The leaders of the town of Succoth laugh in Gideon’s face. By asking a question, they show their refusal to come to the aid of Gideon and his men. However, the text does not say why these people respond in this way.

And the officials of Succoth said: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And is better translated “But” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version), since the leaders of Succoth refuse Gideon’s request for food. The Hebrew word rendered officials (sar), referring to the town leaders, is the same one translated “princes” in verse 8.3, so some irony may be intended (see comments on verse 4.2, where this word is rendered “commander”). In this context the verb said may be rendered “answered” (Contemporary English Version), “replied” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), or “asked.”

Are Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hand…? is a rhetorical question. There is a strong play on words here, as the leaders of Succoth mock Gideon. The Hebrew is literally “Is the palm of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand…?” The Hebrew word for “palm” refers to the inside of the hand, so they are saying “Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hands…?” which means “Have you already defeated Zebah and Zalmunna…?” Once again the word hand plays an important role in the book of Judges. The word already adds irony to this remark. Translators may be able to retain some of its flavor by saying “Do you already hold Zebah and Zalmunna in your hand…?” If this rendering is not possible, a freer translation may be needed, such as “Have you already captured Zebah and Zalmunna…?” In many languages a strong affirmation would be better than a question here, for example, “You haven’t even captured Zebah and Zalmunna yet…!”

That we should give bread to your army: This part of the question implies that there is no reason for the people of Succoth to give Gideon’s army food, since they have not yet earned it by defeating the enemy. The Hebrew word for bread is not preceded by the word for “loaves” as it is in verse 8.5, so here it seems to be a more direct reference to “food” (Good News Translation). For the Hebrew word rendered army, see the comments on verse 4.2. It may be translated “troops” or “soldiers.” Possible models here are “Do you really think we are going to give food to your army?” and “Why should we feed your soldiers?” In some languages it will be better to reverse the order of the two clauses in the question: “Why should we give your army any food? You haven’t captured Zebah and Zalmunna yet.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• But the leaders of Succoth said, “You haven’t even captured Zebah and Zalmunna! So why should we give your soldiers anything to eat?”

• But the leaders of Succoth replied, “Why should we give your army any food? Zebah and Zalmunna aren’t in your hands yet!”

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 .

Good News Translation and Revised English Bible introduce this fable with the words “Once upon a time.” In English this is a marker for a fairy tale and is quite appropriate. Translators could use similar introductory expressions from their language. Other possible introductory expressions are “One day” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) and “Once” (Contemporary English Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The trees once went forth …: The trees in this fable act like humans. The idea that trees could move about and that they could speak is, of course, a feature of a fable, a literary genre in many languages. The Hebrew word for trees is a generic one, referring to all trees. Went forth renders an emphatic Hebrew expression, which is literally “going they went.” It uses the Hebrew verb meaning “go” twice, first as an infinitive and then as a finite verb (compare verse 8.25, where the verb for “give” is repeated). Went forth may be rendered “decided together to go,” as a way of showing the trees’ determination.

To anoint a king over them: This is a purpose clause indicating the trees’ intention, which is to appoint a king for themselves. The Hebrew verb rendered anoint (mashach) is a key term in this passage and in many other parts of the Old Testament, describing a part of the ritual of setting apart a king or a priest. It refers specifically to putting olive oil on a person’s head to consecrate him. It is the root behind the Hebrew word meaning “messiah” or “chosen one.” Here its use is certainly ironic. People hearing this fable would either be laughing or shaking their heads in disbelief. Many languages will not have a word for anoint, so another expression will have to be used. It is the setting apart of the king rather than the actual pouring out of oil that seems most important here, thus Good News Translation uses the verb “choose.” Other possible verbs are “set up” and “establish.” However, such renderings remove some of the irony present here. King renders the same Hebrew word melek used in verse 9.6 and translators should use the same word as is used throughout the Old Testament texts. The pronoun them refers to the trees. In some languages kings are not over people, so translators may have to use other expressions for this whole clause, for example, “to appoint someone to be their king” or “to make someone their king.”

And they said to the olive tree: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, but a better connector here would be “So” (New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible), which is a particularly appropriate conjunction in English for folktales or fables. The pronoun they refers to the trees. The olive tree is one of the most productive and useful trees in Israel. Its fruit can be eaten and its oil used for cooking, dressing wounds, and softening the skin. In Israel this oil also played an important role in rituals, especially in the preparation of some sacrifices and in the anointing of kings (verse 1 Sam 10.1; verse 16.13). Also the olive tree lives longer than most trees. In many books of the Old Testament, especially in poetic passages, olive trees and olive oil represent prosperity, fertility, and well-being. Thus, in this story, the trees turn first to this very important tree to become their leader or king. If the olive tree is unknown, a longer expression will have to be used, for example, “tree that produces the fruit called ‘olivi.’ ” However, since this is a fable, the shortest possible form should be used. The word olive is needed throughout the Bible (see, for example, Gen 8.11; Exo 23.11; Matt 21.1; verse 24.3; Rom 11.17, 24), so in most translations the word is transliterated and explained in the glossary.

Reign over us: The Hebrew verb rendered Reign (malak) comes from the same root as the noun for king. This verb is not the same one used previously when the Israelites asked Gideon to rule over them (verse 8.22). Good models for this clause are “Be our king” (New International Version) and “Will you be our king?” (Contemporary English Version).

Translation models for this verse are:

• One day the trees of the forest decided to choose someone as king. So they said to Olive Tree, ‘Please be our king!’

• Once upon a time the trees set out to appoint a king for themselves. So they found the Olive Tree and said, ‘Will you be our king?’

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 .

Following his last victory, Abimelech now plans another attack on Shechem. The text does not tell what motivates this attack, though it is likely he is seeking to punish the people of Shechem because they supported Gaal instead of him. So this attack could be a simple case of revenge.

He took his men is literally “And he took the people.” The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this verse may be rendered “So” (New International Version). The Hebrew text is slightly confusing, since “the people” does not refer to the people of Shechem, but rather to Abimelech’s supporters. So Revised Standard Version and many other versions make it clear that Abimelech took his men. It is possible that once again the narrator is poking fun at these events, since in other books of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for “people” (ʿam) often refers to God’s chosen people, Israel. It will be very difficult to render this irony in the translation.

And divided them into three companies: The verbs took and divided may be viewed as representing a single action or two separate ones. We can say “He gathered his men and then divided them…” or simply “Abimelech divided his men….” In the previous episode Abimelech divided his men into four groups, but this time he divides them into three companies, as his father Gideon once did (verse 7.16). For companies (literally “heads”), see verse 9.34.

And laid wait in the fields: Abimelech uses a similar strategy as before. See verse 9.32.

And he looked and saw the men coming out of the city … is literally “and he looked and behold the people were coming out of the city….” The use of the Hebrew word hinneh (“behold”) shows this sentence is another high point or climax in the story. He looked and saw does not convey the suspense of the original text. A good storyteller might draw out the suspense by saying “And when he saw the people coming out of the city…” or “And just when he spied the people coming out of the town….” Some languages will have a special “surprise” particle or an ideophone that would be appropriate here. As in the previous verse, men renders the Hebrew word for “people.” To avoid confusion, the men may be rendered “the people of Shechem.” Coming out renders the same Hebrew verb translated “went out” in the previous verse. Here it is a participle, since it follows hinneh and emphasizes the current situation. The city is Shechem.

And he rose against them and slew them: While the previous clause slows down the action and creates suspense, these short direct clauses express the climax of this episode. Once again the Hebrew verb qum rendered rose is used to show an Israelite “judge” fighting the enemy, even if he is an “anti-hero”! Here the verb seems to also express determination and rapidity. The Hebrew verb rendered slew (nakah) is literally “struck” (see comments on verse 1.4, where it is translated “defeated”). Here some versions prefer to render it “attacked” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible). However, it could also be translated “killed” (New Revised Standard Version) as a summary of what happened. Translators might say “he and his men attacked them and killed them.” Contemporary English Version has “he and his army rushed out from their hiding places and attacked,” and Good News Translation is similar with “he came out of hiding to kill them.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• Abimelech divided his men into three groups and hid in the fields. Then when he saw the people coming out of the city, he and his men jumped up and killed 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 at the end of two months …: Jephthah’s daughter returned from wandering and weeping in the hills after two months just as she had promised (see verse 11.37). And renders the Hebrew expression wayehi (literally “And it was”). Several versions omit this expression (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), but some retain it. It slows down the narrative and shows a new episode is beginning. Thus King James Version says “And it came to pass.” At the end of two months is literally “from the end of two months.” We might say “So it happened after two months had passed that….”

She returned to her father: Returned renders the key Hebrew verb shuv (see verse 2.19). Part of the beauty of this book is the way the author uses the same verbs over and over, with a wide variety of meanings. The phrase to her father underlines the girl’s obedience. There seems to be no hint here of ill feeling, anger, or rebellion on her part.

Who did with her according to his vow which he had made: This clause is independent and quite emphatic in Hebrew, literally “and he did to her his vow that he had vowed.” The Hebrew verb meaning “do” comes to the forefront once again (see verse 11.36-37). The word vow is certainly in focus here, and closes the inclusio begun in verse 11.30. In many languages it will be hard to keep the emphasis here, but possible models are “He fulfilled the vow he had made” and “He did exactly as he had promised.” The style here is subdued, with no reference to ritual killing and sacrifice. However, the use of the verb did seems to imply that he literally sacrificed his own daughter.

She had never known a man is literally “And she, she did not know a man,” which means she never had sexual relations. Throughout the Old Testament the Hebrew verb here is a euphemism for sexual relations, within or outside marriage (see, for example, Gen 4.17, 25). The placement and structure of this clause in Hebrew convey a sad note. The hope of parents is to see their children grown and married. Good News Translation says “and she died still a virgin” (similarly New Living Translation, Revised English Bible), but this model says more than the text. In English Contemporary English Version is better with “and she never got married,” a euphemistic but natural way to speak of her virginity.

And it became a custom in Israel: This clause introduces the tradition described in the next verse. Good News Translation puts a paragraph break here to show that it links directly with what follows, but this seems unnecessary. Custom renders a Hebrew noun that can refer to a regular practice or a law. However, there is no other reference to this custom in the Bible.

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 flame went up toward heaven from the altar: This verse begins with the Hebrew expression wayehi (“And it was”), which here marks an important point in the story, since Manoah will realize for the first time that this messenger is really from the LORD. Revised Standard Version renders this expression as And, but many versions omit it (Good News Translation, New International Version). For some interpreters it is Manoah who sets fire to his offering. For others part of the “amazing thing” is that the offering is consumed by itself, presumably by divine intervention, as in the Gideon episode. Translators will have to choose one of these interpretations. The flame refers to the burst of fire that consumed the offering. Went up renders the same Hebrew verb translated “offered” in the previous verse, but here it has its basic meaning of “go up.” Contemporary English Version says “blazed up,” which fits this context well. Toward heaven is literally “to the heavens,” which gives the direction of the flames. The Hebrew word for heaven (shamayim) refers to the sky here, so we might say “toward the sky” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation), “up into the sky,” or “skyward.” The word heaven should not be capitalized. For altar, which refers to the rock altar here, see verse 2.2.

The angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar: This clause describes an incredible event. Yahweh’s angel (still not recognized by the couple) rises in the fire and disappears from sight. Of course, this is not the only place where the presence of the LORD is associated with fire (see, for example, Exo 3.2). Ascended renders the same Hebrew verb translated went up.

While Manoah and his wife looked on: All this happens as Manoah and his wife watch. They see the angel go up in the flames. Looked on renders the Hebrew verb raʾah meaning “see,” which occurs often in this section (verse 13.3, 10, 19-23). Here it is participle, which is used to indicate an action that occurred at the same time as the angel ascended in the fire. This same clause occurs at the end of the previous verse in Hebrew, but its rightful place is probably here (see comments there).

And they fell on their faces to the ground: Presumably, Manoah and his wife are in shock, as they begin to realize who their visitor was (compare the description of Gideon in verse 6.22). The clause here is brief, indicating a quick immediate action. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the next event, so it may be translated “Then.” They fell on their faces to the ground renders a common Hebrew expression, one that implies awe and reverence. Manoah and his wife bowed low with their faces to the ground out of respect for the LORD’s angel. There is an element of contrast here, since they “go down” as the angel and the flame “go up.” In this book the Hebrew verb for fell (nafal) is often used to describe the death of Israel’s enemies (see, for example, verse 5.27), but here it refers to bowing down. Ground translates the Hebrew word ʾerets, which often refers to the Promised Land in Judges (see verse 1.2), but here it points simply to the ground. Often the same words are being used over and over, but in each context with a different meaning. This clause may be rendered “Then they fell with their faces to the ground,” “Then they bowed down low to the ground in awe,” or “And they bowed low with their faces to the ground and worshiped God.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• When the flames rose into the sky from the altar, Yahweh’s messenger rose with them while Manoah and his wife watched. Then they both fell with their faces to the ground and worshiped God.

• As Manoah and his wife watched, the flames of fire went up from the altar, and the angel of the LORD went up with them. And Manoah and his wife bowed low to the ground in worship.

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 .

It is somewhat tragic that in trying to avenge the act of his father-in-law, Samson brought about the death of his own wife. He responds to their deaths with an oath. Though the narrator does not give any details, it would appear at this point that Samson is once again in Timnah.

And Samson said to them. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” or “So.” The pronoun them refers to the Philistines who killed Samson’s wife and her father. Given the content of this speech, the general verb said may be rendered “vowed” (New Living Translation).

If this is what you do is a conditional clause, but it refers to a real rather than a hypothetical action, so it may be rendered “Since this is what you do.” The demonstrative pronoun this refers to the killing of Samson’s wife and her father. Contemporary English Version tries to make this explicit with “You killed them!” Samson’s anger is once again directed against the Philistines, this time for the murder of his wife and her father. Do renders the general Hebrew verb that can also mean “make.” Here it can indicate a frequent or habitual action. We might say “Since this is how you act” or “Since you behave like this.”

I swear I will be avenged upon you, and after that I will quit: Revised Standard Version does not reflect the structure of these clauses in Hebrew, and adds the phrase I swear. The Hebrew is literally “indeed, if I avenge myself on you, and afterward I will cease.” ver RSVver* is correct in thinking Samson is making a vow or resolution. I swear may be an attempt at rendering the Hebrew particle ki (“indeed”), which emphasizes Samson’s vow. The Hebrew verb rendered be avenged means “take vengeance” or “pay [someone] back” for the evil that person has done. The same Hebrew root occurs in verse 11.36 (see comments there). It also reappears in Samson’s speech before his final act of vengeance (verse 16.28). Contemporary English Version says “get even,” which may not be strong enough for the degree of vengeance here. Upon you may not need to be expressed in some languages.

And after that I will quit follows the Hebrew closely. Quit may be rendered “stop” (Good News Translation, New International Version), “rest” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation), or “cease.” In some languages this verb may need an object. If so, we might say “then I will stop taking vengeance.” In other languages in may be helpful to place this clause before the previous one, for example, “I won’t stop until I get my revenge on you” (New International Version) or “I won’t rest till I get even with you” (Contemporary English Version).

Translation models for this verse are:

• So Samson said to the Philistines, “Since this is the way you behave, then [I warn you] I won’t stop until I have my revenge on you.”

• Then Samson said to the Philistines, “Because you have done this thing, [I swear to you that] I will have my revenge. Only then will I rest.”

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 .

Though very brief, this verse signals an important turning point in the narrative. The narrator is sharing information with his audience that the actors in the stories do not know. Thus suspense is high.

But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since it introduces a surprising development. Everyone, especially the Philistines, think the story is “over,” but it is not. Translators should try to convey the suspense here, perhaps by drawing out the transition by saying, for example, “But in the meantime” or “But as he was there.”

The hair of his head began to grow again: This reference to Samson’s hair growing back hints that Samson’s strength is going to return. If his strength returns, then readers can expect Samson’s fate to change. Since the hair of his head will be redundant in many languages, it may be rendered simply “his hair” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version; compare verse 16.13). Began to grow again is literally “began to sprout.” Translators should use a natural expression in their language, for example, “started growing back” (Good News Translation).

After it had been shaved is literally “since it had been shaved,” which repeats information that is already known. Thus Good News Translation and some other versions think this clause is redundant, so they omit it. However, some languages may prefer to keep it and place it before the previous clause (see second model below).

This verse provides crucial information for the story that follows, so translators need to express the surprise here, perhaps through the use of an exclamation point. Possible translation models for this verse are:

• But in the meantime, Samson’s hair began to grow again!

• But, though Samson’s head had been shaved, his hair began to grow back again!

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 .