With the death of Joshua, there is a shift of focus to the people of Joshua’s generation and the generation to follow. This verse, which tells of the death of all the members of Joshua’s generation, is linked back to what precedes by the word also. Good News Translation puts this verse together with 2.6-9, while others, including Contemporary English Version, link it to the following paragraph. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh divides the verse in two, linking the first clause with 2.6-9, and beginning a new paragraph at and there arose. Translators will need to decide what is most logical in their language.

And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may indicate an indefinite time lapse, so we might say “Then.” But if this clause is seen as a summary statement, we might say “And” or omit the conjunction.

All that generation refers to all those who lived at the same time as Joshua. The Hebrew word for generation (dor) is common in the Old Testament, as in the famous passage in Eccl 1.4: “A generation goes, and a generation comes.” The word occurs only rarely in this book, twice in this verse and once in verse 3.2. Many languages have a word to refer to a group of people belonging to the same age-group. If such a word does not exist, it is possible to render all that generation as “all the people who lived at the same time as Joshua” or “all the people who belonged to Joshua’s age-group.” This is the fourth and last time the word all occurs in this section. See verse 2.7 for the other occurrences.

Were gathered to their fathers is a euphemistic way of saying someone died, used especially in the context of important historical figures. The Hebrew verb rendered gathered is used for people coming together. Their fathers refers to the ancestors, that is, all those who have “gone on before.” All languages have euphemisms to speak of death, but translators should try to find one that fits not only the solemn tone, but also the social status of this respected group of people. One African language says “went to light the fire of their fathers.” This is a respectful way of saying these people died. If no figures of speech exist, we might have to simply say “died and were buried.”

And there arose another generation after them: Here the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and has a sequential meaning, which can be expressed by “Then.” This clause marks an important step in the history of Israel. The generation that had experienced firsthand all the things Yahweh did for the people has now passed on, and a new generation arises. The repetitive use of the word generation seems to link this section to Eccl 1.4, quoted above. However, the most outstanding feature of this verse is the use of the Hebrew verb rendered arose (qum), which will be used repeatedly each time a hero or deliverer of Israel is presented in this book. In these instances (verse 2.16; verse 3.9; verse 5.7; verse 10.1, 3), it is often rendered “raised up” with the LORD as agent: “Yahweh raised a deliverer.” But in this context arose means that these people were born or “grew up” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version). Some languages may say “emerged” or “came [on the scene].” Contemporary English Version omits the verb arose, but given its importance throughout the book, it is better to find a way to express it here and elsewhere. After its use to introduce Israel’s heroes, later in the book, it will be used in an ironic way to mock those who should have been but are certainly not heroes. For another generation, Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version use the common expression “the next generation.” Other languages may speak of “the following generation” or “the generation to come.” We might also say “the children of those who died grew up” or “another generation was born and grew up.”

Who did not know the LORD or the work which he had done for Israel describes this new generation. Here there are two things the people are said to not know: Yahweh and the things he had done for Israel.

Who did not know the LORD is an extremely important statement, giving the backdrop of most of the events in the book of Judges. The initial shortcomings of Israel (verse 1.16-36), their on-and-off failures (chapters verse 3–16), and the final disasters in this book (chapters verse 17–21) can all be traced back to the fact that this generation did not know the LORD. The verb rendered know (yadaʿ) has many meanings in Hebrew. It can refer to knowing a fact (verse 6.37), but can also mean experiencing something, such as war (verse 3.1). It is also used to refer to knowing a person, in either an informal or intimate way, including sexual relations (Gen 4.1; verse 29.5). Here the word speaks of the deep relationship between God and his people and of the lifestyle that such knowledge produces (compare Hosea 6.6). Though they had heard of him, the new generation did not know the LORD. They had not experienced what it means to be in a covenant relationship with him. Given the importance of this expression, translators should try to find an adequate expression that will be used throughout Scripture. Some languages can render this expression rather literally, as many versions do (see Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version). This is perhaps the best solution if the meaning is clear. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “had not experienced [the deliverance of] the LORD.” Bible en français courant has “had no personal knowledge of the Lord.” Good News Translation says “forgot the LORD,” which seems to imply a one-time event and does not express the depth of the statement here.

Or the work which he had done for Israel: Or renders two Hebrew words meaning “and also,” the same two words that begin this verse. Any appropriate conjunction can be used, which in English might be “nor” or “neither.” The elided verb know can be made explicit here by saying “and they did not know [either] the things he did for Israel.” However, translators may need two separate words for knowing a person and knowing about events. If a different verb must be used, we might say “did not see/experience/witness” here (see verse 2.7). Unlike the old generation, this new one had not experienced what Yahweh had done when he led the people from Egypt into the Promised Land.

For work which he had done for Israel, see verse 2.7. It is inconceivable that the next generation could grow up without at least having heard about the Israelites’ deliverance from slavery and their wandering in the desert, but this younger generation did not live through these events, and so could not appreciate fully what God had done for his people.

Some translation examples for this verse are:

• Then, all those who lived in Joshua’s time died and a new generation of people arose. But they did not really know Yahweh. Neither had they experienced what he had done for Israel.

• After all the people in Joshua’s generation died, another generation came on the scene. But they did not know the LORD and they had not witnessed the wonderful things he had done for the Israelites.

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 .

As the end of this introduction section to the book approaches, numerous keywords come again to the forefront: “test,” “know,” “obey,” “commandments,” “fathers,” and “hand” (compare verse 2.17, 22; verse 3.1). The expression the testing of Israel binds 3.1-4 together and emphasizes the LORD’s purpose in leaving these peoples in the land. The non-Israelites remained there, not only because they were militarily stronger, but also because the LORD had a reason for allowing this to happen.

They were for the testing of Israel: The pronoun They refers to the nations just mentioned. In some languages it will be better to specify “these peoples” or “these nations.” For the testing of Israel renders the same Hebrew infinitive phrase that is translated “to test Israel by them” in verse 3.1 (see comments there). New Jerusalem Bible says these peoples “were used to put Israel to the test.” New American Bible is similar: “They served to put Israel to the test.” It is possible to be even more explicit by saying “The LORD allowed these peoples to remain in the land in order to test the Israelites.”

To know whether Israel would obey …: Once again two very important words occur: know and obey (see verse 2.10, verse 17, verse 20). The purpose of this testing is to know or discover something about Israel. The question is whether Israel would listen to or obey the LORD’s commandments. For to know whether, we might also say “to see whether,” “to find out if,” or “to determine if.” Obey translates the Hebrew verb shamaʿ, which means “listen,” “hear,” or “obey” (see verse 2.2).

The commandments of the LORD which he commanded their fathers: This is an emphatic expression in Hebrew, with the words for commandments and commanded coming from the same root ts-w-h, which means “order” or “instruct.” In noun form it refers to orders or precepts given to a community by a higher authority. In some languages we might say “what the LORD had told their fathers to do” or “what the LORD had commanded their ancestors to do.” Their fathers refers to the generation of Israelite leaders who came out of Egypt with Moses and who died in the wilderness (see verse 2.1, verse 12).

By Moses explains how these commandments were communicated to the people of Israel. The Hebrew text says “by the hand of Moses,” which is another use of the keyword “hand,” here meaning “through Moses.” This is a reference to the handing down of the Law, especially the Ten Commandments, on Mount Sinai. God communicated his laws to Moses and Moses communicated them to the people of Israel (Exo 19.1-9). Certainly the commandments that are in focus here are the ones saying the Israelites should serve only one God and never worship any other gods (Exo 20.2-6).

Translation models for this verse are:

• These peoples were left there in order to test Israel, so the LORD could know whether they would obey the commandments he had given to their ancestors through Moses.

• The LORD used these foreign people to put the Israelites to the test, to see whether they would keep the commands the LORD gave to Moses to give to their fathers.

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 .

Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol: Unlike the previous verse, this verse does not begin with the Hebrew waw conjunction, showing a slight break in the narration. We could begin a new paragraph here and perhaps say “As for the tribe/people/clan of Zebulun….” Zebulun was Jacob’s tenth son, born to Leah (Gen 30.19-20). His descendants made up a small tribe that occupied the territory in the western hills north of the Jezreel Valley (verse 19.10-16). However, like the other Israelite tribes, the soldiers of Zebulun could not drive out the local population. Two towns, Kitron and Nahalol, are mentioned as having inhabitants who could not be driven out. The local Canaanite population continued to live in these towns, though eventually some of them became part of the forced labor working force. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19.

But the Canaanites dwelt among them: See comments on verse 1.29. Some see the waw conjunction rendered but as introducing a contrast. However, we might also say “And” or “So.” Another approach would be to omit the conjunction and simply say “The Canaanites continued to live among them.”

And became subject to forced labor is literally “and they were [or, became] to forced labor.” The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause seems to introduce additional information. We might say “and the people of Zebulun forced the Canaanites to work for them” or “and they were forced to work for the people of Zebulun.” NET Bible says “and were forced to do hard labor.” For forced labor, see verse 1.28.

Translation models for this verse are:

• As for the tribe of Zebulun, they did not drive out those living in Kitron and Nahalol. So the Canaanites continued to live among them, though eventually the tribe of Zebulun reduced them to forced labor.

• As well, the people of Zebulun were not able to remove the inhabitants of Kitron and Nahalol. So the Canaanites continued to live among them, but the people of Zebulun [eventually] subjected them to forced labor.

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 .

Asher did not drive out the inhabitants …: As in the previous verse, there is no Hebrew waw conjunction to begin this verse. A new paragraph can begin here with “As for the tribe of Asher, they did not…,” “The tribe of Asher, too, did not…,” or “Neither were the people of Asher able to….” Asher was Jacob’s eighth son, born to Leah’s servant Zilpah (Gen 30.12-13). The territory assigned to the descendants of Asher was located to the northwest of Zebulun, on the coastal plain extending from Mount Carmel north toward present-day. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19; for inhabitants see verse 1.11.

Though the warriors from the tribe of Asher attacked a number of towns (seven are listed here), they were not able to drive out the inhabitants from any of them. It is possible that they were not as capable in battle as the local people (verse 1.19). Interestingly, in this verse the typical Hebrew repetition is absent, since inhabitants is only mentioned twice with the first two cities, rather than all of them.

The seven towns joined together by the Hebrew waw conjunction are:

Acco: a coastal town a few kilometers north of Carmel
Sidon: another coastal town 40 kilometers (25 miles) north of Tyre
Ahlab: a town in Asherite territory also mentioned in verse 19.29
Achzib: a town 13 kilometers (8 miles) north of Acco
Helbah: an unknown town
Aphik: a town thought to be near present-day Haifa
Rehob: an unknown town

Translators will have to transliterate each of these names. There is a textual problem concerning the name Ahlab. In verse 19.29 the Hebrew has “Meheleb,” but Revised Standard Version writes “Mahalab.” Here Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends “Mahlab,” so translators will have to decide which form to follow.

Translators should use a natural way of conjoining names in their language. Some languages will say “and” while others will prefer “or,” as in Revised Standard Version. In some languages it may be better to begin this verse with the names of the towns as follows:

• Not in Acco, not in Sidon, nor Mahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik or Rehob, in none of these places were the people of Asher able to drive out any of the inhabitants.

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 (as a rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction) seems too strong at this point. “And so” may be more appropriate. Other possibilities are “Thus” (Revised English Bible) and “So” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: Here there is yet another example of the “bad to worse” scenario so typical of this book. In the preceding verses the Canaanites are said to live among the Israelites, but here the situation is reversed, with the Asherites said to be dwelling among the Canaanites! This way of expressing things could also reflect the fact that the descendants of Asher were very few in number. Whatever the explanation, the storyteller has shifted viewpoints and this tribe seems worse off than the others. The order of presentation highlights the fact that it is the Canaanites, and not the Asherites, who are the inhabitants of the land—the land that was supposedly promised to this tribe of Israel. The long list of cities cited in the previous verse also emphasizes the fact that these people have consistently failed to do what God requested of them. For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1; for inhabitants see verse 1.11. Contemporary English Version‘s translation “and the Asher tribe lived with Canaanites all around them” is particularly effective.

For they did not drive them out is repeated from the beginning of verse 1.31, enclosing this short unit in an inclusio. The Hebrew particle ki rendered for introduces the reason the two peoples are living together, though this particle could also be taken as an emphatic marker, rendered “Indeed.” For did not drive … out, see verse 1.19.

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 .

Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants …: Naphtali was Jacob’s sixth son and the second son born to Bilhah, the servant of Rachel (Gen 30.7-8). The territory assigned to the tribe of Naphtali was east of Asher and northwest of the Sea of Galilee. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19; for inhabitants see verse 1.11.

The towns of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were almost certainly religious centers. Beth-shemesh means “house of the sun,” possibly related to the sun god, while Beth-anath means “house of Anath,” a Canaanite female divinity. Some versions treat these names as one word, while others insert a hyphen as Revised Standard Version here. Because they are foreign names and difficult to pronounce, a hyphenated form would probably make reading easier. Translators might consider translating at least parts of these names, if this helps readers to better understand the text.

But dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: See verse 1.32. Like all the other tribes, the tribe of Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of these localities. More importantly, like Asher, this tribe dwelt among the Canaanites, instead of the other way around. There is the same emphasis on the Canaanites being the inhabitants of the land.

Nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them: The Hebrew waw conjunction introduces this final clause, rendered well here as nevertheless. We could also say “however.” Even though the text does not say the tribe of Naphtali became stronger or more numerous (compare verse 1.28), this tribe eventually was able to oblige the Canaanites to work for them. For forced labor, see verse 1.28.

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 .