But the fig tree said to them …: Following the pattern of the previous response, the fig tree also declines the invitation of the other trees. Since this is a refusal, But is an appropriate connector here. In Hebrew the word for “olive tree” is masculine, while the word for fig tree is feminine, so the fig tree said is literally “she said the fig tree.” Translators will need to use whatever pronouns or agreement is necessary. In some languages trees belong to a special noun class category and will have their own special forms of agreement. For said see verse 9.9.

Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit…?: This is another rhetorical question. For Shall I leave, see verse 9.9. The same wording used there should be used here, whether an interrogative or statement form. My sweetness refers to the flavor of the fig and parallels “my fatness” of the olive tree. In many languages it will not be possible to speak abstractly of my sweetness. Translators may have to combine it with my good fruit by saying “my good sweet fruit” (Good News Translation). The general Hebrew word for good (tov), often found in this part of the book, could refer to size and sweetness and implies the fruit is good to eat.

And go to sway over the trees: See verse 9.9. It is important that the same wording be used throughout the fable since repetition is an important characteristic of this genre.

We can translate this verse as follows:

• But Fig Tree also declined their offer, saying, ‘How could I stop producing my good sweet fruit just to rule over some trees?’

• But the fig tree answered, ‘What, give up production of my good sweet fruit? 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 .

When all the people of the Tower of Shechem heard of it: This clause is an independent one in Hebrew, which is literally “And all the leaders of the fortified place of Shechem heard.” While some think this clause introduces the next event in the story, Contemporary English Version thinks it provides background information: “Earlier that day, the leaders of the temple of El Berith at Shechem had heard about the attack.” People renders the Hebrew word baʿal, which means “lord” or “master” (see comments on verse 9.2, where it is translated “men”). Here it is better rendered “leading men” (Good News Translation) or “leaders” ( NET Bible). The Tower of Shechem (Migdal-Shechem in Hebrew) is mentioned for the first time here in the story. It was probably a fortified section within the town of Shechem or a location outside the town. A Tower is a tall fortified structure, where soldiers stand guard to spy out any enemy attacks. It is also the easiest place to defend, and in a heated battle, usually the last place to fall into the hands of an enemy (see verse 8.9). New Jerusalem Bible uses the transliterated name “Migdal-Shechem,” but most versions call this place the Tower of Shechem (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, NET Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Good News Translation says “the fort at Shechem.” In some languages the introduction of this unknown place may cause a problem, so it may be necessary to set the scene before the action begins by saying “There was a tall tower [or, fortress] in/near Shechem, and when all its leaders heard….” In the phrase heard of it, Revised Standard Version has added the pronoun it, which could refer to the first attack of the people in the fields, or to Abimelech’s general attack upon and destruction of Shechem. If the former, then instead of bravely leading their people, the leaders of Shechem ran to the safest place in the city. It seems unlikely that these people at the tower were not involved in the battle and only just learned about it. Good News Translation provides a good model: “When all the leading men in the fort at Shechem heard about this.” The verb heard could also be rendered “learned” or “got news of.”

They entered the stronghold of the house of El-berith: Hearing about the attack, the leaders fled, running to a safe place in the temple of El-berith. There are some problems for interpreters and translators here, since the Hebrew word rendered stronghold is very rare. Revised Standard Version depends on the Septuagint for its rendering. The use of this word in verse 1 Sam 13.6 leads some scholars to believe that it refers to an underground hiding place. Thus New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “tunnel,” and other versions have “crypt” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible), which is a place dug out underneath a building. It is also not clear whether this stronghold is part of the tower, as Contemporary English Version seems to suggest, or in a separate building. One way to avoid the problem might be to render they entered the stronghold of as “they sought protection in” or “they went and hid in.” The word house here does not refer to a dwelling, but to a temple. In previous passages (verse 8.33; verse 9.4), the god Baal-berith (meaning “lord of the agreement”) was mentioned, but here the name is changed to El-berith (meaning “god of the agreement”). Some scholars suggest this new name figures as part of the climax of the story, while others note that there may be anti-Baal sentiments being expressed here. In this verse Good News Translation uses the previous name, “Baal-of-the-Covenant,” but it seems wiser to maintain the name El-berith here.

A translation model for this verse is:

• When all the leaders at the Tower of Shechem heard about the attack, they fled into the lower part of the temple of El-berith.

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 .

But his wife said to him …: Manoah’s wife is once again more practical than her husband. She thinks logically, considering the evidence and drawing her conclusion. But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since she is offering a counter argument. The general verb said may be translated “replied” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “responded” (Contemporary English Version).

If the LORD had meant to kill us: This clause gives a condition that is not true, called in grammatical terms “irreal.” Manoah’s wife does not believe that Yahweh intends to kill them. The Hebrew particle rendered If also occurs in verse 8.19, where there is another counterfactual conditional clause (see comments there). All languages have means to express such conditional clauses. The Hebrew verb rendered had meant means “take pleasure in,” so it may be translated “had wanted” (Good News Translation) or “had intended.” Three consequences follow this conditional clause.

He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a cereal offering at our hands is literally “he would not have taken from our hands a burnt offering and a cereal offering.” This is the first consequence of the condition just mentioned. The fact that Yahweh accepted their offerings (verse 13.19) is proof that he does not intend to kill them. She rightly concludes that even though they actually saw the divine messenger, their lives are not in danger. For burnt offering, see verse 6.26; for cereal offering, see verse 13.19. The keyword hand occurs once again (see verse 1.2). We might say “he wouldn’t have accepted our burnt offering and grain offering” (New Living Translation).

Or shown us all these things: Manoah’s wife gives another consequence here. If he had intended to kill them, the LORD would not have allowed them to see everything they saw. Shown us is literally “caused us to see,” another instance of the Hebrew verb raʾah meaning “see” (see verse 13.20). All these things refers to everything they saw concerning Yahweh’s messenger and their offerings.

Or now announced to us such things as these: This is the final consequence mentioned by Manoah’s wife. If the LORD had intended to kill them, he would not have promised to give them a son. The Hebrew expression rendered now (literally “about the time”) seems out of place, and there is some question about its meaning. Some early translations, such as the Septuagint, omit it (so also Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). However NET Bible renders it “just now.” Announced to us is literally “caused us to hear.” Such things as these (literally “like this”) refers to the promise that they would have a son (verse 13.3).

Translation models for this verse are:

• But Manoah’s wife replied, “Yahweh does not plan to kill us! If he did, he would not have accepted our burnt offering and our grain offering, nor would he have shown us all these things, or made us such a promise.”

• But his wife replied, “If Yahweh really wanted to kill us, he would not have accepted our burnt offering and grain offering. He wouldn’t have shown us all these things. He wouldn’t have let us hear such things just now.”

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 indicates that the people of Judah knew that Samson was in their territory and where he was hiding. However, they had been unaware of all the havoc and destruction he had carried out in the territory of the Philistines.

Then three thousand men of Judah went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam: Having heard what the Philistines had to say, the people of Judah respond by sending soldiers to question Samson. Three thousand men is a huge number to send to deal with one person. There is certainly a bit of irony here, since numerous men of Judah must deal with a single man from Dan. Three thousand is obviously a variation on the numbers “three,” “thirty,” and “three hundred,” which appear throughout the story of Samson. As noted in verse 1.4, the Hebrew term for thousand can also mean “contingent” or “platoon.” In this context men may be rendered “soldiers” or “warriors.” For went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam, see verse 15.8.

And said to Samson: The people of Judah strongly condemn Samson for foolishly giving the Philistines an excuse to come into their territory. Thus in this context the general verb said may be rendered by a stronger expression, for example, “said harshly.”

Do you not know that the Philistines are rulers over us?: This rhetorical question expresses the people of Judah’s dismay and anger over what Samson had done. Samson knew, in effect, that the Philistines had control over the Israelite territory yet he provoked them. The Hebrew participle rendered rulers comes from a root meaning “govern” (see verse 8.22). In this context it means “dominate.” Revised English Bible renders this question as “Surely you know that the Philistines are our masters?” and New Jerusalem Bible has “Don’t you know that the Philistines have us in their power?” It may also be rendered as a strong statement by saying “You know full well that the Philistines control us!”

What then is this that you have done to us?: The people of Judah accuse Samson directly, now understanding that the Philistine invasion is Samson’s fault. Good News Translation keeps a rhetorical question by saying “What have you done to us?” Another possible model is “How could you bring this trouble on us?” Revised English Bible uses a strong statement, saying “Now look what you have done to us.” Another possible exclamation is “Just look what has happened to us! It’s all your fault!”

And he said to them: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “But” (New Living Translation) or omitted (Good News Translation). The general verb said may be rendered “replied” (New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version) or “answered” (Good News Translation, New International Version).

As they did to me, so have I done to them: This is Samson’s answer to the people of Judah. He justifies his action, but seems unconcerned about all the destruction he has brought about or the threat his acts have brought on the people of Judah. Indeed, his answer seems almost childish. There is a stark contrast with the previous judges, who did what Yahweh told them to do, instead of deciding for themselves how to pay back Israel’s enemies. Samson uses much the same words as the Philistines in verse 15.10 (see comments there). The two parallel clauses in his response may be reversed by saying “I only did to them what they did to me.” Obviously Samson is making excuses and trying to justify himself.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then three thousand men from Judah went down to the cave of the rock at Etam, and they spoke harshly to Samson, “You know very well that the Philistines rule over us, so why have you brought this trouble on us?”
Samson replied, “I only did to them what they did to me!”

• Then three thousand soldiers of Judah went to Samson at the cave of Etam Rock and said [angrily] to him, “Don’t you realize what you have done to us? You know full well that the Philistines are our masters! Now look at what you have done!”
Samson replied, “What they did to me, I did to them!”

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

And Samson said to the lad who held him by the hand: Now the narrator makes clear how Samson, who was blind, got to the place between the columns. He was led there by a boy. We can imagine Samson bending over to whisper to the young person who was leading him. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be omitted (Good News Translation, New International Version) or translated “Then.” The lad who held him by the hand provides new information, presented by Contemporary English Version in reverse order: “A young man was leading Samson by the hand, and Samson said to him.”

Lad renders a Hebrew word (naʿar) meaning “young man” or “male servant” (see verse 7.10). It can refer to a bearer of arms, as in verse 9.54. Here it more likely refers to an attendant or prison guard. Though Good News Translation says “boy,” it is probably better to speak of a “servant” (New International Version) or “young man” (Contemporary English Version).

Who held him by the hand is literally “who seized him by the hand.” The Hebrew verb here comes from a root meaning “be strong.” This verb also reappears in verse 16.28, where it is translated “strengthen.” Here it might imply that Samson was handcuffed or bound to the person leading him. The word hand comes to the forefront once again and will play a crucial role in Samson’s victory. Translators should use terms that are appropriate for a blind person being led. We might say “who was leading him by the hand” (Good News Translation) or “who held him tightly by the hand.”

Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests: Samson surely has a plan and is directing the young person to position him where it is most strategic. In Hebrew this clause begins with two verbs, literally “Cause me to rest and let me touch….” Revised Standard Version seems to omit the first verb. Models that keep it are “Position me so I can touch…” ( NET Bible) and “Put me where I can feel…” (New International Version). The Hebrew verb for feel is an unusual one. It is also found in the story of Jacob and Esau, when Isaac asks to touch Jacob (Gen 27.21). Certainly, in his last act Samson is still mocking his adversaries, as he all but announces what his plan is.

The pillars on which the house rests refers to the many columns holding up Dagon’s temple. For pillars see verse 16.25. The house may also be rendered “the temple” (New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Rests renders a Hebrew verb meaning “set up” or “establish,” so we might say “the pillars on which the temple is built on” or “the columns supporting [or, holding up] the roof of the temple.”

That I may lean against them: Though Samson is already planning how he will bring about his final victory, here he is pretending to be weak and in need of support. But in reality he wants to be well placed to be able to carry out his plan. By stationing himself between the main pillars of Dagon’s temple, Samson knows that he can bring the structure down. He falsely claims he wants to lean on the pillars for support. Contemporary English Version communicates Samson’s ruse well by saying “I need to lean against something. Take me over to the columns that hold up the roof.” Translators may use indirect speech here, but the drama is heightened by keeping the direct quote.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Samson then said to the young man who had him by the hand, “Put me next to the pillars holding up the building so I can feel them and lean against them.”

• Samson asked the young guard who was leading him, “Position me next to the pillars supporting the roof so I can touch them and use them for support.”

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 is a good example of Hebrew’s love of repetition, as almost every phrase here has occurred previously.

And the five men who had gone to spy out the land …: See verse 18.14. Once again, the focus shifts back to the five Danite spies, obviously the leaders of the group. They were not brave heroes, but rather lowly Israelites set on robbing and defaming their own countrymen.

The Hebrew verb rendered went up (ʿalah) has a military sense here (see verse 1.1).

And entered and took is literally “they came there [and] they took.” Surprisingly, the Hebrew verbs here occur without the waw conjunction. The verb took links this episode back to the beginning of this whole story when Micah confessed to his mother that he “took” her silver (verse 17.2). Now the Danites in turn rob Micah! Translators should render took in the same way as in verse 17.2 to preserve the link back to Micah’s initial theft, since part of the message here is that Micah is being paid back for his bad actions.

The graven image, the ephod, the teraphim, and the molten image: See verse 17.3, verse 5. The order of the items in this list varies slightly from the order in verse 18.14. The separate mention of graven image and molten image would lead us to believe that these are indeed two rather than one image.

While the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred men armed with weapons of war renders an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “and the priest was standing by the entrance of the gate and the six hundred men armed with weapons of war.” This clause repeats previous expressions, and this repetition along with the picture presented here make it highly ironic. The young Levite stands helplessly as he watches the Danites confiscate the objects of worship. They came to ask about his “welfare/peace” (verse 18.15), but now they take away his livelihood with instruments of war. The priest refers to the young Levite whom Micah installed as his priest (see verse 17.12), even if he is not a true priest. Here again the narrator chooses his words with care, as the mere mention of the priest evokes strong irony. Translators should be careful to render the text as it stands and not put “the Levite” in place of the priest. For stood by the entrance of the gate, see verse 18.16; for six hundred men armed with weapons of war, see verse 18.11.

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 .