Like Abraham, Gideon prepares meat and bread for his guest (see Gen 18.1-8). The narrator takes great care in providing details of the preparation and presentation of this offering, which shows that it is not just a common meal.

So, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, serves as a good connector here. New Jerusalem Bible has “At this.” Some versions leave this conjunction untranslated (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). However, any appropriate connector can be used.

Gideon went into his house renders a very short Hebrew clause, literally “Gideon went.” These two words cover a whole series of actions since Gideon would first have to go to his flock, choose a goat, and then butcher it. The word rendered went sometimes means “entered,” which might suggest he went into his house, but it is more likely that “Gideon went off” (New American Bible) or “Gideon went away” (New Jerusalem Bible). Contemporary English Version says “Gideon went home,” implying that he left the wine press area and went back home. However, this rendering may not be correct, since it is likely that his flock was closer to where he was threshing his wheat.

And prepared a kid: Prepared renders the Hebrew verb that means simply “do” or “make.” Here it refers to the act of killing and cooking an animal, which may need to be made explicit in some languages. Additionally, some languages may require that the method of cooking be specified. Probably the meat was cut in pieces and boiled in a large cooking pot, which is mentioned later in the verse. Gideon was probably the agent giving directives, not necessarily the person carrying out each of these acts. Translators can make this clear by rendering this clause as “and he had his servants prepare….” A kid (literally “a kid of goats”) refers to “a young goat” (Good News Translation).

And unleavened cakes from an ephah of flour: Along with the goat meat, Gideon had bread made. There is an ellipsis in this clause, since the verb prepared is understood. Some languages will need to repeat this verb, while others will use a different verb for bread, such as “baked.” The Hebrew word rendered unleavened cakes (matsah) refers to a kind of flat bread that was made without yeast. Normally bread must rise before it can be cooked, so unleavened cakes refers to a kind of bread that can be made quickly. Gideon appears to have been in a hurry to get his offering ready, because he is afraid his guest might leave. This bread is yet another connection to an important episode in the history of the Israelites, when they made unleavened bread as they prepared to leave Egypt (Exo 13.3-10). Later this kind of bread became part of the standard offering to God (Lev 2.4, 11). Though the bread was probably round, the English word cakes may be misleading, since these did not resemble the sweet cakes known in many cultures today. Here unleavened cakes may be rendered “bread without any yeast” (Good News Translation), “thin bread” (Contemporary English Version), or “flat bread.” An ephah was the standard measure for measuring grains and similar articles. It was equivalent to about 22 liters or 0.6 bushel, so an ephah of flour would be a huge amount. Certainly the quantity is not crucial, so translators can use a general expression such as “a big sack of flour” (Contemporary English Version) or “a bushel of flour” (Good News Translation). The flour is certainly wheat flour, but this is not specified in the text. A general word for flour will be acceptable here. Contemporary English Version adds a new element, saying “Next, he opened a big sack of flour and made it into thin bread,” but it is better to stay close to the text if possible. Here the text does not say where the flour was stored.

The meat he put in a basket: Gideon puts the goat meat in a container to carry it to his guest. Some languages may need to insert a time clause here, for example, “After cooking the meat…” or “When he finished cooking the meat….” Contemporary English Version says “When the meat was done….” Like Hebrew, Revised Standard Version begins with the object the meat. It may be better to render this clause as “he had the meat put into a basket.” The Hebrew word for basket refers to a container made of woven materials, usually grass or reeds. In most cultures baskets are not the usual containers for meat. Perhaps this basket refers to a shallow tray-like container. A more common word can be used, as long as it does not refer to an item made with modern materials.

And the broth he put in a pot: Once again, the object of the verb (the broth) occurs in initial position in Hebrew. The broth refers to the liquid or soup in which the meat was cooked. We could also speak of the meat’s “sauce.” This sauce was put into a pot, which renders a Hebrew word referring to a deep container made of metal or earthenware. Translators should be careful to use a term that can refer to a container used in biblical times, for example, “clay cooking pot” (Contemporary English Version). In Hebrew a pot is literally “the pot,” so it probably refers to the pot where the meat was cooked.

And brought them to him under the oak and presented them: Gideon brings the things he has prepared to his guest. The pronoun them refers to the meat, the broth, and the bread. New Jerusalem Bible renders brought them as “brought it all,” which is a good model. To him under the oak refers to the LORD’s angel (or the LORD) who is still waiting for Gideon under the large tree (verse 6.11). Good News Translation makes this explicit by rendering the pronoun him as “the LORD’s angel.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh capitalizes this pronoun to make a direct reference to Yahweh, which while helping readers, will not be helpful for those hearing the text read aloud. For oak see the comments on verse 6.11. The mention of this tree, which many believe to be sacred, adds to the idea that the presentation of this food is indeed a religious act.

Presented translates a Hebrew verb meaning “bring near,” which is often used in the context of sacrifices, thus New International Version says “offered them to him.” Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible follow a different reading by saying “As he approached,” thinking Gideon presents himself to the LORD’s angel. The Septuagint has another reading, which is “and he [Gideon] worshiped.” However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the reading in RSV.

One possible model for this verse is:

• So Gideon went off to slaughter a young goat and prepare it. He also took a bushel of flour and made some flat bread. When it was done, he put the meat on a tray and put the broth in a pot. Then he brought this all under the large tree and presented it as an offering to the angel of the LORD.

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

And he said to them, “Look at me, and do likewise: Gideon gives his warriors instructions, though he does not immediately reveal what his plan is. Look at me, and do likewise is literally “From me you will see and thus you will do.” It is nighttime so one wonders what exactly the warriors will be able to see. As the next verse shows, they are to respond to the sound of the trumpet, so Look at me may be rendered “Pay close attention!” And do likewise asks the men to follow Gideon’s example. We can say “do as I do.” New International Version translates dynamically with “Follow my lead.”

When I come to the outskirts of the camp is literally “and behold I am going to the outskirts of the camp.” This clause begins with the Hebrew word hinneh (“behold”), which is not rendered in Revised Standard Version and most other English versions. Here hinneh seems to show the urgency of the situation but may also be a call to “listen carefully.” For the outskirts of the camp, see verse 7.11. The camp refers to the Midianite camp, not the Israelite one, so Contemporary English Version says “the enemy camp.” Possible models are “As soon as I get to the edge of the enemy camp” and “Listen! I am going to the edge of the Midianite camp. When I get there.”

Do as I do is literally “as I do, thus you do.” Revised English Bible renders the emphasis here well with “do exactly as I do.” This clause is similar to and do likewise. Some versions reduce the two similar clauses to one (so Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible), which is acceptable in some languages, but runs the danger of losing some of the impact and urgency expressed here.

Good News Translation reverses the order of the clauses in Gideon’s speech here by saying “When I get to the edge of the camp, watch me, and do what I do.” This model may be more natural in many languages.

What is not yet made clear in the instructions is that Gideon’s men are to surround the Midianite camp before they do what he does. The next verse clarifies this. This is probably why Contemporary English Version has chosen to combine this verse and the next one as follows: “Gideon said, ‘When we get to the enemy camp, spread out and surround it. Then wait for me to blow a signal on my trumpet. As soon as you hear it, blow your trumpets and shout….’ ” This is one way to render this passage, but the storyteller seems to purposely keep the audience in suspense concerning Gideon’s strategy.

Translation models for this verse are:

• He told them, “Pay attention, and do what I do. When I reach the edge of the enemy camp, do exactly as I do.

• Then Gideon said to his men, “Watch me. When I get to the edge of the Midianite camp, do what I do.

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 detailed description of the spoils of war in the previous verse is the storyteller’s way of slowing down the story and building suspense. However, instead of a climax of victory, readers and listeners discover to their horror that Gideon, the chosen “savior” of Israel, is leading his people into idolatry.

And Gideon made an ephod of it is literally “And Gideon made it into an ephod.” The long description of the booty is stopped short by this short, direct clause. In Hebrew the clause begins with a waw conjunction, which many versions omit. Translators will have to determine what transition is needed here. NET Bible provides a good rendering by referring back to the previous text: “Gideon used all this to make an ephod.” Gideon is reintroduced to focus on him, as well as to put the blame on him. Made renders a general Hebrew verb meaning “do” or “fabricate.” Since metal is involved, the verb “forged” would also be appropriate. The Hebrew word for ephod poses a lot of problems for translators because it refers to several different items, depending on context. In the Pentateuch it is used to refer to a garment worn by Aaron and his successors, the high priests. This garment had a breastplate decorated with twelve precious stones, each representing one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Inside the pocket of this garment were the Urim and Thummim, objects used to determine God’s will (see, for example, Exo 25.7; verse 28.15; Lev 8.7). As a boy, Samuel wore a small linen ephod (verse 1 Sam 2.18). But obviously the ephod referred to here and later in the book of Judges (verse 17.5; verse 18.14-20) is not a garment, but rather some kind of idol. A few scholars think this ephod may refer to a cloth garment that was draped over an image or other object of worship. Translators have several options here. One possibility is to transliterate this word. However, if this solution is adopted, there will need to be some explanation, either in the glossary or in a footnote. Some versions use two different words for the Hebrew noun rendered ephod, one in the context of the priests, and another here. Good News Translation calls this ephod an “idol,” while Contemporary English Version speaks of a “statue.” Translations are almost always better understood than transliterations, so that is what we recommend here. We could say “Gideon took the gold from the earrings and made [or, forged] an idol.” However, it is unlikely that Gideon did this work himself, so another possible model is “Gideon had an idol made.”

And put it in his city, in Ophrah: The Hebrew verb rendered put is not the common verb often seen in this book. It is a more emphatic verb, which may be rendered “set up” or “installed.” Obviously this statue or idol is set up to be worshiped. In his city, in Ophrah refers to the hometown of Gideon. With the mention of Ophrah, the inclusio begun in verse 6.11 comes to a close here. With this detail the narrator brings strong irony to the text, since in verse 6.25-32 Gideon destroyed the false idols in Ophrah. This story comes full circle.

And all Israel played the harlot after it there: All Israel is not a common expression in this book. It is probably an exaggeration and communicates some of the narrator’s distress at seeing what happened. Contemporary English Version modifies this expression by saying “the Israelites,” but Good News Translation stays closer to the text with “All the Israelites.” It is probably better to tell the story as the narrator does, rather than to modify the text. In the Old Testament played the harlot is a common figurative expression for being unfaithful to God (see comments on verse 2.17). Played the harlot after it means the Israelites were unfaithful to God, here pledging their allegiance to the idol rather than to Yahweh. It is good to preserve this figure of speech if possible. New Revised Standard Version and New Jerusalem Bible say the Israelites “prostituted themselves to it” (similarly New International Version). However, if such language is not understood, translators can follow Good News Translation, which has “abandoned God and went … to worship the idol.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “went astray after it” seems rather weak in light of the circumstances and the strong language used here. A better model is “abandoned Yahweh and worshiped the idol/statue instead.”

And it became a snare to Gideon and to his family: Here the narrator not only recounts an incident, but assesses what is happening, again using figurative language. The pronoun it refers to the idol Gideon made. The idol was like a snare or trap that lured Gideon and his family away from their worship of God. For this imagery see the comments on verse 2.3. To his family is literally “for his house,” which refers not just to the nuclear family, but to all the relatives making up the extended family. Contemporary English Version says “and even Gideon and his family were trapped into worshiping the statue.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Gideon used the gold earrings to make a statue that he set up in his hometown, Ophrah. All the people of Israel were unfaithful to Yahweh and began to worship the statue there. This statue was a trap, causing the heart of Gideon and his family to turn away from Yahweh.

• Gideon took the gold from the earrings and made an idol for the Israelites to worship. He set it up in his hometown, Ophrah, and everybody went there to worship it. This idol caused Gideon and his whole family to abandon their worship of 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 .

When Zebul, Abimelech’s appointed official, hears Gaal’s challenge to Abimelech’s authority, he becomes angry.

When Zebul the ruler of the city heard the words of Gaal the son of Ebed: This clause is independent in Hebrew, which is literally “And Zebul … heard the words…,” but many languages may wish to follow Revised Standard Version by rendering it as a temporal clause. Translators may introduce this clause with “But when” (New Living Translation) or any other appropriate conjunction. In verse 9.28 Zebul was introduced as an “officer” appointed by Abimelech. Here we learn his position is important, since he is identified as the ruler of the city of Shechem. For the Hebrew word rendered ruler (sar), see the comments on verse 4.2, where it is translated “commander.” Here it refers to a leader in control of a town. The Hebrew word for words is plural and certainly refers not only to the questions that Gaal used to stir up the people of Shechem, but also to the challenge that he made. Zebul may not have heard the words directly but could have been informed of what Gaal had said.

His anger was kindled: When Zebul hears Gaal’s mockery of the man who certainly gave him his high position, he gets angry. This clause is literally “and his nose burned.” For this Hebrew idiom see the comments on verse 2.14. In many languages anger may be expressed with images involving fire and heat, for example, “his heart heated up” or “he burned with anger.” If possible, translators can try to use similar expressions in their language.

Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version reverse the order of the two clauses in this verse, starting with Zebul’s anger. A model that keeps the original order is:

• But Zebul, the governor of Shechem, heard what Gaal had said, and he became furious.

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 Ammonites crossed the Jordan to fight also against Judah and against Benjamin and against the house of Ephraim: And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, introduces an additional act by Israel’s enemies. Contemporary English Version uses the connector “Then,” but many versions leave this conjunction untranslated (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version). The Ammonites, who lived on the east side of Jordan, crossed the river to attack the Israelites on the other side. In addition to Gilead, the Ammonites also attacked deeper into Israelite territory, which Good News Translation expresses as “even.” We may also say “as well” or “additionally.” The text is emphatic here with the repetition of the Hebrew preposition b- (against). The enemy attack against the Israelites became widespread, affecting Judah (verse 1.2), Benjamin (verse 1.21), and Ephraim (verse 1.29). As elsewhere, these names refer to tribal groups, not to individuals. The house of Ephraim refers to the members of this tribe. Good News Translation provides a helpful model: “The Ammonites even crossed the Jordan to fight the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim.”

So that Israel was sorely distressed: This is an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “and it was very cramped for Israel.” Revised Standard Version has opted for a result clause, rendering the Hebrew waw conjunction as so that to introduce the result of what happened under Ammonite oppression. Good News Translation keeps an independent clause here. For the Hebrew phrase rendered was sorely distressed, see verse 2.15, where it is translated “were in sore straits.” Contemporary English Version gives a very dynamic rendering here, saying “Life was miserable for the Israelites.”

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

Jephthah keeps questioning the Ammonite king, trying to convince him to stop his attack against Israel. Here he asks the king why the Ammonites had never tried to recapture the land in the past three hundred years while the Israelites lived there. The rhetorical question here is very long and will probably need to be broken up into smaller units or rearranged.

While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages …: After capturing the land east of the Jordan River from the Amorite king Sihon, the Israelites remained there. The places mentioned here were given to the tribe of Reuben when the land was divided. For Heshbon see verse 11.19. This city was on the King’s Highway in the middle of the area captured from the Amorites. Aroer was an important town on the northern rim of the Arnon River. For its villages (literally “its daughters”), see verse 1.27. They were smaller communities around the larger towns. Jephthah is making a point here, so he draws out his words by saying in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages. However, in some languages it will be better to say “in the towns of Heshbon and Aroer, and in all their surrounding villages.”

And in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon: The word cities may be rendered “towns,” since these settlements were not huge. Biblical cities were quite small and easily surrounded by an army. For the Arnon River, see verse 11.13. The banks of the Arnon is literally “the hands of the Arnon [river].” Translators can use any appropriate term for banks. As in many places around the world, the banks of a river are a good place to make a settlement, since there is easy access to outside commerce. Some of the banks on this river are high cliffs today, so the area referred to here is probably the eastern end of the river, where it would be possible to settle.

Three hundred years: As is usually the case in the Old Testament, the number three hundred is probably a round figure, representing approximately how long the Israelites lived in this area.

Why did you not recover them within that time?: This rhetorical question is a climax to all the others. Obviously the Ammonite king cannot answer it, because he knows that his ancestors were powerless to take the land back from the Israelites. For the Hebrew verb rendered recover, see verse 6.9, where it is translated “delivered.” The pronoun them refers to the towns just mentioned. This rhetorical question may be rendered as a statement by saying “you were powerless to recover them during all those years!”

A translation model for this verse is:

• You know we Israelites occupied the towns of Heshbon and Aroer and all their surrounding villages and the towns along the Arnon River for 300 years. You could have tried to regain the land during that time. Why didn’t 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 .

The focus now returns to the woman’s husband, Manoah (see verse 13.2). Over the years, Manoah’s personality has been analyzed in various ways, both positive and negatively. Most, however, see him as weak, not believing his wife and showing less faith than she does. Nevertheless, his first reaction is to turn to the LORD. Since a long speech citation has ended, a new paragraph can begin here.

Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said: Then renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be translated “At that point.” Entreated renders a somewhat rare Hebrew verb meaning “plead” or “beg.” For the moment Manoah seems to hardly believe his wife’s report and is not sure who was speaking to her. But despite his doubts, he turns to the LORD and begs for confirmation of what has happened. This sentence may be translated “Then Manoah pleaded with Yahweh, saying.”

O LORD, I pray thee is literally “With me, my Lord … please” (see comments on verse 6.13). The Hebrew word for LORD is ʾadonai, which is not the typical name Yahweh, but rather the word that means “my Lord [or, Master]”. This is a humble way of addressing someone. However, since Manoah is addressing Yahweh, translators may want to use an expression that includes another name for God. I pray thee renders the Hebrew politeness marker naʾ. Other possible translations are “Please” (Good News Translation) and “I’m begging you” (similarly New International Version).

Let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us: Manoah prays that the LORD will allow the divine messenger to come once again, either because he wants to experience himself what his wife saw and heard or because he doubt’s his wife’s account. Some see this request as a lack of faith on the man’s part, either in the LORD or in his wife. Indeed, it is reminiscent of Gideon’s testing of the LORD (verse 6.36-40). For the man of God, see verse 13.6. Contemporary English Version refers to “the prophet” here, but it is good to stay close to the Hebrew text.

By saying whom thou didst send, Manoah acknowledges that the person who came to his wife was sent by Yahweh. Thou is an old English pronoun used to refer to God, replaced by most English versions with the pronoun “you.” Send renders the Hebrew verb shalach, which appears throughout this book (see verse 1.25). The Hebrew verb rendered let … come is softened by the naʾ politeness marker, so it expresses a wish or softened command. Many languages will follow the order in Revised Standard Version for this clause by putting the known information first as follows: “the man of God whom you sent, let him come to us again.” We might also reverse the order: “send to us again the man of God whom you sent” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

And teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born: Manoah apparently believes the messenger came and he appears to believe a child will be born, but he wants to know more about what to do once the child arrives. Teach renders a Hebrew root meaning “cast” or “throw,” with lots or arrows as possible objects. However, in its form here it means “teach,” “direct,” or “instruct.” It may be rendered “tell” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “advise.” This verb is jussive in Hebrew, expressing a request or wish. We might say “and let him teach us…” or “so that he can teach us….”

What we are to do with the boy describes the advice Manoah is requesting. With renders a Hebrew preposition that may also be translated “for.” For Hebrew word translated boy, see verse 13.5. New International Version provides a helpful model: “how to bring up the boy.”

That will be born renders an unusual Hebrew passive participle, which is literally “the one being born.” It may be translated “that my wife will have” or “that is to be born [soon].”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then Manoah prayed fervently to the LORD, saying, “Please, Lord, I beg you to let the man of God you sent come again to us. He can tell us what we should do for the boy who will be born.”

• Then Manoah pleaded with the LORD, saying, “Master, you sent a man of God to us. Please send him again, so he can teach us how to raise the son we will have.”

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

When the Philistines began to worry about finding the solution for the riddle, they formed a plan. They asked Samson’s bride to coax the answer out of him. In the Deborah story women played a role in the deliverance of Israel. Following the “bad to worse” scenario in this book, women are now asked to betray those close to them. This will be the first instance, but of course, the most well-known incident will later concern Samson and another Philistine woman, Delilah.

This verse begins with the Hebrew discourse marker wayehi (literally “And it was”), which marks a significant moment here. Many versions start a new paragraph here (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version begins with “Finally.”

On the fourth day: The Hebrew text has “on the seventh day.” Revised Standard Version‘s reading is based on the Septuagint. Most versions follow the ver Septuagintver*, but Contemporary English Version renders the Hebrew with “on the seventh day of the party.” According to verse 14.17, it was not until the seventh day that Samson’s bride convinced him to tell her the meaning. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers the Hebrew text, but gives it a {C} reading. Translators are free to choose the reading they prefer and add a footnote if necessary. On the fourth day may be rendered “On the fourth day of the groom’s feast/celebration.”

They said to Samson’s wife: The pronoun they refers to the young Philistine companions of Samson whom he challenged with the riddle. As noted earlier, Hebrew has only one word meaning both “woman” and “wife.” The wedding had not taken place yet, but in many cultures an engaged woman is also a wife. Translators should use a term appropriate in their language. In English we might say “bride” (Contemporary English Version, NET Bible).

Entice your husband …: Compare verse 16.5. The Hebrew verb rendered Entice means “coax” or “persuade.” They are asking Samson’s bride to use her charms on him, so that he will tell her the riddle’s answer. Good News Translation uses the verb “Trick,” which is not exactly correct here. A better rendering is “Speak sweetly/nicely.” The Hebrew word for husband (ʾish) can also mean “man” in general. Here it specifically means “groom” since the wedding had not taken place yet. Like wife, in many cultures the engaged man is spoken of as the husband, even before the ceremony.

To tell us what the riddle is: Once again the verb tell reappears. There is a textual problem concerning the pronoun us. In Hebrew this pronoun could include the woman, as part of the Philistine group, or it could refer to only the young men. If this reading is accepted, an appropriate plural form, whether inclusive or exclusive, can be used here. But the ver Septuagintver* has the second person singular pronoun “you,” referring to the woman, a reading followed by Contemporary English Version and Revised English Bible. This reading makes good sense because Samson would more likely tell his fiancée the meaning, and then she would relate it to her countrymen. Even though Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text, translators are free to make their own choice of interpretation. The wording here is also difficult, since the Philistines do not want to know what the riddle is, but rather what its solution is. In most languages this will need to be made explicit.

Lest we burn you and your father’s house with fire: It now becomes apparent that this bet is not just a game. Providing thirty fine pieces of cloth and changes of clothes would be difficult, but there must be something more at stake to make them so angry, namely, their honor. So Samson’s companions go so far as to threaten his bride and her family with death if she does not do as they request. For this threat see verse 12.1. The Hebrew conjunction rendered lest may be translated “otherwise.” In many languages it will be easier to begin a new sentence, saying “If you don’t [do as we say]…” or simply “If not….” The pronoun we clearly refers to Samson’s companions, excluding his bride. Many languages will find it redundant to say burn … with fire. The use of the verb burn will suffice. The Philistines are threatening more than fire, but actual death, which Contemporary English Version and New International Version make clear: “burn … to death.” The Hebrew noun for house (bayit) can refer to a physical home or set of buildings, but very often it refers to the extended family living together under one roof or in one courtyard. Both meanings could be present in the phrase your father’s house. Thus we might say “If you don’t, we’ll burn down your father’s house, with you and your family in it.”

Have you invited us here to impoverish us? is literally an emphatic “Was it to dispossess us that you called us? Isn’t that so?” The Philistines accuse Samson’s bride of calling them to the party so her fiancé could get the better of them and enrich himself. Invited renders the Hebrew verb meaning “call.” The adverb here points to the place of the party. The Hebrew verb rendered impoverish (yarash) is the same one translated “drive out” in verse 1.19, here meaning “dispossess” or “make poor.” Providing thirty fine pieces of cloth and sets of clothes would indeed cost quite a bit and given they are young men, use up all their resources. A rhetorical question may be kept here (“Did you invite us here to ruin us?”), or expressed as a statement (“You’ve called us here just to ruin us!”). A double question may also express their indignation, for example, “Is that why you brought us here? To ruin us?”

Translation models for this verse are:

• On the fourth day [of the party] the men said to Samson’s bride, “You had better get your fiancé to tell you the answer to the riddle. Otherwise, we will burn you and your whole family to death. Did you bring us here to strip us of everything we possess?”

• On the seventh day* of the celebration, the Philistine men threatened Samson’s wife, saying, “Persuade your husband to tell the meaning of the riddle. If you don’t, we’ll burn your house down, along with you and your family in it. Did you invite us here just to take everything we have?”
* The Septuagint and some other ancient versions say “fourth day.”

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 .