inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Josh. 9:19)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, Bratcher / Newman recommend the inclusive form (including the leaders and the congregation). The Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive pronoun in the first part (“We have sworn” in English) and the inclusive form in the second part (“we must not touch them” in English).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Josh. 9:20)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive pronoun (including the leaders and the congregation).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Josh. 22:19)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive pronoun (including the priest, the ten chiefs and the people they are representing).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Josh. 22:31)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, Bratcher / Newman recommend the us of the inclusive form (including the priest, the chiefs and the ones who are being addressed). The Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation, however, use the exclusive pronoun for the first occurrence (“today we know” in English) and the inclusive pronoun for the second occurrence (“is among us” in English).

Translation commentary on Joshua 1:4

Your borders: Your is plural, referring to the people of Israel and not just to Joshua.

The Hebrew text seems to define the territory as follows: “from the wilderness and this Lebanon and to the great river, the Euphrates River, all the land of the Hittites and to the great sea at the going down of the sun will be your borders.” Good News Translation takes this to indicate the four limits of the territory: south, “the wilderness,” traditionally called the Negev, and referring to the dry country extending from Beersheba to the desert of Sinai and the Gulf of Aqaba; north, the Lebanon Mountains; east, the Euphrates River; and west, the Mediterranean Sea. In Hebrew “this Lebanon” is puzzling; most translations have simply “the Lebanon.” The name does not refer to the country known today as Lebanon but to the Lebanon Mountains. The Hebrew of verse 4 is literally “From the wilderness (desert) … shall be your border.” Good News Translation inverts the Hebrew order and translates Your borders will reach from…. But the result is a sentence which is both lengthy and difficult, and it will help the reader if the sentence is restructured. For example, “I will give you (plural) all the land from the desert in the south to the Lebanon Mountains in the north. Your borders (or, The borders of your land) will reach from the great Euphrates River in the east. It will include the Hittite country as far as the Mediterranean Sea in the west.” A restructuring of this type will have at least two advantages: (1) It will break verse 4 into two less difficult sentences, and (2) it will tie verse 3 (“I promised Moses that I would give”) more closely with verse 4 (“I will give”).

“All the land of the Hittites” (Revised Standard Version) is omitted in the Greek Old Testament and is thought by some scholars to be a later addition to the text (see Bible de Jerusalem [Bible de Jérusalem]); it denotes the northern part of Syria, which had been part of the Hittite empire. See the similar description of the promised land in Deuteronomy 11.24, which does not include the phrase “all the land of the Hittites.” It seems best to follow the Hebrew text here. Only during the time of David and Solomon did the Israelites actually occupy much of this land.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Joshua 2:23

Came down from the hills may be taken to mean “went down into the Jordan Valley.”

The Hebrew of this verse contains four verbs of motion (“returned”; “came down”; “crossed”; “came to”). Good News Translation combines the force of the first (“returned”) and last (“came to”) verbs in the series by rendering went back.

Everything that had happened is more literally “everything that had happened to them”; the clause may also be translated “everything that they had done” or “everything that they had experienced.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Joshua 5:4 - 5:6

The explanation of why the rite of circumcision was necessary is given in verses 4-7; Good News Translation has endeavored to rearrange the material in verses 4-6 for ease of understanding. The Hebrew expression “the men of war” (Revised Standard Version) in verses 4, 6 means males twenty years and older who were eligible for military duty. All those male adults had died during the forty years spent in going from Egypt to Canaan, and the new male generation now had to be circumcised.

Although Good News Translation restructuring of verses 4-6 does make the understanding of the text somewhat easier, certain difficulties still exist. For example, the first sentence begins with a temporal clause that describes an event which took place subsequent to the action of the main clause. This problem is easily solved by inverting the two clauses: “All the Israelite men and boys were circumcised before the people of Israel left Egypt.” The next sentence can then begin “However, they did not circumcise any of the baby boys who were born during the forty years that the people spent crossing the desert.”

The next sentence is highly complex, and some restructuring may be necessary. For example:

• Also, by the end of that time all the men who were of fighting age when they left Egypt had died. They had disobeyed the LORD, and the LORD had sworn that he would not let them see the rich and fertile land that he had promised their ancestors. Or, one may shift to direct discourse: “They had not obeyed the LORD, and so the LORD had sworn, ‘You will not see the rich and fertile land that I promised your ancestors.’ ”

Just as he had sworn: Numbers 14.28-35 reports the Lord’s vow not to allow any male Israelite over twenty years of age to enter Canaan; all of them except Caleb and Joshua would die during the wanderings in the wilderness, and only their children would enter the promised land.

The rich and fertile land (Revised Standard Version “a land flowing with milk and honey”) is a set phrase to describe Canaan (see Exo 3.8; Num 14.8) as opposed to the wilderness where the Israelites had wandered for forty years. A number of translations maintain the Hebraism. This may be an effective device in cultures where the idiom has already become a part of the active vocabulary of the majority of speakers. However, this would certainly not be the case for many languages. In America, for example, church people and people who know certain biblical metaphors through English literature might understand the meaning, but it would otherwise be unclear for the average reader. On the other hand, a number of languages will have their own metaphors which will very effectively carry the meaning of the biblical expression.

He had promised their ancestors represents the Hebrew “The LORD had promised their ancestors (fathers) to give to us.” Here “us” refers to the generation of the writer of the account and the people of his time, who live many years after these historic events. He sees Israel in his own time as the recipients of God’s promise to the ancestors. In order to include the meaning of “us” of the Hebrew text, one may translate:

• The LORD had promised our ancestors that he would give this land to them, and to us, their descendants. But these men who left Egypt did not obey the LORD, and so the LORD said to them, “You will never live in the land which I promised your ancestors….”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Joshua 6:26

At this time may need to be made more specific: “After Joshua and his men had destroyed the city of Jericho, Joshua….” This may be particularly important, especially in light of the intervening reference to the day in which the book is being written.

It may be obligatory to indicate the persons to whom Joshua gave the warning, and other languages will require that issued a solemn warning be translated solely as a verb instead of a verb (issued) followed by an object (solemn warning). Moreover, the fact that it is a solemn warning may have to be brought out in the manner in which the warning is stated, since this phrase may be difficult, if not impossible, to render into many languages. For example, “Joshua warned the people of Israel never to try to rebuild the city of Jericho” or “Joshua warned the people of Israel, ‘You must never try to rebuild the city of Jericho.’ ”

The story of the fall of Jericho ends with the solemn curse pronounced by Joshua. The Hebrew “cursed before the LORD” (see Revised Standard Version) means, as Good News Translation has it, under the LORD’s curse (see also New English Bible). The Hebrew word translated curse means the object of the Lord’s anger and punishment. Joshua was not merely predicting what would happen, but as a spokesman for the Lord he was causing the disaster to occur which he had described. The fulfillment of this curse is reported in 1 Kings 16.34 (during the reign of King Ahab of Israel, 874-853 B. C.).

Instead of the passive Anyone … will be under the LORD’s curse, a shift to an active structure may be more effective: “The LORD will place a curse upon anyone who tries to rebuild the city of Jericho.”

The last two statements of this verse indicate the content of the curse, but the relation between under the LORD’s curse and these two statements may need to be stated clearly: “under the LORD’s curse. And this is what the curse will be:….”

Contemporary cities do not have a foundation, and neither did ancient cities. The reference is to the foundation for the city walls, as the mention of gates in the last statement indicates. Moreover, maintaining the two parallel statements of the curse may well lead to a misunderstanding of its content. In fact, it is probably much better to combine than to retain the parallel curses. The meaning is that whoever attempts to rebuild the city of Jericho will lose all of his children, from the oldest to the youngest. The curse may then be stated, “Whoever starts to rebuild the city walls will lose all of his children,” or even “If a man even starts to rebuild the city of Jericho, the LORD will take the lives of all of his children.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .