The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
Apparatus & Provenance
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
- Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible (1834)
- Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, — (1880s)
- Charles Ellicott, Commentary for English Readers (1878)
- Geneva Study Bible, Marginal Notes (1599)
- Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory (1871)
- John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible (1746–63)
- Joseph Benson, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1810s)
- Keil & Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1860s)
- Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706)
- Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible (1685)
- The Pulpit Commentary, Spence & Exell, eds. (1880s)
Text and interlinear. The Berean interlinear's gloss column is aligned to the English word order, not the Hebrew, so several glosses sit under the wrong surface form. The clearest case is Judges 11:1, where word 11 (יִפְתָּח) carries the gloss “was his” and word 12 (וַיּוֹלֶד, a Hiphil verb, “and he begat”) carries the gloss “father.” Our notes are keyed to the surface forms and parses, not to the displaced glosses. Similar displacement occurs at 11:2 (words 0–6), 11:3, 11:9 and 11:24.
Who is Gilead? Unresolved, and the commentators know it. K&D argues for a literal father who bore the ancestor's name; Cambridge and Barnes read “Gilead” as the district or clan personified, with Cambridge assigning verses 1–2 to “the late editor”; Pulpit concludes that “whether son or descendant cannot positively be affirmed.” We have not adjudicated it.
The three hundred years (11:26). This is the unit's hardest crux and we do not solve it. Gill reproduces the rabbinic addition (Seder Olam) that reaches 294 and rounds; K&D calls it “a round number that comes very near the reality”; Cambridge derives 300 from the editor's own chronological framework (301 or 319 by the book's figures) and concludes the phrase “must have been inserted”; Ellicott judges it irreconcilable with the preserved genealogies and suggests it “may be a marginal gloss which has crept into the text”; Pulpit goes further still and wonders whether years is a corruption of cities. Cambridge and Pulpit agree, against the older English versions, that בָּעֵת הַהִיא means “at that time,” not “within that time.”
Moab or Ammon. The embassy is addressed to Ammon but argues against Moab: Chemosh (v. 24) is Moab's god, Balak (v. 25) is Moab's king, and Heshbon and Aroer (v. 26) are Moabite cities. Barnes suggests the Ammonite king may himself have been a Moabite; Poole and Pulpit posit one crown over both peoples; Cambridge treats verses 12–28 as a later insertion aimed at Moab. We have recorded the difficulty rather than choosing.
“Before the LORD in Mizpah” (11:11). Barnes and Pulpit take it to require the ark, the tabernacle, or a priest with the ephod; K&D, with Hengstenberg, denies any such presence and reduces the phrase to a sworn oath; Poole allows a congregation or an ad hoc altar; Ellicott weighs the two Mizpahs and settles for Gilead. Cambridge further argues that 11b originally followed the vow of 11:30–31. Nothing in the sourced material settles this.
Text-critical variants. Cambridge reports that some LXX recensions lack 11:5a and others omit 11:4, and that at 11:26 the LXX reads Jazer for Aroer and Jordan for Arnon, “which looks like the original text”; Pulpit and Ellicott note the Jordan reading too. Our literal renderings follow the Masoretic text as given in the brief.
Voices. Matthew Henry's commentary on this chapter is sectional, one block for 11:1–11 and one for 11:12–28, so his excerpts are section-level judgments rather than verse-level notes; that is why the same Henry paragraph stands behind more than one verse in the sources. Poole's entry at 11:1 in the brief is prefaced by JFB's chapter outline, and several verses carry “No text from Poole on this verse.” Cambridge's source-critical conclusions are that commentator's historical judgments, not readings of the Hebrew, and are cited as his.
What is ⚙ and what is not. Every parse, Strong's number, frequency count and lexeme gloss above comes from the brief's interlinear, lexicon and Verifier output. Every quoted judgment is attributed by name. The sola reading, the pullquote, the third Christ entry, and every sentence marked ⚙ are this tool's fallible synthesis, offered to be tested and corrected.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)