As a result of Delilah’s constant nagging, Samson finally gives in to her and tells her the truth about his strength.

And he told her all his mind is literally “And he told her all his heart.” In this context the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version). Since this verse is a key point in the story, Contemporary English Version uses “Finally,” and New Jerusalem Bible has “At last.” Told renders a key Hebrew verb (nagad) in the Samson story (see verse 14.2). Mind translates the same Hebrew word rendered “heart” in verse 16.15, where it refers to Samson’s thoughts and general attitude. Here it refers more specifically to the secret concerning his source of strength. Thus we might say “So he told her his secret,” “Finally, Samson told her the truth” (Contemporary English Version), “So he told her everything” (New International Version), or “and he confided everything to her” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

And said to her: Some languages may prefer to omit this typical quote frame because of the previous clause (Contemporary English Version), or they may use another form such as “saying.”

A razor has never come upon my head is the secret Samson reveals. Indeed because of his Nazirite vow, Samson has never had his hair cut. See verse 13.5. The Hebrew verb ʿalah rendered come upon may be part of a play on words, since the same verb is used when Delilah later asks the Philistines to “Come up” to capture Samson (verse 16.18). We might say “A razor has never touched my head” (New Jerusalem Bible), “My hair has never been cut” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation), or “Nobody has ever cut my hair.”

For I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb: This is a very emphatic statement in Hebrew, literally “for Nazirite to God I [am] from womb of my mother.” The Hebrew particle ki rendered for may introduce the reason Samson has never cut his hair or mark this statement as emphatic. For Nazirite see verse 13.5. I have been a Nazirite to God means he has been “set apart,” “dedicated,” or “consecrated” to God. From my mother’s womb is a figurative expression that can mean “from the time I was born” (Good News Translation) or “from the time I was conceived” ( NET Bible; see comments on verse 13.5). In some languages expressions similar to from my mother’s womb may exist and be used here, while in other languages a reference to the womb may be totally unacceptable. Translators should be sensitive to local culture and find a natural way of expressing this idea. In some languages this explanatory clause may need to be placed before the result clause, for example, “I have been set apart for God since before I was born, so my hair has never been cut.”

If I be shaved, then my strength will leave me: This is the fourth time Samson uses a conditional statement, but before, when he spoke, he was lying (verse 16.7, 11, 13). This time he is telling the truth. The Hebrew verb rendered be shaved really means “be bald,” but in its present context it refers to being shaved. Indeed, Nazirites did not cut their beards either, so we might rather say “If my hair were shaved off” or “If my hair were cut” (Good News Translation). This clause expresses an unreal condition, referring to something which did not happen. In English and many other languages special verb forms are used to express such conditions.

Then my strength will leave me is literally “and my strength will turn aside from me.” Samson clearly perceives his hair as a symbol of his special relationship with Yahweh. Cutting his hair was equivalent to cutting himself off from God, the source of his strength (see Num 6.5). Then renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. For strength see verse 16.5. The Hebrew verb rendered leave (literally “turn aside”) is a keyword in this incident (verse 16.19-20), as well as throughout this book, including the appendices (verse 18.3, 15; verse 19.11-12, 15). It is used in situations of danger, foreshadowing some tragedy. Also the Hebrew verb for leave (sur) sounds like the verb for “bind” (ʾasar), so there may be a play on words here.

And I shall become weak, and be like any other man: See verse 16.7.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Finally, Samson told her the truth, saying, “I have been a Nazirite, consecrated to God since I was born. Nobody has ever shaved my hair. If someone were to shave me, then I would lose my strength and be just like anyone else.”

• Samson then told her what his secret was. He said, “I have never cut my hair. Even before I was born, I have been dedicated to God as a Nazirite. If I were to have my hair cut, I would become as weak as anyone else.”

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 .

Using phrases that remind the audience of earlier Israelite victories, the spies ask their fellow Danites to go with them and attack the city. The verbs Arise and go up are used earlier in the book of Judges, while the expressions enter and possess the land occur often in the book of Joshua. Though the spies appear to speaking in all sincerity, this is certainly the storyteller’s way of showing how ironic the situation is. The Danites could not possess the land allotted to them (verse 1.34), so they must look elsewhere. Speaking like brave Israelite warriors, they are actually cowardly and about to prey on a city with no defenses.

They said: This clause begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, which Revised Standard Version and most other versions omit. The pronoun They refers to the spies, which will be clear from the context in most languages. The general verb said may be rendered “replied” (Good News Translation) or “answered” (New International Version), though what they say seems more an order than an answer.

Arise render the key Hebrew verb qum, which is used here in a very ironic way. Normally Yahweh “raised up” a deliverer for Israel (see, for example, verse 2.16; verse 3.9, 15). Here the spies tell their fellow Danites to rise up against a defenseless people. In this context Arise is a call to get ready for battle. A literal rendering will preserve the link back to the other passages where this verb is used and keep the biting irony of the storyteller here.

And let us go up against them: The Hebrew verb rendered go up (ʿalah) refers to military action in this context (see verse 1.1), so it may be translated “attack” (Good News Translation). The pronoun them refers to the people of Laish. This is a shameful attack and it is perhaps significant that the spies do not even mention the town or its people by name.

For we have seen the land, and behold, it is very fertile: The spies now give their reason for calling their fellow Danites to attack the people of Laish. The Hebrew particle ki rendered for may introduce the reason (“because”) or express emphasis (“indeed”). We have seen may be translated “we have spied out” or “we have taken a good look at.” The Hebrew expression for the land (ʾerets) is often used in the Old Testament to refer to the Promised Land. Putting these words in the Danites’ mouths is a mockery, since this tribe was unable to capture the land allotted to them (verse 1.34). Now, facing a defenseless and isolated city, they declare we have seen the land.

The attention-getting word behold (Hebrew hinneh) is essential here. The more excited the Danites become, the greater their shame. In this context behold may be rendered “really,” “honestly,” or “you won’t believe it.”

It is very fertile is literally “[it is] very good.” This clause is apparently another satire, since it recalls not only the book of Joshua (for example, verse 23.13), but also the repetitive expression in the opening chapter of Genesis: “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1.10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The pronoun it refers to the land. In this context the Hebrew word for “good” (tov) can mean many things: that the land is fertile and productive or that it is strategically placed. So it may be better to stay general, as in Hebrew, and say “it is very good.” This rendering will preserve what appears to be a deliberate literary link to other parts of Scripture.

And will you do nothing? Do not be slow …: The spies go on to urge their people to capture the town of Laish, saying literally “But you [are] inactive! Do not be sluggish/lazy….” This part of the dialogue reveals the true nature of the Danites. They are characterized as passive and lazy. Revised Standard Version renders this accusation as a rhetorical question in English. Since the Danites do not seem to make any immediate response to the spies’ report, these men challenge them to action with the reproach, “But you are doing nothing!” Translators should try to convey this critical tone. In English an idiomatic equivalent is “Are you just going to stand there?” or “Come on, now, do something!”

As noted above, Do not be slow is literally “Do not be sluggish/lazy.” The spies use this negative imperative to try to make their compatriots respond. We might say “Don’t be lazy!” or “Hurry up!” (similarly Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version combines the two clauses with the question “What are you waiting for?” which is a good model. In some languages it may be more effective to place these two clauses earlier in the verse (see second model below).

To go, and enter in and possess the land is literally “to go to enter to possess the land.” The Hebrew text uses three infinitives in quick succession, which emphasizes the quickness of action that the spies are requesting. To go means to leave where they are. Enter in means to go to the town of Laish. Possess the land is a standard expression used throughout Joshua and the first part of Judges (see verse 2.6) describing an attack and occupation of the land promised by God. We can say simply “take the land.” It will be good to use the same wording as in verse 2.6 to show the link between this passage and the beginning of the book.

Translation models for this verse are:

• The spies replied, “Come on, let’s go and attack them. We have seen the land and it is really good. Don’t just stand there! Let’s go and capture it.

• The spies said, “Get up! Let’s go to attack them! Why are you just standing there? The land we have seen is very good. Hurry up and take it.

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 repetitive, as the Levite hesitates and gives another option. This is the narrator’s way of slowing down the action and heightening the suspense here. The audience knows that if the group ends up in Gibeah, tragedy awaits them. A feature of this verse is the use of the number one, a word that occurs frequently in the first appendix (verse 17.5, 11; verse 18.19), as well as in the Samson story (see, for example, verse 16.28).

And he said to his servant: In some languages it may be better to omit this quote frame (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) since the same speaker and addressee are in view as in the previous verse. Good News Translation even combines verses 12-13. Otherwise, we might say “He went on to say” or “He then said.”

Come renders the Hebrew verb meaning “go,” as in verse 19.11. Here it may be translated “Come on” (New Living Translation, New Jerusalem Bible).

And let us draw near to one of these places: The pronoun us refers to the group of travelers, but shows that the Levite is now taking the lead in the decision-making. The Hebrew verb rendered draw near means “approach,” “arrive at,” or “reach.” The Levite is suggesting that they keep going further, until they reach another town. One of these places anticipates the towns he will mention, Gibe-ah and Ramah. As noted above, the number one is an important word in this book, so maintaining it would preserve the literary flavor. However, some languages may prefer to use more natural phrases, for example, “let’s find some other place” or “let’s go to another place.”

And spend the night at Gibe-ah or at Ramah: For the Hebrew verb rendered spend the night (lin), see verse 19.4. Here it is marked for first person plural, so it is literally “let us spend the night.” This time the Levite gives two options: Gibe-ah or Ramah. Ramah was a town just north of Gibeah (see verse 4.5). The Hebrew preposition rendered at occurs with each place name. The definite article “the” is also attached to both names in Hebrew. It is possible this article is highlighting this crucial decision, one that would lead to safety and one that would lead to tragedy. In the end, the Levite directs the party to Gibeah, where a decisive incident will take place.

Translation models for this verse are:

• He went on to say, “Let’s head for somewhere else, either Gibeah or Ramah, and spend the night there.”

• He then said, “We will keep going and reach either Gibeah or Ramah, and stop overnight there.”

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 men of Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered four hundred thousand men that drew sword: To the audience listening to the story, the Benjaminites seem doomed. Obviously it would be impossible for 26,700 men, no matter how skilled, to hold against an army of 400,000. But many who listened to the story know what is coming, so these details are all the more tantalizing.

The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces a description of the Israelite forces, comprised of all the tribes except the Benjaminites. Translators should look for an appropriate transition word here. While Good News Translation omits the conjunction, New American Bible‘s “Meanwhile” may be a good solution. The Hebrew phrase rendered apart from is the same one translated “besides” in verse 20.15. Here the narrator specifically excludes the Benjaminites even though they were also Israelites in the broad sense of the term. To make it clear that the men of Israel does not include the Benjaminites, Contemporary English Version says “the other Israelite tribes.” For mustered see verse 20.15. In some languages it may be difficult to write out the number four hundred thousand in words, so translators may use the figure “400,000” (Good News Translation). For men that drew sword, see verse 20.2.

All these were men of war: All these (literally “all this”) repeats the same Hebrew expression translated “every one” in verse 20.16. The narrator said some of the Benjaminite soldiers were “picked” (verse 20.15-16). Here the other Israelite tribes are qualified as men of war, meaning they too were trained soldiers. This clause is independent in Hebrew, but it may be combined with the previous one by saying “… 400,000 warriors, all trained and experienced in battle.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• The rest of Israel, besides the Benjaminites, assembled 400,000 trained and equipped soldiers.

• Opposing the Benjaminites there were four hundred thousand Israelite soldiers trained and armed with swords.

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 .

Here Achsah makes her request to her father clear. The Hebrew verb for “give” is very prominent, occurring three times (rendered set, give, and gave).

She said to him: In Hebrew this phrase begins with the waw conjunction, so we might translate “And she said to him.” Since she is answering her father, we could also say “So she replied to him.”

Give me a present renders a Hebrew expression that is literally “Give to me a blessing.” New Jerusalem Bible is close to the original with “Grant me a blessing.” The Hebrew verb here is different from the root meaning “give” that appears in the rest of this verse. Some versions speak of granting a favor. For example, New International Version has “Do me a special favor,” and Revised English Bible says “Grant me this favour” (similarly Jerusalem Bible [Jerusalem Bible]). Contemporary English Version has “I need your help.” These renderings do not exactly speak of a blessing, which might be important to express. In many cultures a daughter cannot address her father so abruptly, so we might have to say “Father [or, Papa], give me a special blessing.”

Since you have set me in the land of the Negeb is literally “Since the land of Negeb you have given me.” This is the beginning of Achsah’s request. In Hebrew it begins with the ki conjunction, which may be translated “because,” “for,” or “since.” Apparently her father has already given the newlyweds one gift, in the form of some land, but it is in the Negeb, a very dry place (see verse 1.9). Contemporary English Version makes this explicit, saying “The land you gave me is in the Southern Desert.”

Give me also springs of water: Here Achsah makes her request. She wants her father to also give her a source of water so she can exploit the land he has given her. Thus Achsah’s strategy is to:

(1) ask for a blessing
(2) express a kind of complaint
(3) make her real request

Some languages will follow this order, while some will wish to change the order of these clauses (see Good News Translation).

Give me also springs of water may not sound polite in some languages, and Contemporary English Version, for example, tries to tone down the request by saying “so please give me some spring-fed ponds for a water supply.” Good News Translation omits the verb give and says “I want some water holes,” but this also seems too direct. Translators should try to use language with a respectful tone.

The word also probably renders the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause, but we might also say “so” (Contemporary English Version).

Though the Hebrew word rendered springs can sometimes refer to bowls or basins that hold oil, here it refers to “pools” (Revised English Bible), “wells,” or “water holes” (Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version‘s “spring-fed ponds” seems too specific. Translators can also use a general term referring to a “water supply” or “source of water.”

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 .

In verse 2.12 the Israelites’ actions “provoked” the LORD’s anger. This verse expresses the same idea from another perspective. Then the narrator spells out the serious consequences of the LORD’s anger.

So renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which introduces for the second time the LORD’s response to the Israelites’ acts. Good News Translation says “And so.” These conjunctions seem more appropriate than a time-oriented one, such as “Then” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel: Though this clause repeats the information in verse 2.12, it is much more intense. The text is literally “the nose of Yahweh heated up [or, burned] against Israel.” Along with Revised Standard Version, there are many good models that catch the spirit of this expression, for example, “Yahweh’s anger grew hot against Israel” (New Jerusalem Bible), “the anger of the LORD flared up against Israel” (New American Bible), and “the LORD was incensed at Israel” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Many languages use figurative language involving fire or heat when speaking of anger, and translators can use such expressions here. If such idiomatic expressions do not exist, the translator can simply describe what happened. For example, Good News Translation says “the LORD became furious with Israel,” which serves as a good example.

And he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them describes the result of God’s anger with his people. In the Old Testament God acts in the everyday affairs of the world, and in this case he punishes the Israelites by allowing their enemies to defeat them. Gave them over to (literally “gave them into the hand of”) is the same expression as in verse 1.4. Here possible renderings are “allowed/caused [raiders to raid them]” and “made it so that [raiders could raid them].” However, many languages, especially in Africa, have an idiom similar to the Hebrew one and say “gave into the hands of,” which can be used here. This is another case of the idiomatic use of the word “hand,” which is a prominent literary feature of this book (see comments on verse 1.2). If possible, translators should maintain its use. In English, for example, it is possible to say “handed them over to” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Plunderers, who plundered them is a very strong expression, where both the verb and the noun come from the same Hebrew root meaning “attack and rob something of value.” This term is often found in the context of plundering houses, when bands of attackers would enter with force and steal anything of value. Here it describes a serious attack on the people of Israel, involving the taking of spoils and stripping the nation of its wealth and power. Translators should look for ways to convey the idea of complete devastation. Some languages have a similar emphatic construction that can use the same verb form twice, for example, “and let raiders raid them.” Many languages, however, will prefer to use several different terms to communicate this emphasis. A good model is “and let raiders attack and rob them” (Good News Translation). Revised English Bible also uses several synonyms: “made them the prey of bands of raiders and plunderers.” Contemporary English Version‘s “he let other nations raid Israel and steal their crops and other possessions” perhaps goes too far in adding specific details that are not in the text.

Possible models for the first half of this verse are:

• So Yahweh’s anger burned against the Israelites. So he allowed their enemies to attack and rob them of everything.

• So the LORD was furious with the people of Israel and handed them over to the power of their enemies who took everything they had.

And he sold them into the power of their enemies round about is parallel to the preceding clause, speaking literally of selling them “into the hand of their enemies from around.” The expression “sell into the hand of” is very common in this book (verse 3.8; verse 4.2; verse 10.7) and the rest of the Old Testament, meaning to deliver someone into another person’s control. If “sold them into the hand of” is not natural, “gave/delivered them [into the hand of]” is another possibility. Once again “hand” represents power and control. Good News Translation has “He let the enemies all around overpower them,” which expresses the idea well.

There is a subtle shift here since the people the Israelites are fighting against are called enemies for the first time. In fact, this word is emphasized, appearing twice here. In the previous material the main focus was on the Canaanites. These enemies round about may have included peoples living outside Canaan, such as the Moabites and the Ammonites. Most translators will not have a problem finding a word for enemies, which renders a plural participle of the Hebrew verb meaning “be hostile.” Round about is the same expression as in verse 2.12, though here the circle may have been wider, including those other than Canaanites. Contemporary English Version is very dynamic here with “Enemies were everywhere,” which is a possible model.

So that they could no longer withstand their enemies: The result of this pressure from all sides is that the Israelites are dominated by their enemies. So that renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be translated “as a result” or simply “and” (Good News Translation). They could no longer withstand their enemies is literally “they could no longer stand before [or, in the face of] their enemies.” Not only could the Israelites not take the land they were commanded to invade and “possess,” but they also could not stand up against or resist the people they were fighting. Rather, those people overcame them! For withstand possible renderings are “resist” (New Jerusalem Bible), “stand [up] against” (Revised English Bible), and perhaps “defend themselves against.” The word enemies is repeated here for emphasis, and if possible, translators should express this focus in the Hebrew text. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh gives a good rendering, saying “they could no longer hold their own against their enemies.” Contemporary English Version takes another approach, translating this clause and the previous one as “Enemies were everywhere, and the LORD always let them defeat Israel in battle.”

Some suggestions for the translation of this last half of the verse are:

• Yahweh gave them over into the hands of the surrounding enemies, and the Israelites could do nothing to resist them.

• The LORD made Israel powerless before their enemies who came from all around. And the Israelites could no longer defend themselves against these enemies.

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 material leads up to a second climactic moment in this story when the servants discover their master dead on the floor. Since there are new participants on the scene, many versions begin a new paragraph here. Revised Standard Version has rendered this verse in flowing English, but the Hebrew has a different flavor as the action is slowed down before a story climax. It reads literally “And he [Ehud], he went out, and his [the king’s] servants came and they looked, and behold, the doors of the roof chamber [were] locked, and they said….”

When he had gone: This clause refers to the departure of Ehud. The Hebrew is emphatic here, saying “And he, he went out.” The Hebrew verb rendered had gone is not the common verb for “go,” but rather the verb for “go out,” which has been part of an ongoing wordplay (verse 3.22, 23). However, in most languages had gone will be more understandable. Revised Standard Version uses a past anterior verb tense to express this background material. Other possibilities are “Ehud, having left” and “After Ehud had escaped.”

The servants came is literally “and his servants came.” Depending on how the previous clause is formulated, many versions will omit the Hebrew waw conjunction (“and”) here. The pronoun “his” refers to King Eglon. These servants do not seem to be the king’s officials, as was the case in verse 3.19, but regular servants. This clause and the previous one may be rendered “After Ehud had escaped, the king’s servants arrived.”

And when they saw: This clause is independent in Hebrew, literally “and they looked.” Some languages will say “and they found” or “and they discovered.” The pronoun they refers to the king’s servants.

That the doors of the roof chamber were locked describes what the servants found. However, Revised Standard Version has omitted a very important Hebrew word here, the attention-getter, hinneh, which is often rendered elsewhere as “behold” (see comments at verse 1.2). This clause reads literally “and behold, the doors of the roof chamber [were] locked.” Hinneh, typically followed by a participle, often marks the climax in a story. Here this marker also seems to express the servants’ surprise or consternation at finding the doors locked. Translators can consider how high points are marked in their own narrations. Some languages may use expressions such as “Look!” or “You see!” We might also combine clauses to say “They looked, and to their great surprise, the doors to the upper room were locked!” In some languages an exclamation point will help convey the emotion here.

For doors, roof chamber, and locked, see verse 3.23.

The first half of this verse may be rendered:

• After Ehud escaped, the king’s servants arrived, and they found—lo and behold—the doors to the upper room were locked!

• When Ehud had gone, the servants of the king came and looked, and to their great surprise/consternation, the doors to the room were locked!

They thought is literally “and they said.” The Hebrew waw conjunction (“and”) omitted by Revised Standard Version could be rendered “So.” Many languages follow the Hebrew in using the verb “say” to express internal thoughts. We might say “They said to themselves.” It is also acceptable to use indirect speech here, for example, “They assumed that…” or “They thought that….”

He is only relieving himself is an English euphemism meaning to go to the toilet. It renders the equivalent Hebrew euphemism, which is literally “Indeed he [is] covering his feet.” See also verse 1 Sam 24.3, where the same idiomatic expression is used. Finding the doors closed, the servants are making an assumption, so the translator could say “He must be relieving himself.” There is obvious humor here, as the king of this important country is described as going to the bathroom. To preserve the flavor of the story, translators should look for euphemistic expressions to convey taking care of bodily needs, such as “easing oneself” and “going to the fields.”

In the closet of the cool chamber: The English word closet or “water closet” once referred to the toilet, but today closet refers rather to a small room where clothes or other items are kept. Translators should look for an appropriate word for “toilet” or “bathroom,” using a word that could be used to refer to a room high up in the house. If this is difficult, it is possible to translate in the closet simply as “inside.” For cool chamber, see the comments on “cool roof chamber” at verse 3.20. The Hebrew word used here is an abbreviated form of the phrase used there.

Translation examples for this verse are:

• Ehud escaped from that place and the king’s servants returned. To their surprise, they found the doors locked, so they assumed the king was inside going to the bathroom.

• After Ehud had gone, the king’s servants came and were surprised to find that the doors of the room on the roof were locked. They said to themselves, “Oh, the king must be in the upper room relieving himself.”

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 .