When the angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the people of Israel is literally “And it was when spoke the messenger of Yahweh these words to all the sons/children of Israel.” Many versions omit the initial Hebrew word wayehi (“And it was”), but this expression plays an important role here, indicating a new paragraph. Translators can use any appropriate expression here. As in many languages, a temporal subordinate clause serves as a link between paragraphs. Contemporary English Version leaves this clause out of the translation, but there is no reason to justify this omission.

The angel of the LORD is one of the phrases that brackets this section, appearing both at the beginning (verse 2.1) and the end of this unit (verse 2.4). See comments on verse 2.1.

Spoke these words uses a Hebrew construction in which the verb for spoke and the noun for words come from the same root d-b-r, “to speak.” Though the term rendered words can also mean “things” or “affairs,” here it seems to refer to what the angel has just said. Translators might rather say “When the angel had finished saying this.”

For the people of Israel (literally “the sons/children of Israel”), see comments on verse 1.1.

The people lifted up their voices and wept: Though the Hebrew word translated people (ʿam) is at times used in reference to other peoples, it most commonly designates the people of Israel. It occurs often in Deuteronomy and Joshua, and very frequently (over sixty times) in this book, especially in the introduction (verse 1.16; 2.4, 6, 7, 12), the Song of Deborah (verse 5.2, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18), and in the appendices (verse 20.10; verse 21.9). Lifted up their voices and wept renders an idiomatic expression in Hebrew that refers to a strong outburst of crying and weeping, which might occur at the announcement of a death or other troubling news. But it is also often used to describe the people’s response to the LORD. In this context lifted up their voices may be rendered “cried out.” Wept means the people shed tears, probably with cries of sadness or sobbing. Together the verbal phrases convey a scene of utter desolation. However, the text does not say why the people wept. Whether they repented or not cannot be determined from the text. In some languages one verbal expression, such as “wept loudly” or “broke out crying,” may suffice.

Suggested models for this verse are:

• When the LORD’s messenger had said these words, all the people of Israel cried out [in sorrow/desolation] and wept aloud.

• After the angel of the LORD had finished saying this, all the Israelites wept bitterly.

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 uses many of the same terms of the preceding verses. Hebrew appreciates this repetitive style.

The initial Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And is better translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version), since the man has virtually no choice.

For he showed them the way into the city, see comments on verse 1.24.

And they smote the city with the edge of the sword: See comments on verse 1.8. Some languages may need a transition phrase to begin this clause, such as “So they went in and killed….”

But they let the man and all his family go: But renders well this contrastive use of the Hebrew waw conjunction. The order in the Hebrew text shows that the man and his family were exceptions, saying literally “but the man and his whole family, they sent away.” Some languages will prefer this order, which contrasts the fate of the city and the fate of this man. The Hebrew expression rendered all his family does not mean only his immediate family, but certainly his extended family as well. Thus New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “all his relatives,” and New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible, “his whole clan.”

The Hebrew verb for let … go (shalach) is literally “sent away,” which may also be rendered “spared” or “let go untouched.” This verb will occur frequently in the accounts of the Israelite victories. These spies kept their word to the man, as the spies did in the Rahab story.

Models for the translation of this verse are:

• So the man showed them how to enter the town secretly and the Israelites entered the town and killed all the inhabitants. But they spared the man and his family, letting them go away free.

• Then the man told them how they could secretly get into the town, so they went in and killed everyone there. But as for the man and his family, they sent them away [unharmed].

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 .

Two elements enclose this section, the references to Bochim and to Yahweh, the LORD (verse 2.1, 5).

And they called the name of that place Bochim: The opening Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And can be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version), “Because of this,” or “Therefore.” Good News Translation has “and that is why,” which is also a good way to introduce this clause. While the pronoun they can refer just to the people who were there at that moment, it probably has a wider meaning here. Good News Translation uses a passive construction: “the place is called….” Called the name is the same phrase that appears in verse 1.26. In verse 2.1 Bochim is introduced as a proper noun, but here its meaning, “weeping ones,” is in view. In many cultures the goal of many narratives is to explain place names (see verse 1.17). Translators need to ensure readers understand what is being communicated here. Some translations add a footnote explaining its meaning, but it is often easier to put the meaning in the text, for example, “Bochim, which means ‘those who cry.’ ” Contemporary English Version is very clear, putting the proper name “Bochim” at 2.1 and translating that name here: “From then on, they called that place ‘Crying.’ ”

And they sacrificed there to the LORD: This second occurrence of the pronoun they is not impersonal, but rather refers to the Israelites who were present that day at Bochim. After the people heard the message and reacted through their tears, they decided to give a sacrifice to the LORD. The Hebrew root of the verb rendered sacrificed (z-b-ch) refers to a general sacrifice, so translators can use a general expression, such as “offered a sacrifice.” There may be some plays on words here, since the Hebrew word for name sounds like the word for there, and the word for sacrificed comes from the same root as the word for “altars” in verse 5.2.

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 could be considered as the next event on the story line or as a kind of aside. It tells how another city of Luz was founded, tying back to verse 1.23.

And the man went to the land of the Hittites: The conjunction And introduces the next thing the man from Bethel did after he was let go. A conjunction such as “so” (Contemporary English Version) or “then” (New International Version) might also be appropriate here. Although only the man is mentioned, obviously he had his family with him. The verb went is used to describe the man’s escape. The man had to get far enough away to prevent retribution for his act, since he would certainly be considered as a traitor to his own people.

The Hittites were originally from the northeast region of modern Turkey. These people were of Indo-European rather than Semitic origin, but at times the two peoples came into contact. In Gen 23, for example, Abraham bought a field from a Hittite named Ephron. One of David’s soldiers, the husband of Bathsheba, was also a Hittite (verse 2 Sam 11.3). Some of the Hittites had migrated south from their homeland into Canaan, so the land of the Hittites may not have been too far away.

The Hebrew says he built a city, which means he “founded a city” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Languages may have idiomatic expressions for founding a village or town which can be used here.

And called its name Luz: Luz was the original name of the town of Bethel (see verse 1.23). The man named this new town with the original name of his hometown. Renaming new towns with the name of old ones was a common practice in this region. The word Luz sounds like the Hebrew word for “almond tree.”

For that is its name to this day, see verse 1.21. We might say “People continue to call it Luz to this day.”

Translation models for this verse might be:

• The man moved to Hittite territory and established a town that he called Luz, which remains its name till today.

• The man and his family went to where the Hittites lived. He began a settlement there that he called Luz. People continue to call it by that name [till now].

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

Through repetition, this verse emphasizes the close relationship between the people of Israel and the LORD: they served him all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua. The same information is given with slightly different wording in verse 24.31.

And the people served the LORD: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces a kind of summary statement covering that time period. Many languages will not need to use a conjunction here (New International Version, NET Bible). For people (ʿam in Hebrew), see verse 2.4. The Hebrew verb rendered served (ʿabad) is central to a description of Israel’s relationship to the LORD. It is a broad word that includes the idea of “worship” (New Revised Standard Version), as well as a certain behavior and way of living. The root of this verb also expresses the notion of slavery, so the idea of “serving” is very prominent. In many languages served the LORD can be rendered literally if this does not signify working for a salary. It might be possible to say “followed the LORD” or “remained faithful to the LORD” (Contemporary English Version), in the sense that this was their regular practice. Far from designating an employer-employee relationship, this verb expresses a profound link between two parties characterized by loyalty and faithfulness.

All the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua: This gives the time period that the people faithfully served the LORD. Throughout the Old Testament, a frequent theme is that the spiritual state of the national leaders and the people’s faithfulness to the LORD are closely linked. All the days refers to a given time period, in this context covering the life span of Joshua and the elders. If a literal reference to days is not acceptable, the translator can say “throughout the lives of…,” “throughout the lifetime of…,” or “during the whole time that….” The word all is part of the literary flavor in this book, so if possible, it should be maintained.

For Joshua see verse 1.1.

The elders who outlived Joshua translates a Hebrew idiom that is literally “the old ones who lengthened days after Joshua.” These leaders assisted Moses and then Joshua, who took Moses’ place. The Hebrew word translated elders refers to the older men who headed up each tribe. This system of governance is still very common in many places around the world, and thus an expression such as “old persons” or “stay-long-persons” will have the same positive connotation as in Hebrew. These people are seen as wise and worthy of respect. If old people are not respected in the translator’s culture, or the term has negative connotations, it may be necessary to say “those respected old men” or “leaders.” In some cultures these men would be considered ancestors or “fathers,” so that might be a term that can be used here as well.

Those who outlived Joshua refer to people from Joshua’s generation who lived longer than he did. They died after Joshua died.

Who had seen all the great work which the LORD had done for Israel: This relative clause describes both Joshua and the elders and shows why the Israelites were able to remain faithful to the LORD. They had experienced “close up” what God had done for the Israelites. Who had seen … is a relative clause, but many languages may prefer to start a new sentence here, for example, “These men had seen…” or “They were the ones who had seen….” Though the Hebrew verb rendered seen can mean “to see with the eyes,” here it has a broader meaning. These leaders “participated in,” “witnessed,” or “experienced” what the LORD had done. The English idiomatic expression “saw with their own eyes” expresses this meaning well. Good News Translation says “had seen for themselves,” which is another good model. Revised Standard Version uses the past anterior verb tense, had seen, which shows that this event is something that happened before the main line of events in this passage.

All the great work which the LORD had done for Israel refers certainly to all the LORD had done for Israel. But here the focus is probably on the incredible deliverance from the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds (Exo 14.21-31), along with the other miracles of the exodus from Egypt, including God’s provision of food and water as the people crossed the desert. It is important to remember that most people died in the desert, while the heroes, Joshua and Caleb, and their families survived. In Hebrew both the noun rendered work and the verb had done come from the same root, meaning “do” or “make.” So we might speak of “his great deeds” or “the great things he has done.” The Hebrew adjective for great often refers to size or number, but in this context it seems to signal importance or significance. The things the LORD did were not small feats, but works of magnitude. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “marvelous,” and Contemporary English Version has “wonderful.” Some translators may wish to be more specific, with “the wonderful deliverance” or “the great saving work,” but in most languages a general expression can be used, for example, “all the wonderful things.”

The LORD is the subject of the verb had done. Some languages may have another verb that would be appropriate here, such as “carried out” or “brought to pass.” For Israel means “on behalf of [or, for the benefit of] the people of Israel.” The great work was not just for Joshua and his assistants but for the entire people of Israel.

Some possible models for this verse are:

• The people were faithful to the LORD throughout Joshua’s life, as well as during the time of those leaders who outlived him. These men had witnessed all the wonderful things that the LORD had done for Israel.

• As long as Joshua lived and then as long as the elders who lived longer than Joshua were alive, the people served Yahweh. These men had seen [with their own eyes] the great deeds Yahweh had performed for Israel.

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 .

The information in this verse and the next one can also be found in verse 17.11-13. Even if a new paragraph begins here, this is a continuation of the story of the house of Joseph (verse 1.22-26). This verse begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, which Revised Standard Version and most other English versions omit. However, if the story is allowed to flow from 1.26, this conjunction might be rendered “But” (New International Version).

Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants …: Manasseh was the older of Joseph’s two sons (see Gen 48). He became the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, with Gideon being one of his tribe’s most famous heroes. Manasseh’s territory was in the area west of the Jordan River and north of Shechem, extending up to Megiddo Pass. However, the tribe spread out to live on both sides of the Jordan River. As with the other singular names in this section, Manasseh refers not to that individual, but to his descendants or his clan.

For did not drive out, see the discussion at verse 1.19. Revised English Bible uses the expression “failed to drive out,” repeated throughout this section. This wording is an effective way to emphasize that the various tribes failed to do what the LORD asked. For inhabitants see verse 1.11.

Five towns are mentioned here: Beth-shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo, along with their villages. Some of these towns are known, especially Megiddo. All must have been wealthy cities and may have been important because of their proximity to various trade routes.

And its villages is literally “and its daughters,” obviously underlining all the places this tribe was unable to dominate. “Daughters” refers to the areas where those towns spread out. Often small communities settled around big towns, profiting from their protection and commercial contacts. Some languages do not have separate words for “city,” “town,” and “village,” so translators may have to find other means to express this notion. We may render its villages as “its settlements,” “its communities,” “people living near the town,” or “in the surrounding territory.”

Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew text closely with its repetitive the inhabitants of … and its villages. This repetition gives emphasis, but the translator may reduce it if necessary. Good News Translation lists the five towns and then adds the phrase “and the nearby towns.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “the towns of Beth-Shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and all the villages nearby.”

But the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land: This sentence is quite emphatic and underlines not only the inability of the Israelites to dominate these peoples, but also the forceful determination of the Canaanite peoples. But, rendering the Hebrew waw conjunction, may express contrast here, but in many languages this conjunction may sound unnatural. Many English versions do not translate it (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), but we might say “In fact,” “and,” or even “because” (see New International Version “for”).

The Canaanites put up strong resistance to the invasion by Manasseh’s soldiers. The Hebrew term for Canaanites is singular, but has a collective meaning here (see verse 1.1). Persisted in dwelling means the Canaanites “were determined to stay” (Contemporary English Version) or “held their ground” (New Jerusalem Bible). Good News Translation‘s “continued to live” is not strong enough here. In dwelling translates the Hebrew infinitive for the verb occurring first in verse 1.9 and throughout this book. In that land is emphatic in Hebrew, with the word for land (ʾerets) being the same one used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the Promised Land. However, here we may simply say “in that territory” or “in that region,” or we may replace the phrase with a pronominal expression such as “there” (Good News Translation).

A possible model for this verse is:

• But Manasseh did not succeed in driving out the people who lived in the towns of Beth-shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo, nor the villages surrounding them. Indeed, the Canaanites were determined to stay 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 .

When Israel grew strong: This verse begins with two key Hebrew expressions wayehi ki (“And it was that when”), which show a possible time lapse, as well as a new paragraph. Translators can look for an appropriate transition, for example, “Later on” or “But some time later.” We might also say “And when” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “But when” or “As.” For Israel see verse 1.1. This verse seems to be a summary statement applying to all of the tribes.

The Hebrew verb rendered grew strong has various meanings but here refers to the Israelites gaining strength militarily or becoming stronger in number. Many versions say “grew stronger” (New American Bible; similarly Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible). Contemporary English Version‘s “grew more powerful” correctly implies that at first they were not strong enough to subjugate the Canaanites, but later became so. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “gained the upper hand” is possible but seems to put too much emphasis on political power. At this point in their history, the tribes of Israel seem to be loosely connected, joined by alliances. Some believe the tribes of Israel formed a kind of federation, but certainly there were no formal structures to speak of during that time period.

They put the Canaanites to forced labor indicates an important change in the relationship between the Israelites and the Canaanite population. This expression follows the Hebrew quite literally and is repeated throughout the section (verse 1.28, 30, 33, 35).

Forced labor refers to work that people are obliged to carry out by the authorities in control. Though in some situations forced labor is considered a contribution toward the payment of taxes, while in other cases it borders on slavery. The notion of forced labor will be known in many cultures around the world, especially where colonial powers once ruled, and thus there will be idiomatic expressions to express this reality. If not, we can simply say “they forced the Canaanites to work for them.” New International Version says “they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor,” while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates “they subjected … to forced labor,” which are both good models. Contemporary English Version‘s “they made slaves of the Canaanites” may be too specific. Translators need to be cautious using the word “slave” here and elsewhere in translation, as types of forced labor and slavery may differ considerably throughout the world.

For the first two clauses of this verse, we might say:

• Later when the Israelites became more powerful, they obliged the Canaanites to work for them.

• But later on, the Israelites grew stronger, so they pushed the Canaanites into forced labor.

But did not utterly drive them out: Here and elsewhere the text does not say whether the Israelites were unable to drive out these peoples or whether they simply chose not to do it. As they became stronger, they may have been able to drive them out, but perhaps chose not to do so. Certainly the Canaanites had now become a source of cheap labor and the two cultures may have also begun to merge.

But (Hebrew waw conjunction) introduces an unexpected event. Even though the Israelites became strong, they did not obey the LORD by removing the Canaanites. We might say “nevertheless,” “still,” or “however.”

The Hebrew expression rendered did not utterly drive them out is a forceful one, using a compound verb construction that is literally “driving out, they did not drive them out.” There is heavy emphasis on the fact that the people of Israel failed to do what Yahweh had requested of them. This is the theological justification for the fact that other peoples dominated Israel during the Judges period. Translators need to find a very strong expression, such as “they never did completely drive them out” or “they never did completely remove the Canaanites from the land.” For 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 .

And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which seems to link back to what precedes. Interestingly, this conjunction does not introduce the information occurring with the tribes mentioned in the following verses (verse 1.30, 31, 33). Certainly this link is due to the fact that Manasseh and Ephraim were brothers and their names almost always appear together. Since a negative clause follows this conjunction, in some languages negative introductory words such as “Neither” or “Nor” might be used here.

Ephraim was the second son of Joseph, but his descendants became more famous than those of his older brother, Manasseh. Indeed, this tribe became so important that the name Ephraim began to be used to refer to the entire northern kingdom of Israel, located in the central hills between Manasseh and Benjamin. Its territory extended north from Bethel to Shechem and from the Jordan River down to the Mediterranean Sea. The words rendered Ephraim and Canaanites both occur in the singular in Hebrew, but as usual refer to a collective plural. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19.

The town of Gezer was located on the southern border of Ephraim’s territory, in the lowlands toward the coast. The Israelites captured this city and killed its king (verse 10.33; verse 12.7, 12). Though there were many important cities in Ephraim, Gezer is the only one cited here. This is probably due to its importance and wealth. During the time of Solomon, the king of Egypt captured this city and gave it to his daughter as a wedding present when she married Solomon. Later, Solomon rebuilt the city (verse 1 Kgs 9.15-17).

But the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them: But, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, seems slightly out of place. Some versions omit the conjunction altogether. Good News Translation and New American Bible provide a good transition with “and so.” For dwelt see verse 1.9. Dwelt … among them implies that the Canaanites lived together with the Israelites, but unlike the previous verse, here there is no mention of persistence. It might be helpful to say they “continued to reside/live among them.” Among is literally “in middle of,” which perhaps insists on the fact that they lived right alongside each other. We might say “in the midst of” or “along with.” This is an important statement because the LORD had prohibited intermixing with these peoples.

The repetition of the city name Gezer may emphasize its status, but in many languages it will be better to eliminate the repetition by using a substitute expression, such as “in that place” or “there.”

For this verse we might say:

• Nor did the tribe of Ephraim drive out the Canaanites from the city of Gezer. The Canaanites continued to live right there alongside them.

• The descendants of Ephraim could not drive the Canaanites out from Gezer [either], so the Canaanites continued to live among 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 .