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 .

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 .

And Judah went with Simeon his brother: Translators will have to decide how to render the Hebrew waw conjunction translated And. If this is considered a new event on the story line, New International Version‘s “Then” would be a good rendering. For Judah and Simeon, as well as his brother, see verse 1.2-3. Some versions omit his brother, since this relationship has already been made clear in verse 1.3. Note, however, this phrase underlines the positive aspects of the first part of the book when brothers fought side by side, in contrast to what is to come in the final part of the book when brothers fight against each other. Went is simply the general Hebrew verb for “go.”

And they defeated the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath: The combined troops went to the Canaanite town of Zephath, a town less than 30 kilometers (18 miles) to the west of Arad. Most of this vocabulary has appeared before. For defeated see verse 1.4; for the Canaanites, see verse 1.1; and for inhabited see verse 1.9, verse 16.

And utterly destroyed it: The Hebrew verb rendered utterly destroyed is charam. The word is used often in the book of Joshua but occurs only rarely in the book of Judges (verse 1.17; verse 21.11). According to God’s command, when the Israelites captured a town, they were to “dedicate” it to the LORD, which meant destroying it completely. This was considered a holy sacrifice. Because of the religious significance of the expression utterly destroyed, translators need to find a good rendering and perhaps explain this practice in a footnote or include it in the glossary. Good News Translation says “They put a curse on the city, destroyed it,” but this rendering does not seem completely correct because curses were not part of such destruction. New Revised Standard Version and English Standard Version say “devoted it [the city] to destruction.” We can say “dedicated the town and its people to destruction” or “destroyed everything in the town as a sign of their devotion to God.” It renders the Hebrew emphatic feminine pronoun for “her,” referring to the city of Zephath. In many languages it will be more natural to say “the town/city,” as in Contemporary English Version‘s “They completely destroyed the town.” Contemporary English Version also adds the following footnote: “completely destroyed: The Hebrew word means that the town was given completely to the LORD, and since it could not be used for normal purposes any more, it had to be destroyed.”

So the name of the city was called Hormah: This sentence describes the city’s change in name as a result of what happened there. So translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, which might also be rendered by an expression such as “that’s why,” “because of this,” or “therefore.” The town’s name is changed from Zephath to Hormah, because it was utterly destroyed (charam). This play on words in Hebrew cannot be seen in the Revised Standard Version translation, but the original readers immediately saw the connection. If translators simply transliterate the name Hormah, modern readers will not get the point, but there are several options for helping the reader understand. Good News Translation explains the meaning of the name in a footnote. But translators may also insert the meaning of the name into the text, for example, “So they called the city ‘Hormah,’ which means ‘completely destroyed.’ ” Some translators actually translate the meaning of the city name within the text by saying “So the name of the city was called ‘Utterly Destroyed.’ ” Such wordplays are frequent in Hebrew literature, even in passages describing tragedies (see verse 2.5).

Models for the translation of this verse are:

• Then the men from the brother tribes of Judah and Simeon joined together and attacked the Canaanites living in the city of Zephath and they totally destroyed it.* That is why this city was called Hormah meaning “Totally Destroyed.”
* This practice involved dedicating something completely to God which included destroying it.

• Then the armies of Judah and Simeon headed out to Zephath. They devoted that city to destruction, totally destroying the town. From then, that city was called “Totally Destroyed.”

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 book begins with the typical introductory expression in Hebrew, wayehi (literally “And it was”). Though many versions do not render it, some languages may have a natural equivalent to begin a new episode or story. We might say “It happened that….” New Jerusalem Bible begins with “Now.”

After the death of Joshua is a solemn way of beginning the story and sets this book in a given time period. A similar phrase referring to the death of Moses opens the book of Joshua. Joshua was the successor of Moses, the great leader who led Israel out of Egypt (Exo 12.41). He was responsible for getting the Israelites across the Jordan River into Canaan and supervising their occupation of that territory. Joshua’s death is recorded in verse 24.29, but is also mentioned as a point of reference twice in this book (here and in verse 2.8).

Possible models for this phrase are “After Joshua’s death” (Good News Translation), “After Joshua died,” “When Joshua died,” and even “Joshua’s having died.” These words assume the readers know who Joshua is. In some languages it may be more natural to begin this verse with “Now [it happened that] Joshua died. Following his death….”

Not all the material in this book is given in chronological order. Thus at verse 2.6 Joshua is referred to as though he is still alive, and then his death and burial are described in verse 2.8-9. This has led a few scholars to propose changing Joshua to “Moses” here. However, this suggestion has no textual support and should not be followed.

The people of Israel inquired of the LORD: The people of Israel is literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel,” an expression used throughout the Old Testament, and especially in the final sections of this book (verse 20.26; verse 21.5-6). Translators should try to be consistent in their rendering of this expression. From the beginning of this book, the narrator gives the impression that the people of Israel are unified and make up a single nation. However, as the stories in this book show, during this time period, this is not necessarily the case. The people of Israel are, in fact, a grouping of related tribes or clans. One of the major themes here is that there was no overall leader or king in Israel at this time in Israel’s history (see verse 18.1). Another Hebrew expression used in this book is literally “the people [ʿam] of Israel,” and it seems best to maintain a distinction between the two expressions. Thus translators could render the expression here literally “the sons/children of Israel” or refer to “the Israelites,” thus keeping distinct the expression with “people.”

The Hebrew word rendered inquired simply means “asked” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The text does not say how the Israelites consulted God, though in other parts of Scripture (for example, Exo 28.30), priests determined God’s will by casting lots or by using objects called Urim and Thummim. In the last sections of this book (verse 20.18, 27), the narrator again refers to meetings or assemblies where the tribes of Israel gathered to inquire of the LORD. Some languages use a technical term, such as “consult” in such contexts. We might say “the Israelites consulted the LORD, asking.” In some languages it may be necessary to make explicit, especially early on in this book, that “the Israelites met [or, came together] to ask the LORD.”

The LORD translates the Hebrew word YHWH, which New Jerusalem Bible renders as “Yahweh.” This is the most common name used for God in the book of Judges. It occurs 172 times, while the generic Hebrew name for God, ʾelohim, occurs much less frequently.

Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites…?: This is the first in a series of exchanges between Yahweh and the Israelites, rendered as direct speech in Hebrew. Translators will have to decide whether to translate these quotes as direct or indirect speech in their language. Punctuation should follow standard practices in the target language.

Who is an interrogative pronoun used for human beings. Here it refers to a tribe or group of people, so we could also say “Which tribe,” “Which clan,” or “Which of our tribes” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

Go up renders a key Hebrew verb (ʿalah) occurring throughout this book. Though its primary meaning refers to movement in an upward direction, in this book it has a variety of meanings, the most common being “attack” (Contemporary English Version) or “fight against.” Some languages may have a similar idiom that can be used here. The verb is marked as singular masculine in Hebrew, but refers to a group of people or a tribe. Thus Good News Translation says “Which of our tribes should be the first to go…?”

Go up first for us means to lead the rest of the Israelite tribes into battle, so we could rather say “lead us into battle” or “lead the invasion” ( NET Bible). For us refers to the Israelites as a group.

The Canaanites is a broad term for the various groups of people who lived in Canaan, sometimes referred to as “the inhabitants of the land” (verse 1.32-33). Their territory, located west of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, seems to be named after Canaan, the fourth son of Ham (Gen 10.6). This territory, known today as “Palestine,” is at times linked to the Phoenicians (see verse 5.12 in the Septuagint). In Hebrew this word here is singular “the Canaanite,” but virtually all versions render it as a plural. For translation we can say “the people of Canaan” or “the inhabitants of Canaan.” Some languages will have special suffixes or idiomatic expressions that can be used, such as “the Canaan-people” or “the Canaan-children.”

To fight against them: This infinitive phrase describes the purpose of “going up.” Fight renders a common Hebrew verb (lacham) meaning “go to battle,” “make war,” or “attack.” Some versions prefer to use one verb to express go up … to fight, as in Contemporary English Version “attack.” But most versions prefer keeping two verbs: “to go … attack” (Good News Translation), “to march … to make war” (New Jerusalem Bible). Against them in Hebrew is literally “against him,” but most versions use a plural here.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Now, after Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who should lead us into battle against the Canaanites?”

• After Joshua’s death, the tribes of Israel came together and asked Yahweh, “Which tribe should lead the attack against the inhabitants of Canaan?”

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 .