This climactic verse describes with much poetic effect, the outcome of Jael’s act. There are numerous repetitive expressions with the verb sank appearing three times, the verb fell three times, and the phrase at her feet twice, all of which lead up to the climax, the final word dead. This is an outstanding example of Old Testament parallelism building up to a final line. There is a strong similarity here to the description of King Eglon, when his servants found him lying dead on the ground (verse 3.25). In Hebrew the order of the phrases in this verse is slightly different from Revised Standard Version as follows:

Between her feet he sank, he fell, he lay.
Between her feet he sank, he fell.
Where he sank, there he fell, dead!

Hebrew uses a quick succession of verbs, but translators need to reflect on how to best express this scene in their own language, using stylistic devices appropriate to this poetic genre.

He sank, he fell, he lay still at her feet: As in some climaxes in the Old Testament, whether narrative or poetic, the main characters are not named but referred to by pronouns. The pronoun He refers to Sisera, and the pronoun her to Jael. Translators will have to determine if this style is acceptable in their language. If not, the names Sisera and Jael can be made explicit.

Sank renders a Hebrew verb meaning “bow down” (karaʿ) which is used in a variety of contexts in the Old Testament, for example, “bow down” to drink, “bow down” in respect, and “crouch” in childbirth. It can even have sexual connotations (“bow down over”). This verb occurs later in the book of Judges as Jephthah expresses his sadness to his daughter by saying, “you have brought me very low” (verse 11.35). In Hebrew He sank follows directly after at her feet. Though this clause describes the physical act of Sisera “slumping,” “dropping” or “crumbling” to the ground at Jael’s feet, it may mock this enemy of Israel as he is made to “bow down,” not only to a member of the enemy, but to a woman. Some languages may need to add “to the ground” after the verb sank even though at her feet has already been specified. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say he “sank to his knees,” but this rendering poses some problem, since it would contradict the account in verse 4.21, where he was actually lying down asleep. So it is better to not use this rendering as a model here.

He fell uses the keyword “fall” (nafal in Hebrew), which is often associated with the defeat of Israel’s enemies (see, for example, verse 3.25; verse 4.16, 22). Though this verb and the preceding one seem to portray movement down from a height, both in the case of King Eglon and the narrative account of Sisera’s death, it seems to describe someone lying flat.

Lay still renders a single verb in Hebrew. Revised Standard Version has added the word still to express the fact that Sisera is motionless on the ground. The verb literally means “lie down,” and it is used to refer to actual sleeping, but also often to express death. Like the verb for sank, it also is used at times with sexual connotations. In this context translators can find idiomatic expressions to express the idea of death. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “lay outstretched,” and Revised English Bible has “lay prone.” We may say “was sprawled out” or “was unmoving.” In many languages this idea may be expressed with ideophones.

At her feet (literally “between her feet”) begins this verse in Hebrew. Revised Standard Version, along with others, puts this phrase at the end of the line, and then maintains the Hebrew order in the next line. However, keeping the Hebrew order can demonstrate the parallelism and maintain the emphasis here. The position of Sisera lying at the feet of Jael, a woman, highlights her victory and his defeat. It is also possible that the word feet adds irony to the scene, since this word is often used in Hebrew for many bodily functions. This phrase may be rendered “in front of her.”

At her feet he sank, he fell repeats the scene, using the same terms from the first line. The repetition reinforces the emotional impact.

Where he sank, there he fell dead: This rendering follows the Hebrew very closely, maintaining the rhythm. Translators should try to imitate this style. Taking this line literally, it means that once Sisera was pierced by the tent peg, he was killed in one fell swoop. Translators may have an idiomatic expression or ideophone that conveys this idea. For sank and fell, see the comments above. As with the description of King Eglon’s death (verse 3.25), the climactic word dead appears at the very end of the sentence, where it seems to jump out and surprise the reader or hearer. This is certainly the technique of a very skilled poet. However, the Hebrew word rendered dead is not the same one used to describe King Eglon. The verb here is a passive participle meaning “destroyed violently,” “devastated,” “ruined.” So New American Bible says “slain,” while New Jerusalem Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh have “destroyed.” Translators can try to find a close equivalent or use the same word as in 3.25, which is what Revised Standard Version and some others do. Once again an ideophone or some idiomatic expression, such as “stone dead,” may be effective.

Translators need to reflect on how to best render this high point in the song. Some languages will appreciate the repetition, but this should be avoided if it makes the translation heavy. For example, Good News Translation‘s rendering seems far from poetic. Contemporary English Version chooses to reduce the lines to two, which may makes them less emphatic and removes the effect of surprise. Nevertheless, it captures the finality of the victory of Jael over Sisera as follows:

Sisera sank to his knees
and fell dead at her feet.

If the target language prefers short sentences, rather than repetitive ones at the climax of a story, a possible model is:

• At her feet, he sank to the ground,
at her feet, motionless and still.
Where he sank, there Sisera lay: dead!

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 Joash said to all who were arrayed against him: But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, since it has a contrastive function here. All who were arrayed against him (literally “all who stood against/on him”) describes the townspeople. Many versions take this expression literally. For example, New Jerusalem Bible has “the people all crowding round him.” Others express it more figuratively. For example, Good News Translation says “all those who confronted him,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “all who had risen against him.” Contemporary English Version reorders this whole clause, saying “The crowd pushed closer and closer, but Joash replied.” Translators can imagine the scene and describe it in an effective way.

Will you contend for Baal?: As Baal’s priest, Joash seems surprised and indignant at the crowd’s animosity. Through this rhetorical question, Joash asks the people whether they will take his place as priest and speak on behalf of the god Baal. The Hebrew verb rendered contend (riv) is part of judicial language, often used in court cases or lawsuits. It appears three times in this verse and is clearly in focus. It can mean “take sides,” “make a case,” or “defend.” Good News Translation renders this question as “Are you arguing for Baal?” while Revised English Bible says “Are you pleading Baal’s cause then?” Contemporary English Version has “Are you trying to take revenge for Baal?” which may be saying slightly more than the text. The rhetorical question will be effective in most languages, but in some, an exclamation may be better, such as “You dare to take Baal’s side!” In Hebrew there is an independent pronoun for you in this question and the next one, so these accusations spotlight the townspeople. To express this emphasis, we might say “Are you the ones who will defend Baal?” or “So you’re the ones who will defend Baal?”

Or will you defend his cause? is literally “or will you save him?” This rhetorical question does not use the judicial word defend, but rather the key Hebrew verb (yashaʿ) of this book meaning “deliver,” “save,” or “rescue” (see comments on verse 2.16). This term is often used to describe the mission of the judges in Israel, so this question is filled with bitter irony. New International Version says “Are you trying to save him?” Translators might express some of the irony with “Are you the ones coming to his rescue?” If rhetorical questions are not effective in this context, strong statements can be used, for example, “Surely you wouldn’t dare to defend Baal! Surely you would not try to save him!” At first glance these two questions might be interpreted as asking the people to defend Baal. But clearly, given the following lines, the questions are accusatory, underlining the Israelites’ idolatry and their unfaithfulness to the LORD. However, Joash’s abrupt change in attitude may be an attempt to save himself or his son from the crowd. In Old Testament times the audience usually was familiar with the various developments in the story and its outcome. These questions in the mouth of Gideon’s father take on even more irony considering that at the end of this long episode, Gideon will follow in his father’s footsteps by building an unholy altar in his own courtyard.

Whoever contends for him shall be put to death by morning: Joash makes a direct threat against those opposing Gideon, and the act he carried out. Thus it is clear he has begun to “change sides,” defending his son’s act. Though he does not say who will carry out the sentence, Joash threatens with death anyone who tries to defend or vindicate Baal. Whoever means “anyone who” or “the person who.” Contends is the same verb used above. The pronoun him refers to the god Baal. Shall be put to death renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “die” (see verse 6.30). It is not clear if Joash is thinking that he or others will execute the offender or whether perhaps God himself will punish the person. Because of this uncertain meaning, translators should try to be as general as possible, retaining an expression like shall be put to death. For example, Good News Translation says “will be killed.” By morning is literally “until the morning.” It means “before/by the time the sun comes up,” which may be a more emphatic way to express the idea. Contemporary English Version says “before another day dawns.” Morning repeats the word from verse 6.28, thus forming an inclusio around this passage. In some languages this sentence can be recast as a condition-consequence by saying “If anyone tries to take Baal’s side, before morning, that person will die.”

For the first half of this verse we suggest:

• But Joash said to all those who opposed him, “Would you dare to defend Baal? Can you save him? If anyone of you tries to defend Baal, that person will be dead before morning!

• But Joash said to those who stood against him, “You cannot defend Baal! You cannot save him! If any of you try, you will die before the sun comes up!

If he is a god, let him contend for himself: Joash says with some irony that Baal can look after his own interests. In some languages the conditional particle If may be better rendered “Since.” If here introduces what is known as an “unreal condition,” asserting the opposite: Baal is not a god. Translators should try to express this idea in their rendering of this statement. Joash is trying to reason with the people. Here again there is another indication that Joash has either had a change of heart or is simply trying to save his and his son’s lives. The pronoun he refers to Baal, and may need to be specified to avoid confusion (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The Hebrew word for god is ʾelohim, the same one that can be used for the true God or other deities. Almost all versions take this reference to ʾelohim to be god, with a lowercase “g.” It is not a reference to the LORD God. We might say “If Baal has divine power…” or “If Baal is really someone to be worshiped….”

Let him contend for himself renders another subjunctive expression in Hebrew, so it is a challenge to Baal to act. Joash’s message is that it is Baal himself, and not the townspeople, who should fight his cause. The verb contend occurs for the third time in this verse. This clause may be rendered “he should fight for himself” or “he can fight for himself.”

Because his altar has been pulled down: Because renders the Hebrew conjunction ki, which can introduce a reason, some kind of background information, or an emphatic statement. Its interpretation will depend on how the next words are understood and translated. The text seems to literally say “because he has pulled down his altar.” The problem here is it is unclear who Joash is claiming pulled down the altar. Is it Baal, Gideon, or a neutral “someone”? Revised Standard Version opts for the last interpretation and uses an agentless passive construction: his altar has been pulled down. Similar renderings are “It is his altar that was torn down” (Good News Translation), “it is his altar that has been torn down” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “someone has torn down his altar” (Revised English Bible). If the text is taken literally, it could imply that Baal himself tore down his own altar. It is possible that Joash is lying or trying to trick the people, in order to save his son’s life, but no version seems to favor this interpretation. On the other hand, New Jerusalem Bible thinks Joash is referring to Gideon, and this is made explicit in that translation. Indeed, in the following verse (verse 6.32) the exact same clause occurs, and there it unambiguously has this meaning. For the Hebrew verb rendered pulled down, see verse 6.28, where it is translated “broken down.”

Translation models for the last half of this verse are:

• If Baal really is a god, then let him defend himself. After all, it is his altar that was pulled down.”

• If Baal has divine power, let him fight for himself against the person who tore his altar down!”

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 .

Gideon goes on to explain in plain language what he said in figurative speech. However, he adds that God is the one who gave the Ephraimites their special victory. Evidently Gideon’s flattery is effective, since their anger subsides.

God has given into your hands the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb: Gideon wants to flatter his hearers so he tries to underline the fact that it is God who has given them the victory. The use of the generic Hebrew word for God (ʾelohim) is surprising, since Gideon and the Ephraimites know and worship Yahweh (compare verse 7.14). Nevertheless, translators should follow the original text. For has given into your hands, see verse 1.2. Once again the keyword hand is used in the description of an Israelite victory. The word rendered into your hands is in focus at the beginning of this sentence in Hebrew. Contemporary English Version begins this sentence well with “God chose you to capture….” For the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb, see verse 7.25.

What have I been able to do in comparison with you? is literally “What was I able to do like you?” This rhetorical question is similar to the one in verse 8.2. Here Gideon has added the Hebrew verb meaning “can” or “be able,” which seems to make the question more emphatic. Once again we can maintain the question or express it as a strong statement by saying “What I did is nothing in comparison with what you did!”

Then their anger against him was abated, when he had said this: Gideon succeeds in appeasing the Ephraimites’ anger by playing on their sense of pride. This clause is introduced by a Hebrew conjunction (ʾaz) stronger than the typical waw connector. Then or “Thus” is an appropriate rendering. Their anger against him was abated is literally “their spirit sank/relaxed from him.” This idiomatic expression may be rendered “their anger with him died down” (New Jerusalem Bible), “their anger against him subsided” (New American Bible), “they calmed down” ( NET Bible), or “they stopped being angry.” The Hebrew clause rendered when he had said this has a play on words that involves the Hebrew root d-b-r, which was mentioned in verse 8.1. Here the root occurs twice as follows: “when he spoke (d-b-r) the word (d-b-r) this.” In many languages it will be more natural to put this temporal clause at the beginning of the sentence. For example, Good News Translation says “When he said this, they were no longer so angry.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• God delivered Oreb and Zeeb, those two important Midianite leaders, into your hands! What I have done is nothing compared with what you have done!” When he said this, the Ephraimites calmed down and were no longer angry.

• God chose you to kill the Midianite leaders, Oreb and Zeeb. What have I done to compare with that?” When the Ephraimites heard these words, their anger died down.

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 went to his father’s house at Ophrah: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). There was probably a short time lapse as Abimelech prepared for and made this journey. The pronoun he may be rendered “they” or “Abimelech and his men,” since it is almost certain that Abimelech took his followers with him. His father’s house was Gideon’s home (see verse 8.29), which can be made explicit: “his father Gideon’s house.” Though Hebrew uses the word for house, here it obviously refers to a compound or set of houses. As is common in many cultures today, Gideon’s seventy sons probably lived with their families nearby or within the compound of their father. The distance Abimelech traveled was not too far since Shechem was at the border between the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh, while Ophrah was further north in Manasseh (see comments on verse 6.11). We might say “Then Abimelech and his followers left Shechem and traveled to his father’s house at Ophrah.”

And slew his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, upon one stone: In Hebrew the clauses in this verse come one after the other, almost without comment. Nevertheless, the swiftness and brutality of this act comes as a surprise. Abimelech and his men massacre his half-brothers who lived at home with their father. Translators will have to decide whether or not to present this clause as an independent sentence, and how to link it to those that follow. Once again the numbers seventy and one come to the forefront. The narrator does not give the number of the men accompanying Abimelech on this mission, but they were probably many, since seventy sons could do nothing to prevent this massacre. For the Hebrew verb rendered slew, see the comments on verse 8.17. It may be translated “killed” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or “put to death.” However, since Abimelech killed his own brothers, some languages may prefer to use a more emotive verb, such as “murdered” (Contemporary English Version), “butchered” (Revised English Bible), “slaughtered,” or “massacred.” The word brothers, referring to Abimelech’s half-brothers, renders the same Hebrew word (ʾach) used throughout this passage (see verse 9.1, where it is translated “kinsmen”). Even though some languages have ways of speaking of “half-brothers,” it is better to keep the word brothers, a key term in this passage. Whether half-brothers or not, these people are his flesh and blood. This event foreshadows the horrible civil war to come in Israel, in which hundreds of thousands of brothers slaughter each other. The storyteller is careful to underline that these brothers are the sons of Jerubbaal, which is a way to bring the name of the god Baal to the forefront again. This phrase also slows down the flow of the story, and lends some emotion. The three phrases, his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal and seventy men, all refer to the same group, and should all be kept, but translators are free to combine them in ways that are natural in the target language. For example, translators may say “the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, all his brothers” or “all the other sons of Jerubbaal, his seventy brothers.”

Upon one stone is the only detail given of this terrible massacre. All these half-brothers were killed in the same place: on top of a large rock, probably on Gideon’s property. The text does not say if the brothers were killed with a sword or a knife, though killing on a rock suggests a kind of ritual killing, as if on an altar, a detail that evokes pity and sadness, if not horror. The number one echoes the “one” ruler that Abimelech proposed to the people of Shechem (verse 9.2). One stone has the sense of “same stone,” meaning they were all killed at the same place. Stone is better rendered “large rock” (Contemporary English Version). For this whole phrase Revised English Bible proposes “on a single stone block,” which is a good model to follow.

But Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left: According to this text, not all of Gideon’s seventy sons died, since one son, Jotham, escaped. But renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which introduces an exception here. Jotham was the name of Gideon’s youngest son, and an appropriate expression can be used here. There is certainly a note of irony here, since it is usually the oldest son who is considered the heir and hero of the family. As in the Joseph story, it is a younger child who shows himself more capable than the older siblings. Jotham’s age is not given here, but later passages make it clear that he was probably a young adult. The name Jerubbaal occurs for the second time in this verse, continuing the repetitive sound of the pagan god’s name. Was left means Jotham was the only son who survived the massacre. We can say he “escaped” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or “survived” (Revised English Bible). The Hebrew root for was left is the same one used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to the “remnant” in Israel, so there may be yet another bit of irony intended here (see also verse 21.7).

For he hid himself states the reason Jotham survived. The Hebrew conjunction ki rendered for can be translated “because” or “since.” He evidently ran away and hid himself somewhere. The Hebrew reflexive verb here can be rendered more simply as “hid” (Good News Translation), “hid out,” or “went into hiding.” This verb evokes the first part of the Gideon cycle when Gideon himself hid from the Midianites (verse 6.11). In some languages it will be necessary to make it explicit that he “ran away and hid.” This explanatory clause and the preceding one can be reversed. For example, Good News Translation says “But Jotham, Gideon’s youngest son, hid and was not killed.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then Abimelech and his men went to Gideon’s home in Ophrah, and there they slaughtered Abimelech’s seventy brothers on a single rock. However, the youngest brother, Jotham, survived the massacre because he ran away and hid.

• Then Abimelech went to Jerubbaal’s house in Ophrah and took the other sons of Jerubbaal, his seventy brothers, and killed them all on the same stone slab. But Jotham, the youngest son, hid and thus escaped.

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 .

Abimelech’s army defeats Gaal and the leaders of Shechem, killing many of them and causing the rest to flee.

And Abimelech chased him: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which is a possible rendering. A few versions propose “But” (New Living Translation, New American Bible) in this context. Contemporary English Version makes explicit that Abimelech refers to “Abimelech and his troops.” The pronoun him refers to Gaal, but includes his army as well, so we might say “Gaal and his men.”

And he fled before him: From the start of this surprise attack, it is clear Abimelech had the upper hand. The pronoun he refers to Gaal and his army, and the pronoun him to Abimelech and his army. Fled renders the same Hebrew verb (nus) used often to describe enemies running away from the Israelites (verse 1.6; verse 4.15; verse 7.21; verse 8.12), and may be translated “ran” or “tried to escape.” The text does not say which direction Gaal and his men ran, but the end of the verse reveals that many were killed at the entrance of Shechem’s gate. It is very possible that the men standing at the open gate retreated and went back into Shechem for safety. Contemporary English Version says “ran back into the town.”

And many fell wounded means many of Gaal’s men were killed. Translators need to read this section out loud to determine which connectors fit the context. Here the conjunction and may be rendered “but,” since despite their flight, many of them were caught and killed. Many may be expressed as “many of Gaal’s men” or “a great number of Gaal’s men.” Fell renders the same Hebrew verb (nafal) used to describe the defeat of many Israelite enemies, including King Eglon (verse 3.25) and General Sisera (verse 5.27), as they lay sprawled on the ground. Some versions think these men were just wounded (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version), while others say they were “killed” (Contemporary English Version; similarly Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Given the use of the word fell in other judges’ stories, it seems fairly certain that at least some of Gaal’s men died (compare verse 1 Sam 17.52). Translators should look for an idiomatic expression in their language which carries some of the impact and emotion expressed in the phrase fell wounded, such as “were cut down.”

Up to the entrance of the gate: See verse 9.35. It seems that while some of Gaal’s men retreated safely to Shechem, many were killed and their bodies flung here and there outside the town. Revised English Bible says “The ground was strewn with corpses all the way to the entrance of the gate.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• But Gaal and his men fled, and Abimelech and his troops pursued them. A great number of them were struck dead and their corpses were strewn about, all the way to the town gate.

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 .

What is unusual here is that the consequence of the vow is never made explicit. Though Contemporary English Version tries to make it explicit in verse 11.36 by adding “even if it means I must die,” the text never talks overtly of this act. This is perhaps why some scholars believe that Jephthah’s daughter was not offered as a sacrifice, but rather had to give up marriage and having children as a response to the vow. However, many believe she was truly sacrificed to the LORD. Because of this ambiguity in the text, translators should take great care in rendering the text as it stands, without adding or subtracting any elements.

And she said to her father: This quote frame may seem unusual, since the girl is still speaking. We may say “Then the daughter added.” In some cultures it will be important for the daughter to address her father, so another possible model is “And she added, ‘Father….’ ” Some versions simply omit this quote frame (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible).

Let this thing be done for me is a literal rendering of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew verb meaning “do” occurs for the third time in this episode (see verse 11.36). While it is possible that this thing refers to Jephthah’s vow, it is more likely that it refers to the request his daughter is about to make. Thing renders the Hebrew word dabar, which can also mean “word” or “affair.” We might say “Allow me this one thing,” “Grant me this one favor,” or “Let me do this one thing.”

Let me alone two months …: This is the request the daughter makes. Let … alone renders a Hebrew verb that means “relax,” “abandon,” or “drop.” Here its sense is quite clear. The daughter wishes to be set free for a period of time so that she can do something important for herself. The period of two months may have had some significance, but it is not clear what that might have been.

That I may go and wander on the mountains: The Hebrew text here is literally “and let me go and I will go down on the mountains.” The Hebrew verb rendered may go is jussive. Like Revised Standard Version, many versions change the Hebrew text to read wander instead “go down,” but Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text. The verb “go down” (yarad in Hebrew) suggests that the mountains are below the plateau where this story takes place. In the book of Judges this verb is often associated with military action (see verse 1.9), but here it seems to refer to “wandering” or “roaming” in the mountains as part of an expression of grief. New American Bible says “that I may go off down the mountains,” and Revised English Bible has “that I may roam the hills.”

And bewail my virginity: The daughter wants to lament or mourn the fact that she is still a virgin and will, in effect, never have sexual relations with a man. As a consequence of her father’s hasty vow, this young woman will never marry and bear children. Perhaps part of the sadness for her is that her father will never have an heir, since she is his only child. Depending on the interpretation of this passage (whether the young woman is actually ritually sacrificed or not), she may be mourning that her life will be cut short. Bewail renders a jussive form of the Hebrew verb meaning “cry” (see verse 2.4, where it is translated “wept”). It may be rendered “cry over.” New International Version says “and weep … because I will never marry.”

I and my companions: The daughter wants to go off and mourn with her companions. These are her female friends, probably the same age. She will not go into the mountains alone, but her friends will accompany her. Some versions place this phrase earlier in the verse. Contemporary English Version, for example, says “But first, please let me spend two months, wandering in the hill country with my friends. We will cry together, because I can never marry and have children.” Another possible model for this verse is:

• Then she requested her father to allow her one thing. She said, “Let me go away for two months to wander on the hills with my friends and to mourn the fact that I will never marry [or, will always be a virgin].”

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 angel of the LORD said to him …: The angel responds with his own question, and thus seems to refuse to tell Manoah who he is. As the story moves on, the angel never does reveal his name. This response is similar to that of the divine messenger in Gen 32.29, who also refused to reveal who he was. It is in contrast to the response of Yahweh in Exo 3.14, where he revealed himself. The general verb said may be rendered “replied” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version) or “asked” (Good News Translation) in this context.

Why do you ask my name…? may be rendered “Why do you ask who I am?” For the significance of name, see the comments on verse 13.17.

Seeing it is wonderful is literally “and it is marvelous,” which means the angel’s name is too wonderful or incomprehensible for Manoah to understand. Wonderful (Hebrew peliʾ) is not the angel’s name but a description of what his name is like. This word is also used in Psalm 139.6 to refer to a human being’s limited ability to know God. Divine knowledge is too far beyond human understanding. Here the divine messenger says Manoah could not possibly fully understand who he is, so he refuses to give him his name. New International Version says “It is beyond understanding.” We might also say “It is incomprehensible.”

Contemporary English Version provides the following helpful model for this verse:

• “No,” the angel replied. “You don’t need to know my name. And if you did, you couldn’t understand it.”

Another possible one is:

• Then the angel of the LORD said, “Why do you ask what my name is? It is too wonderful for you to know.”

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 .