with “and so.” For dwelt see verse 1.9. Dwelt … among them implies that the Canaanites lived together with the Israelites, but unlike the previous verse, here there is no mention of persistence. It might be helpful to say they “continued to reside/live among them.” Among is literally “in middle of,” which perhaps insists on the fact that they lived right alongside each other. We might say “in the midst of” or “along with.” This is an important statement because the LORD had prohibited intermixing with these peoples.

The repetition of the city name Gezer may emphasize its status, but in many languages it will be better to eliminate the repetition by using a substitute expression, such as “in that place” or “there.”

For this verse we might say:

• Nor did the tribe of Ephraim drive out the Canaanites from the city of Gezer. The Canaanites continued to live right there alongside them.

• The descendants of Ephraim could not drive the Canaanites out from Gezer [either], so the Canaanites continued to live among 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 .

As the end of this introduction section to the book approaches, numerous keywords come again to the forefront: “test,” “know,” “obey,” “commandments,” “fathers,” and “hand” (compare verse 2.17, 22; verse 3.1). The expression the testing of Israel binds 3.1-4 together and emphasizes the LORD’s purpose in leaving these peoples in the land. The non-Israelites remained there, not only because they were militarily stronger, but also because the LORD had a reason for allowing this to happen.

They were for the testing of Israel: The pronoun They refers to the nations just mentioned. In some languages it will be better to specify “these peoples” or “these nations.” For the testing of Israel renders the same Hebrew infinitive phrase that is translated “to test Israel by them” in verse 3.1 (see comments there). New Jerusalem Bible says these peoples “were used to put Israel to the test.” New American Bible is similar: “They served to put Israel to the test.” It is possible to be even more explicit by saying “The LORD allowed these peoples to remain in the land in order to test the Israelites.”

To know whether Israel would obey …: Once again two very important words occur: know and obey (see verse 2.10, verse 17, verse 20). The purpose of this testing is to know or discover something about Israel. The question is whether Israel would listen to or obey the LORD’s commandments. For to know whether, we might also say “to see whether,” “to find out if,” or “to determine if.” Obey translates the Hebrew verb shamaʿ, which means “listen,” “hear,” or “obey” (see verse 2.2).

The commandments of the LORD which he commanded their fathers: This is an emphatic expression in Hebrew, with the words for commandments and commanded coming from the same root ts-w-h, which means “order” or “instruct.” In noun form it refers to orders or precepts given to a community by a higher authority. In some languages we might say “what the LORD had told their fathers to do” or “what the LORD had commanded their ancestors to do.” Their fathers refers to the generation of Israelite leaders who came out of Egypt with Moses and who died in the wilderness (see verse 2.1, verse 12).

By Moses explains how these commandments were communicated to the people of Israel. The Hebrew text says “by the hand of Moses,” which is another use of the keyword “hand,” here meaning “through Moses.” This is a reference to the handing down of the Law, especially the Ten Commandments, on Mount Sinai. God communicated his laws to Moses and Moses communicated them to the people of Israel (Exo 19.1-9). Certainly the commandments that are in focus here are the ones saying the Israelites should serve only one God and never worship any other gods (Exo 20.2-6).

Translation models for this verse are:

• These peoples were left there in order to test Israel, so the LORD could know whether they would obey the commandments he had given to their ancestors through Moses.

• The LORD used these foreign people to put the Israelites to the test, to see whether they would keep the commands the LORD gave to Moses to give to their fathers.

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

This verse begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, which Revised Standard Version does not translate here. However, as Barak shows hesitation in responding to the LORD’s call, it is probably better to say “But” (New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Barak said to her: Since Barak is answering Deborah, the verb said may be rendered “answered” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible), “replied” (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible), or “responded.”

If you will go with me, I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go: Barak responds with two conditional statements, one positive and one negative: if Deborah will accompany him, he will do as Yahweh has commanded; otherwise he will not go to battle. Barak’s answer is a very good example of Hebrew parallelism, which reads literally:

If you go with me
then I will go
But if not you go with me
not I will go

This is certainly an emphatic statement, but it is hard to know if the tone is solemn or, as it appears in English, almost childish. The text also does not say why Barak insists Deborah should accompany him into battle. Is he afraid? Is the presence of Deborah the prophetess an assurance of God’s presence? It is interesting to note that the Septuagint has a longer text at this point that reads “because I do not know what day [time] the LORD’s angel will be good to me.” New Jerusalem Bible includes this reading, but the majority of versions do not.

The verb go appears four times in Barak’s response. It renders the general Hebrew word for “go,” but in this context it seems to refer to going to battle. In English it is more natural to use two different verbs by saying “If you will come with me, I will go. If you don’t come with me, I won’t go.” Another possible model is “If you will go with me, then I will fight, but if you won’t, then I won’t go and fight.” In Hebrew these balanced repetitive clauses are appreciated, and may even be considered humorous. However, many languages do not appreciate such repetition. Contemporary English Version, for example, reduces the four clauses to two, saying “I’m not going unless you go!” This is also a possibility.

In translating these conditional clauses, the translator can follow the Hebrew order, or turn that order around by placing the main clauses before the conditions as follows: “I will go if you go with me, but I will not go if you will not go.” However, in many languages the Hebrew order will be preferred.

A translation model for this verse is:

• But Barak answered her, “If you will go to battle with me, I will go. But if you don’t come with me, I won’t go either.”

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 .