But the olive tree said to them …: The olive tree declines the offer to be king. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered But lets the reader or hearer know that the offer will be denied. Another possible connector is “However.” Although the Hebrew text uses the simple verb said, translators can say “answered” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), “replied” (Contemporary English Version, New Jerusalem Bible), “rejected,” or “declined.”

Shall I leave my fatness…?: This is the olive tree’s way of saying it considers itself a prosperous source of oil and does not intend to abandon this task. Leave here means “give up” or “abandon.” Fatness refers to the richness of olive oil, which is a sign of luxury and prosperity. In modern English the word fatness has negative connotations, so New Revised Standard Version says “rich oil.” This question is rhetorical, so it may be rendered as such or as an affirmation: “Surely I cannot leave my rich oil….” Good News Translation has “In order to govern you, I would have to stop producing my oil…,” which seems to miss some of the playful tone of this fable. Revised English Bible captures the spirit well with “What, leave my rich oil…?”

By which gods and men are honored: This relative clause describing fatness is ambiguous. Hebrew has “which in/by me they honor ʾelohim and men.” The first problem is to identify the referent of the pronoun “they.” Revised Standard Version avoids this problem by using an impersonal passive. The Hebrew verb rendered are honored comes from the same root (k-b-d) as the word for “glory,” which often expresses “heaviness” in the sense of being important. Another problem here is the interpretation of the Hebrew word ʾelohim. Because olive oil was used in the ritual anointing of kings and priests in the Old Testament, as well as being part of worship ceremonies, the word could refer to the God of Israel (so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). However, most versions take it to be a reference to the many gods the Israelites worshiped (so Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version). The Hebrew word for men can refer uniquely to males, but here it has a wider meaning, so it is better rendered “mortals” (New Revised Standard Version), “human beings” (Good News Translation), or “people” (Contemporary English Version). There is a contrast here between the divine and the human. The olive tree says its rich oil honors both divine and human beings. Contemporary English Version tries to avoid this awkward relative clause by saying “My oil brings honor to people and gods.” We could also say “People use my precious oil to honor both gods and mortals.”

And go to sway over the trees: The Hebrew verb rendered sway is used elsewhere to mean “tremble with fear” (Exo 20.18) or “move” (verse 1 Sam 1.13). Here its first meaning is “sway” in movement, as trees sway in the breeze. But it also seems to have a figurative sense here, which is “have authority” or “exercise power and control.” With these two meanings in view, there may be a kind of wordplay here. The waving action may also be a way to show off or to flaunt one’s authority. The trees refers to all the other trees of the forest, but here may refer to the Israelites. By responding in this ironic manner, it is clear that the role of king is not considered very highly, and this is one of the main points of Jotham’s fable. To express some of the irony we may express this clause as “Why should I give up my position of status to just wave my branches over a few trees?”

The three clauses of this rhetorical question can be rearranged if necessary. For example, Contemporary English Version says “My oil brings honor to people and gods. I won’t stop making oil, just to have my branches wave above the other trees.”

Translation possibilities for this verse are:

• But Olive Tree declined their offer, saying, ‘People use my rich oil to show honor to both gods and humans. How can I possibly stop producing it, just to rule over some trees?’

• But the olive tree answered, ‘What, give up production of my rich oil? My oil is used to glorify gods and humans. I won’t give this up to rule trees!’

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 a Hebrew waw conjunction not rendered in Revised Standard Version. The context shows that this verse does not describe a consecutive action, but rather is a restatement. This verse and the previous one describe the same event from two different points of view. Some translators will choose to combine them, while others may prefer to keep the two accounts distinct. The words company and rushed are repeated in this verse.

Abimelech and the company that was with him rushed forward: There is a textual problem here since the Hebrew text has the plural “companies,” while the Vulgate and some ver Septuagintver* manuscripts have the singular company. New International Version follows the Hebrew text, but Revised Standard Version‘s rendering makes sense, since later in the verse the acts of the other two companies will be described. Translators will have to decide which reading to follow. According to Revised Standard Version, when Abimelech saw the people of Shechem coming out of the city to go their farms, the military company with him rushed forward, which renders the same Hebrew verb translated “rush” in verse 9.33 (see comments there). Here it may be rendered “dashed ahead” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “ran forward.”

And stood at the entrance of the gate of the city: While the company with Abimelech went to the city gate, the other two companies went to attack the people who had already gone out of the city to their farms. Abimelech and his men stood at the city entrance to cut people off, so they could not come out to help their fellow inhabitants being attacked by the rest of Abimelech’s men. For the entrance of the gate of the city, see verse 9.35. Revised English Bible uses military language for this clause, saying “and took up position at the entrance of the city gate.” For this clause and the previous one Contemporary English Version has “Abimelech and the troops with him ran to the town gate and took control of it.” Another possible model is “Abimelech and the troops with him dashed forward and captured the city gate.”

While the two companies rushed upon all who were in the fields and slew them is an independent sentence in Hebrew, which is literally “and the two companies rushed….” While one group of Abimelech’s men captured Shechem’s gate, the other two groups attacked and killed the people of Shechem who had gone to their farms. Rushed renders the same Hebrew verb translated rushed forward. All who were in the fields probably includes the women and children who went to the farms. Fields is singular in Hebrew but can be rendered as appropriate in the target language.

Here is what appears to be another case of the bad-to-worse scenario that often characterizes this book. In the previous ambush, it was Gaal’s followers, all adult men, who were attacked and killed. But here, even women and children were probably among those killed. Thus Abimelech’s sins grow more serious as he attacks the innocent. Slew (literally “struck”) renders the same Hebrew verb as in the previous verse. Here it clearly means “killed” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). Translators should look for a verb that conveys some of the emotion here, for example, “slaughtered” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “massacred.” This whole sentence may be rendered “Then the two remaining groups rushed upon all the people in the fields and slaughtered them” or “Then Abimelech’s two other companies attacked the people who had gone to work in the fields, and killed them [all].”

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 .

That the daughters of Israel went year by year …: This verse appears to be a closing statement that explains a custom in Israel which developed to commemorate this young woman’s tragedy. No conjunction is present in Hebrew here. In Hebrew this verse begins with a very rhythmic “from days to days” (miyyamim yamimah), which repeats several sounds, the consonants m and y and the vowels i and a. Translators can find a way of rendering some of the sadness and perhaps repetitiveness expressed here. It may appropriate to begin with an expression such as “And so” or “Thus.” The daughters of Israel refers to all the young women in Israel. The word daughters can refer to the inhabitants of a place in the Old Testament (see, for example, Psalm 48.11; verse 97.8), but here it refers to women (compare Song of Songs 1.5). Good News Translation says “the Israelite women,” and Contemporary English Version has “Israelite girls.” Went year by year is literally “from days to days they went.” The place they went to was probably “on the mountains” (see verse 11.37). The Hebrew phrase rendered year by year indicates this was an annual event (compare Exo 13.10). However, despite this claim, there is no other information about this custom in the Bible. Many languages will prefer to follow the Hebrew order here: “And so, every year the women of Israel went….”

To lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite: The Hebrew verb rendered lament is not the same one translated “bewail” in verse 11.37. This verb means “recount,” “celebrate” or “remember,” as in verse 5.11. New International Version and Revised English Bible say “commemorate,” which is a good model. It became a custom for Israelite women to commemorate what happened to this young woman and possibly her willingness to respect her father and the LORD. The narrator uses the full noun phrase Jephthah the Gileadite (see verse 11.1) as this episode comes to a close.

Four days in the year: This was the time period for the memorial. The four days were consecutive, not four days scattered throughout the year.

Translation models for this verse are:

• It became customary for the women of Israel to commemorate what happened to the daughter of Jephthah of Gilead four days every year.

• And so each year for four days, the women in Israel went out [on the mountains] to remember what happened to the daughter of Jephthah of Gilead.

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 serves as background and closes the episode concerning the angel of the LORD. Even though the verse begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, the majority of versions omit it in this background verse.

The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and his wife is literally “And the angel of Yahweh did not add again to appear to….” After Yahweh’s messenger leaves Manoah and his wife, he does not reappear. For appeared see verse 13.3.

Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD: Finally Manoah believes that the person he saw was Yahweh’s messenger. Manoah came to this belief because he saw the angel ascend in the fire, not because the angel appeared no more. To avoid misunderstanding concerning this, Good News Translation combines and rearranges verses 20-21. Then does not render the Hebrew waw conjunction, but the stronger connector ʾaz, which may be translated “finally” (New Living Translation). Interestingly, only Manoah is cited here as knowing that the man was Yahweh’s angel. It is impossible to know whether his wife already realized it or whether the mention of Manoah includes his wife. Knew in this context means “realized” or “understood” (see verse 13.16). The pronoun he refers to the man who was talking with Manoah. We might say “He finally realized that man was Yahweh’s messenger.”

A translation model that combines verses 20-21 is:

• While Manoah and his wife watched, flames went up skyward from the altar, and Yahweh’s messenger went up with them. The messenger did not reappear. But Manoah and his wife finally understood that the man was Yahweh’s messenger. They bowed low to the ground in awe.

If translators wish to retain the traditional numbering and not rearrange the events, a possible model for verse 21 alone is:

• Yahweh’s messenger did not appear again to Manoah and his wife. And now finally, Manoah understood that the man was Yahweh’s messenger.

Though some versions see 13.21-24 as a subsection, this background verse seems to close the section describing the second encounter with the angel.

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 smote them hip and thigh: Samson immediately seeks revenge by attacking the Philistines. And is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since it conveys immediate action. He smote them hip and thigh is literally “he struck them leg upon thigh,” which is an idiomatic expression that seems to communicate the intensity of a fierce battle. So Good News Translation says “He attacked them fiercely,” and New International Version has “He attacked them viciously.” Contemporary English Version seems to take the expression literally by saying “Samson started hacking them to pieces with his sword,” but this may say more than the text. The Hebrew word for hip refers to the part of the leg from the knee down, so “calf” might be a better rendering. Thigh refers to the top part of the leg. In most languages this figurative language will not be understood, so translators should look for an idiomatic expression in their own language.

With great slaughter: This phrase further defines Samson’s attack, and seems to indicate that he killed many Philistines. The preposition with does not occur in Hebrew, suggesting that this phrase is a comment without a verb. Boling separates it from the previous clause with a long dash, saying “So he struck them leg on thigh—a tremendous slaughter.” This is a forceful rendering. Great slaughter is literally “great beating,” which can imply a great defeat. Good News Translation says “killed many of them,” while some versions imply that Samson simply injured them. For example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “thorough thrashing,” and New Jerusalem Bible has “caused great havoc.” Translators will have to decide if actual killing was involved, and translate accordingly.

And he went down …: Following this slaughter, Samson escaped to a place where there were caves, presumably to hide from the Philistines and their reprisals. Once again the key verb went down appears in a context of extreme conflict (see verse 1.9). However, here it may refer to actual movement downward since Samson descended into a cave.

And stayed in the cleft of the rock of Etam: Stayed renders the Hebrew verb yashab meaning “inhabit” or “reside,” so Samson spent some time in this place. Cleft is an old English word for “cave” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), which is a hollow place either in the earth, in the side of a mountain, or inside a large rock. Many caves are big enough to provide shelter and living space for one or several persons. If a word for “cave” does not exist, we might speak of “a hole in the side of the mountain at Etam.” The Hebrew word for rock refers to a huge stone. This is a word that is often used in Psalms to describe the LORD (see, for example, Psalm 40.2). Etam was a town between Tekoa and Bethlehem in northwest Judah (see verse 2 Chr 11.6).

Translation models for this verse are:

• And Samson attacked them viciously—a huge slaughter! Then he went down and lived in a cave at the rock at Etam.

• Samson struck them hard and killed many of them. And then he went and lived in a cave at a place called Etam Rock.

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 when the people saw him renders an independent clause in Hebrew, literally “and the people saw him.” There is great irony here, since the Hebrew word for people (ʿam) usually refers to the people of Israel, but here it refers to the Philistines (see comments on verse 2.4). The pronoun him may refer to Samson. If so, then this clause seems out of order. In the next verse (verse 16.25) the people call for Samson and he is led out of the prison, so some versions propose reversing 16.24 and 25 as in New American Bible. However, there is no textual support for this rearrangement. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version solve the problem by combining 16.24-25. But there are other possibilities of interpretation. Instead of referring to Samson, the pronoun him could refer either to the god Dagon or to an impersonal “it,” referring, for example, to the capture of Samson. New Jerusalem Bible takes the first approach by saying “And as soon as the people saw their god.” For the second approach we could say “When the Philistine people realized they had Samson in their hands.” These last two options may be preferable to changing the order of the verses.

They praised their god: The pronoun they refers to the Philistine people. This time it is not their rulers, but they themselves who praise Dagon. The Hebrew verb rendered praised (halal) means “shout praise” or “sing praises,” most often to a deity. In some languages there will be a special verb to “praise” a god. The verb halal sounds like the verb meaning “begin” (chalal), which occurs in the previous episode (verse 16.19, 22), so it is likely this is a deliberate play on words.

For they said: For renders the Hebrew particle ki, which is an emphatic marker here, so it can be translated “indeed.” As in verse 16.23, the general verb said may be rendered “sang” or “chanted” in this context.

Our god has given our enemy into our hand: The Philistines begin their praise to Dagon singing the same line sung first by their leaders. See verse 16.23. However, this time the name of “Samson” does not appear, and the Hebrew word for enemy is singular.

The ravager of our country, who has slain many of us: The people add another line to highlight Samson’s power. It was common for people to vaunt the power of their enemies, since the greater their power, the greater the victory. The ravager, which refers to Samson, renders the participle of a Hebrew verb meaning “destroy,” “ruin,” or “totally devastate.” The Philistines speak of their country (literally “land”), using the same Hebrew word (ʾerets) designating the Promised Land throughout the Old Testament, which heightens the irony here (see verse 1.2). Contemporary English Version understands the ravager of our country to mean the destroyer of their crops by saying “Samson ruined our crops.” However, while it is true that Samson destroyed their crops (see verse 15.5), his massacre of myriads of Philistines seems more impressive. Thus it is better to stay close to the text, as in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh: “who devastated our land.” This preserves the irony associated with the mention of “the land.”

Who has slain many of us is literally “and who has multiplied [or, increased] our pierced/slain ones.” Indeed, Samson was responsible for killing hundreds, if not thousands, of Philistines. The people glorify Samson’s feats as they praise their god who has supposedly helped them capture this fearsome enemy. Translators can stay close to the Hebrew by saying “who has multiplied our dead.” Another possible model is “who has killed [or, slaughtered] so many of us.” The Hebrew word for slain (chalal) sounds like the word for praised (halal), apparently yet another wordplay.

The Hebrew for this whole line can be divided into two lines:

weʾet macharib ʾartsenu (literally “and the-one-who-has-devastated our-land”)
waʾasher hirbah ʾet-chalalenu (literally “and-who has-multiplied our-pierced/slain-ones”)

In these short lines there is rhythm and rhyme, as well as a play on words since the Hebrew word meaning “devastate” (charab) in the first line sounds like the word meaning “multiply” (rabah) in the second.

Translators should attempt to render the words of this song as poetry, and use a poetic format as well. Possible translation models for this verse are:

• The people saw their god and began to praise him, singing:
“Our god has given our enemy into our hands:
the devastator of our land,
the killer of so many of us!”

• When the people realized they were victorious, they praised their god, singing over and over:
“Into our power our god has given our enemy,
the one who destroyed our land,
the one who slaughtered so many of us.”

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 turned aside thither: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), since it introduces the response of the Danite warriors. The pronoun they could refer to just the five spies, but it more likely refers to the whole group of soldiers. It seems somewhat ridiculous that 600 soldiers would go into Micah’s compound, but this too may be the storyteller’s way of making fun of the Danites. Contemporary English Version makes the referent for the pronoun they explicit by saying “The six hundred warriors,” which conveys some of the irony. Turned aside renders a key Hebrew verb (sur) that occurs throughout this book (see comments on verse 18.3). As here, it is used often to describe an irresponsible act. The Hebrew adverb rendered thither (“there” in New International Version) refers to Micah’s compound. Turned aside thither may be rendered “left the road” (Contemporary English Version), “turned off the road” (New Living Translation), “turned toward those houses,” or “headed for those houses.”

And came to the house of the young Levite, at the home of Micah: The Danite soldiers go to the place where the Levite was living. In Hebrew the pronoun they is understood as the subject of the verb came. The soldiers are looking specifically for the young Levite the spies had previously met (see verse 17.7). The Hebrew word for house occurs twice in this clause, once in reference to where the young Levite is staying, and once in reference to the home or compound of Micah. In many languages it may be confusing to speak of two houses, so appropriate terminology should be used here. If necessary, we might say “and they went to the house [or, living quarters] of the young Levite on Micah’s compound.”

And asked him of his welfare: The subject of the Hebrew verb rendered asked is probably the five spies as the leaders of the Danite soldiers. Asked him of his welfare (literally “asked him regarding/for peace”) certainly refers to a greeting. The Hebrew word for welfare is shalom, which means “peace” in some contexts (see verse 4.17), but here it refers to the well-being of a person. Some versions simply say “greeted him” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version), while others try to use more colloquial language. For example, Good News Translation says “asked the Levite how he was getting along.” We might say “gave him a greeting” or even “said ‘shalom’ to him.” Once again the storyteller brings much irony to the text, since these men have anything but peace in mind! Though Revised English Bible thinks the pronoun him refers to Micah, most commentators think it points to the young Levite. However, in many cultures it would be more likely that these visitors would greet the head of the household (Micah) first.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So they made their way to Micah’s house, where the young Levite was living, and they asked him how he was.

• So they turned and went to Micah’s house, where the young Levite was staying, and greeted him.

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 .