And the people of Israel cried to the LORD, saying: And again renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. Here it introduces the response of the Israelites to their suffering, so it may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version) or “Then” (Good News Translation, New International Version). Once again the people of Israel is literally “the children of Israel” (see verse 1.1). Translators should try to be consistent in their rendering of this phrase. Cried to the LORD is the Israelites’ regular response to trouble (verse 3.9, 15; verse 6.6-7). As elsewhere, they repented and called to the LORD for help. The text does not talk about repenting or confessing, but this is implied. Contemporary English Version says “They begged the LORD for help and confessed.”

We have sinned against thee: The Hebrew verb rendered have sinned (chataʾ) is not used frequently in this book, but it is very common in the Old Testament, meaning to break or disobey God’s Law. The LORD uses this word when he speaks to Moses in Exo 32.33, and the Israelites use it when confessing their sins to the LORD in Num 14.40. Pharaoh even uses it to admit his sin in Exo 9.27. In this context it expresses what the Israelites did when they “did evil in the sight of the LORD” (verse 10.6). Thee is the old English pronoun used by Revised Standard Version to address God. Good News Translation and most other English versions use the pronoun “you.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has a very expressive rendering for this clause, saying “We stand guilty before You.” Some languages may prefer to change this direct quote into an indirect one, but doing this may rob the text of its power and emphasis.

Because we have forsaken our God and have served the Baals: Because (literally “and because”), which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction and the particle ki, introduces the explanation of how the people sinned. Other possible connectors are “for” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “in that,” and “since.” However, the particle ki may be an emphatic marker here. For example, Boling renders it “indeed.” For we have forsaken our God, see verse 2.12. Since God is being addressed here, some languages may prefer to say “we have abandoned you, our God.” For have served the Baals, see verse 2.11.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the people of Israel confessed to the LORD, saying, “We have sinned against you, our God, by turning our backs on you and worshiping the Canaanite gods, the Baals.”

• Then the Israelites confessed their sins against Yahweh: “Our God, we stand guilty before you. Indeed, we have abandoned you to serve the idols of Baal, the god 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 .

Jephthah’s final point is that he is not guilty of taking the land from the Ammonites. This argument refers to the opening question in verse 11.12 in which Jephthah asked the Ammonite king what reason he had for attacking Israel. In this verse Jephthah returns to the central concern of the previous verses, namely that of fighting. This is a pivotal verse since it repeats the Hebrew keyword meaning “judge.”

I therefore have not sinned against you is literally “And I, I have not sinned against you.” Therefore, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause, may be omitted. The pronoun I is clearly emphatic here. Jephthah puts himself in the place of Israel by using this pronoun, when he declares he is not guilty (compare verse 11.12). The pronoun you, referring to the Ammonite king, is also emphatic, but can be seen to refer to all the king’s people as well. For sinned see verse 10.10. This word is not used in its strict sense here, but means “do wrong” (so Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version says “I haven’t done anything to you,” which seems somewhat weak. Good News Translation is better with “No, I have not done you any wrong.” Another possible model is “I myself have not wronged you!”

And you do me wrong by making war on me: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces a contrast here, so it is better translated “but” (New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version) or “yet.” Jephthah’s charge here against the Ammonite king seems stronger than his concession in the previous clause. He has done nothing wrong to the king, but the king is treating him very badly by attacking him. The Hebrew word for wrong (raʿah) refers to “evil” (see comments on verse 2.15). What is evil here is making war, which renders the same verb translated “fight” in verse 11.12, so it forms an inclusio for this section. This whole clause may be rendered “But you are the one doing the real evil/wrong because you are attacking me.”

The LORD, the Judge, decide this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon: Jephthah appeals to Yahweh, the God of Israel, to decide whose claim to the land is valid. He does so in confidence because he knows it is Yahweh who has given Israel the land. This is the first time in this book that Yahweh is given the title Judge, which Revised Standard Version capitalizes (compare Gen 18.25; verse 1 Sam 24.15). In Psalms the LORD is often described as the one judging the earth (see, for example, Psalm 7.8; verse 9.8). Judge renders a participle of the Hebrew verb (shafat) translated decide, so this clause literally says “May Yahweh, the Judge, judge….” This is the same word that it used often to refer to the judges or deliverers in Israel (see verse 2.16). This verb usually refers to the act of judging or deciding between two adversaries. With the exception of Deborah who judged cases for the Israelites (verse 4.4), this is the only use of this verb with this meaning in the book of Judges. Decide can certainly be rendered “judge” ( NET Bible). Many African languages say “cut the affair.” This day means that the judging be done at that very moment. We may say “here and now.” The people of Israel and the people of Ammon is literally “the sons/children of Israel and the sons/children of Ammon.” As Jephthah pronounces this wish, he moves from the personal pronouns I and you to more collective expressions. We might say “May Yahweh, the Judge, judge today whose claim is valid, the people of Israel or the people of Ammon.”

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 LORD hears Manoah’s prayer and agrees to do what he asked.

And God listened to the voice of Manoah is a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text. Though the Hebrew waw conjunction is correctly rendered here as a sequential And, we might also say “So” or omit this conjunction. God is literally “the God” but God is the best rendering here (see comments on verse 6.36). Listened renders the key Hebrew verb shamaʿ, which can mean “hear,” “listen,” or “obey” (see verse 2.2). Here, of course, the meaning is that God heard Manoah’s request and granted it. The voice of Manoah refers to what Manoah said, not just the sound of his voice, so we could speak of “Manoah’s prayer [or, words].” Good News Translation has “God did what Manoah asked.”

And the angel of God came again to the woman: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the next step in this series of events, that is, the result of God’s listening. God sends the angel back. Manoah is the one who prayed, but surprisingly God’s angel appears to his wife, rather than to him! This is one of the details that lead commentators to conclude that Manoah is the weaker of the pair. For the angel of God, see verse 13.6.

As she sat in the field is literally “and she [was] sitting in the field.” The Hebrew verb rendered sat is a participle. The Hebrew word for field refers either to cultivated land or to open country outside of town where the animals grazed (see verse 1.14). It is not clear why Manoah’s wife was sitting there, nor what she was doing there—perhaps resting after work. In some languages it will be difficult to use the definite expression the field, since it is mentioned here for the first time. If so, translators might say “her/their field.”

But Manoah her husband was not with her: This clause emphasizes that the angel appeared to the woman alone, and not to her husband. But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here since we would have expected the angel to appear to Manoah or to the couple together.

Translation models for this verse are:

• God responded to Manoah’s prayer, and the angel of God came again to the woman while she was sitting out in their field, but Manoah, her husband, was not there with her.

• God did as Manoah asked, and the angel of God appeared once more to the woman. She was out in their field at the time, but her husband Manoah was not there with her.

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

And Samson’s wife wept before him, and said …: Under the threat of death to her and her family, Samson’s bride does as she is asked and goes to her fiancé to try to get the answer to the riddle. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces a consequence here, so it may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). Several versions omit it (Contemporary English Version, New American Bible). Samson’s wife wept before him is how Samson’s fiancée tries to get the answer to the riddle. She cried in his presence, trying to soften his heart, but the tears may also be real, since she fears for her life and the life of her family. In some languages it will be necessary to add that “Samson’s bride went to him and wept.” For before him translators can use an appropriate prepositional phrase, such as “on him” (New International Version), “beside him” (similarly New American Bible), or “on his shoulder” (Revised English Bible). Good News Translation says “So Samson’s wife went to him in tears and said,” and Contemporary English Version has “Samson’s bride went to him and started crying in his arms,” which may go slightly further than the Hebrew text.

You only hate me, you do not love me: These dramatic words seem amusing at first, but we must remember the woman thinks her compatriots will indeed kill her and her family. She begins with these two parallel statements, one positive and one negative. You only hate me is literally “Only you hate me.” The adverb only may be rendered “really” (Contemporary English Version) or “truly.” Hate, the opposite of love, is the strongest negative emotion known (see verse 11.7). Certainly the woman is exaggerating, but this kind of behavior is typical of people trying to get what they want. Samson’s wife is of course expecting him to say that this is false. This will allow her to ask him to prove his love. In many languages this exaggerated way of speaking will be easily understood. If not, we might say “You must hate me” or “You’re acting like you hate me.” If the verb hate poses a problem, we might repeat the verb love, for example, “You don’t love me! You really don’t love me at all!”

You do not love me says the same thing as the previous statement, but in a different way. The repetition is meant for emphasis. Love may not be an easy notion to express in all languages, but translators should use a word that could apply to the relationship between a husband and a wife. In many languages it will be more natural to reverse the two statements by saying “You don’t love me! You just hate me!” (Good News Translation) or “Don’t you love me? Do you hate me?” Some translators may prefer to combine the two clauses, for example, “You do not love me at all.”

You have put a riddle to my countrymen, and you have not told me what it is: Here the woman continues with her accusations. She pretends to be jealous, claiming that if Samson really loved her, he would share the secret of his riddle with her. For put a riddle, see verse 14.12. My countrymen is literally “the sons/children of my people.” Samson’s bride of course identifies with her fellow Philistines. Good News Translation‘s “my friends” does not indicate the right relationship. “My people” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version) or “my brothers” will be more appropriate in many languages.

And you have not told me what it is is literally “and to me you did not tell,” which places emphasis on the pronoun me. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be translated “but” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version) in this context. In some languages there may be a special particle to introduce this type of accusation. Once again the verb told plays a prominent role in this subsection. Revised Standard Version adds what it is for comprehension.

Some languages will prefer to change the order of the clauses here by saying “How could you ask my people to solve the riddle and you don’t even tell me the answer! You must hate me! Certainly, you can’t love me!” Contemporary English Version, though not very close to the text, gives a very natural rendering: “You must really hate me …If you loved me at all, you would have told me the answer to your riddle.” This rendering omits the reference to the wife’s countrymen, which is not recommended.

And he said to her: Samson answers his wife. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And will be better translated “But” in many languages, since it introduces a counter-expectation. There is a change in speaker, so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, and New International Version start a new paragraph here. Contemporary English Version also reintroduces the name “Samson” instead of using the pronoun he, which may be more natural in several languages. The general verb said may be translated “replied” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version) or “responded.”

Behold, I have not told my father nor my mother: Samson is surprised and explains that he has not even told his parents. Behold (hinneh in Hebrew) calls attention to this important fact. We might say “Look” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or “What are you saying?” or use some other attention-getting expression. I have not told my father nor my mother is literally “to my father and to my mother, I have not told,” which places emphasis on his parents. A good rendering for this clause is “I haven’t even told my [own] father and mother the meaning!” or “Look, I haven’t even told my own parents!”

And shall I tell you? is a rhetorical question, which is literally “and to you, will I tell?” The pronoun you occurs at the beginning of this clause in Hebrew for emphasis. Samson says that if he has not told his parents the answer, he surely will not tell her. This response reveals something of the social pattern of the time: she may be his bride, but she ranks behind his parents. Translators should try to capture some of the sarcasm in this question.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So Samson’s bride went to him crying, and she begged, “You give my people a riddle to solve and you don’t even tell me the answer. You must really hate me! Surely you don’t love me!”
But Samson replied, “Look, I haven’t even explained it to my parents. I certainly won’t explain it to you!”

• Samson’s wife went to him with tears in her eyes and said, “Do you hate me? You can’t love me! You gave my people a riddle to solve and didn’t even tell me the answer.”
But Samson replied, “Look, if I haven’t even told my parents what the solution is, do you think I am going to tell you?”

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 her: Following the pattern in the first incident (verse 16.7), Samson offers another explanation of how he can be bound. He again uses a condition-consequence structure. Most languages will retain the pronouns here, but if needed, full names can be used. The general verb said may be rendered “answered” (Contemporary English Version, New American Bible) or “replied” (New Living Translation, New Jerusalem Bible).

If they bind me with new ropes that have not been used: This time Samson suggests new ropes are the secret to making him weak. The Hebrew expression for If they bind me is stronger than the one in verse 16.7. Here it is literally “If binding they bind me,” which means “If they bind me very tightly/securely.” Many versions miss this emphasis (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), but translators should try to express it. The pronoun they could refer to the Philistines, but it more likely has a general meaning, for example, “If someone binds me very tightly.”

With new ropes that have not been used is literally “with new ropes that work has not been done with them.” In place of fresh bowstrings, this time Samson suggests he be tied up with new ropes (see verse 15.13). Since they have never been used, these ropes have not had a chance to weaken. Ropes are usually made of several strands, so they are stronger than bowstrings. We can say “with ropes that have just been made and have never been used” or “with new ropes that no one has ever used.” However, once again the audience knows that Samson is not telling the truth.

Then I shall become weak, and be like any other man: See verse 16.7.

Translation models for this verse are:

• And he replied to Delilah, “If people bind me tightly with new ropes that have never been used, then I will become weak, just like any other man.”

• Samson told her that if he was tied up with new, unused ropes, he would only be as strong as other human beings.

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 part of the narrative is reminiscent of Moses’ mission when he sent men to spy out the land of Canaan. However, the narrator is certainly making fun of the Danites. In the past their enemies had pushed them back into the hills (verse 1.34), but now they appear to be making another attempt to conquer land.

So the Danites sent five able men from the whole number of their tribe is literally “And the sons/children of Dan sent from their family five men from their borders, men of the sons of strength,” a long and complex sentence that is probably used to mock the Danites. So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. Another possible connector is “therefore” (Revised English Bible). The Hebrew expression for the Danites (literally “the sons/children of Dan”) differs from the one used in verse 18.1. Translators may maintain the difference or use the same expression in both places. Sent renders the key Hebrew verb shalach, which is often used in the judges’ stories (see comments on verse 3.15). Here it has its primary meaning of “send [on a special mission].” Five able men (literally “five men … men of the sons of strength”) may be rendered “five warriors” (Contemporary English Version), “five valiant fighters,” or “five brave men” (New Jerusalem Bible). The Hebrew word for tribe is not the same one used in verse 18.1. Rather, it is the word mishpachah, which normally refers to a family or clan (see verse 17.7). From the whole number of their tribe (literally “from their family … from their borders”) probably means all the Danite clans were represented (so New International Version). Contemporary English Version offers a good model: “The tribe chose five warriors to represent their clans.” We may also say “So the Danites chose five brave men from their clans and sent them.”

From Zorah and from Eshta-ol: The five men who were chosen came from the towns of Zorah and Eshta-ol, which were southwest of Jerusalem (see verse 13.25. Samson was given special power from Yahweh between these two towns, so there may be a link back to that event. It is likely this is part of the irony being expressed here.

To spy out the land: The Hebrew verb rendered spy out is the same one used for the spies who were sent by Joshua to Jericho (see, for example, verse 2.1; verse 6.22; compare also verse 1.23, where a different Hebrew verb is used). If there is not a specific word for this activity, translators might say “to go see the land” or “to go see what the land was like.” However, if at all possible, the same terminology used in other Old Testament passages should be used here so thematic or intertextual links can be maintained. The land refers to the Promised Land (see verse 1.2).

And to explore it: The Hebrew verb rendered explore means “examine carefully.” The five men were to go and find out what they could about the land, and report back to their leaders. In some languages spy out and explore will be rendered by one verb or expression.

And they said to them, “Go and explore the land”: In typical Hebrew style much of the dialogue here repeats what has already been said in the narrative text. In this context the repetition seems to communicate irony or mockery, since the spies do not go to explore the land as they should. The pronoun they seems to refer to the tribal leaders of the Danites, while the pronoun them refers to the five men they chose. These pronouns can be made explicit if necessary.

Go and explore the land is the order given to the five men. Go renders the general Hebrew verb meaning “go” or “walk.” For explore the land, see above. Contemporary English Version says “Go and find some land where we can live.”

And they came to the hill country of Ephraim: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, but here it may be translated “So,” since the five men respond to the command of their leaders. The pronoun they refers to the five men, which may be made explicit, as in New Jerusalem Bible. In many languages it will be necessary to say “they left” before saying they came. They were in the south traveling toward the north. The hill country of Ephraim is the backdrop for many of the stories in the appendices. See verse 2.9 for this expression.

To the house of Micah is literally “up to the house of Micah.” The Hebrew here is odd since it could give the impression that the Danites had Micah’s house as their destination. But this is not the case. Rather, as they were traveling through the mountainous region of Ephraim, they came upon Micah’s dwelling. For the house of Micah, see verse 17.4. The repetition of this phrase may be another ironic touch. In Hebrew the name “Bethel” is the literally “the house of God.” It is possible this expression is pointing to the “shrine” Micah had put in place. In some languages it may be necessary to show that Micah is a known participant in the story by saying “this same Micah” or by using a definite expression.

And lodged there: The Hebrew verb rendered lodged (lin) suggests only an overnight stay. The adverb there refers to Micah’s house. Revised English Bible renders this clause as “and spent the night there.” We may also say “and they stayed there overnight.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the Danites picked five qualified men from the towns of Zorah and Eshtaol and sent them to spy out the territory. As the five men came to the hills of the territory of Ephraim, they arrived at the home of Micah and spent the night.

• So the Danites chose five very strong men from the towns of Zorah and Eshtaol and send them out to go see what the land was like. They said, “Go explore the territory.” So the men left and arrived in the mountains of Ephraim. They came to Micah’s house and stayed the night there.

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

So the two men sat and ate and drank together is literally “And they sat down and they ate, the two of them together, and they drank.” So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. The two men refers to the Levite and his father-in-law. Once again their strong relationship is in focus. If possible, translators should find an appropriate equivalent for the literal phrase “the two of them together” to highlight their companionship. For ate and drank, see verse 19.4. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “feasted” here, but this is certainly not appropriate in this context.

And the girl’s father said to the man: See the comments on verse 19.3.

Be pleased to spend the night: This request from the young woman’s father is a very polite one in Hebrew, literally “Be willing please and spend the night.” Spend the night renders the same Hebrew verb translated “lodged” in verse 19.4 (see comments there). After such a big meal, it is possible that it was already late in the day. New International Version‘s “Please stay tonight” is one possibility, or we might rather use a question, such as “Why not spend the night…?” (Revised English Bible), “Won’t you stay overnight…?” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or “Why not decide to spend the night here…?” (New American Bible).

And let your heart be merry is literally “and let your heart be good.” If the Levite were to remain in Bethlehem for another night, his father-in-law thinks he would really enjoy himself by eating and drinking more. In Hebrew this clause is expressed as a wish, but in many languages a question may be more appropriate (see second model below). As in verse 19.5, the word heart represents the person, but here it also refers to the seat of emotions since joy is in view. If a person’s heart is merry, that person is happy. In many languages this clause can be added to what precedes, for example, “Won’t you stay overnight and enjoy yourself?” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). In most languages a command form would not be acceptable here in this extremely polite exchange between these two men.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the two men sat eating and drinking together. Then the girl’s father said to the man, “Please stay another night and enjoy yourself.”

• So the two of them, the Levite and the girl’s father, ate and drank together. Then the father said to his son-in-law, “Why don’t you stay another night and [you can] enjoy yourself here.”

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 speech of the Israelites continues here. They make detailed plans on how to carry out their attack on the people of Gibeah. Once again the reference to “the tenth” seems ironic, as it evokes past actions of the patriarchs (Gen 14.20; verse 28.22).

And we will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel …: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the next course of action, but in some languages it may be omitted (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). This rather complex expression and the two that follow simply mean that the Israelites will take a tenth of all their men, as Good News Translation makes clear. In many languages it will be helpful to spell out in detail what is meant, for example, “Out of a hundred men, we will take ten men….” The phrase all the tribes of Israel reveals once again their oneness of spirit and their determination. However, again this phrase is ironic, since the people talk about all the tribes but the tribe of Benjamin is excluded, and is, in fact, the enemy. For the Hebrew word rendered tribes (shevet), see verse 18.1.

And a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand: The structure in the previous clause is repeated twice here and applied to greater numbers. Out of one thousand men, a hundred will be chosen. Out of ten thousand men, a thousand will be chosen. Good News Translation reduces these lengthy expressions to “One tenth of the men in Israel,” which may be a helpful model for other languages.

To bring provisions for the people: Ten percent of the men are put aside to bring supplies for the rest of the soldiers. Bring renders the Hebrew verb laqach meaning “take,” which occurs often in this book. Provisions can refer to both food and water (see verse 7.8). New American Bible has “supplies.” Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say simply “food.” Here the people seems to refer to the army being assembled to fight the people of Gibeah. Some versions speak of “the soldiers” (New American Bible), “the army” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), or “the troops” (New Revised Standard Version). However, even this reference to the people is ironic, since the Hebrew word here (ʿam) normally refers to all the Israelites, including the tribe of Benjamin. This, sadly, is not the case here.

That when they come they may requite Gibe-ah of Benjamin: The Hebrew text is difficult here. It reads literally “to do to come to Geba of Benjamin.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text, which has the name “Geba” instead of Gibe-ah. However, both names refer to the same place, so many versions harmonize and use Gibe-ah or “Gibeah” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The Hebrew text probably refers to the army going to Gibeah and punishing the people there, as in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation is similar with “and the others will go and punish Gibeah.” Another possibility is that the verb “do” refers to preparations for the battle, and the verb “come” refers to movement toward the town of Gibeah, as in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “to prepare for their going to Geba in Benjamin.” Translators will have to pick one of the accepted interpretations, and if desired, include a footnote, stating the Hebrew is uncertain. Gibe-ah of Benjamin refers to the people of Gibeah, in the territory belonging to the Benjaminites. We might say “to provide food for the army when it goes to punish the people of Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin.”

For all the wanton crime which they have committed in Israel is literally “for all the foolishness that he has done in Israel.” For render a Hebrew preposition that can also mean “as” or “according to.” Here it introduces the reason for the punishment, so it can be rendered “because of.” For the Hebrew word rendered wanton crime, see the comments on verse 20.6, where it is translated “wantonness.” Though this word can refer to foolishness, in this context it refers to something far more serious, so crime or even “evil” might be a good rendering. The word all emphasizes how bad the acts of the people of Gibeah were. The pronoun they (“he” in Hebrew) refers to the people of Gibeah. In this context of a crime, committed renders well the general Hebrew verb meaning “do.” Another possible verb is “carried out.” In this context Israel could refer to the land within the territory of Israel or to the Israelites themselves. If the latter is in view, we might say “among us Israelites,” with the Benjaminites being included. However, the Hebrew preposition rendered in can also mean “against,” so the whole clause might be translated “for all the horrible things they did against [the people of] Israel.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• One tenth of the people will provide food for the army when it goes to punish the Benjaminites of Gibeah for all the evil they have done in Israel.”

• From 100 men, 10 will be chosen. From 1,000, 100 will be chosen. From 10,000, 1,000 will be chosen. These men of Israel will supply food for the army when it goes into battle against the people of Gibeah living in Benjamin territory. They will punish them for the horrible things they have done against the people of Israel.”

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 .