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 2:15

A house built into the city wall: archaeological excavations reveal that at one time Jericho had two city walls, an inner one and an outer one, separated by a space of some 3.5 to 4.5 meters. Houses were built on heavy timbers laid from one wall to the other: the window through which Rahab let the men down looked out from the outer wall (see Bright). The phrase a house built into the city wall could possibly be unclear; it may be more satisfactory to translate “a section of the city wall formed the outside wall of Rahab’s house.” Moreover, it may even be necessary to include a footnote, indicating more precisely the relation between the house and the city wall. Finally, to restructure so she let … by a rope as an explanation rather than as the next event in a sequence may help to resolve the flashback problem of verses 17-21. That is, one may translate either “that is why Rahab was able to let the men down…” or “so Rahab was able to let the men down….” Such restructuring does not do harm to the text, and it will benefit the reader.

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 4:13

In the presence of the LORD probably refers to the Covenant Box, which symbolized the Lord’s earthly throne. Since the more likely interpretation is that this phrase is a reference to the Covenant Box, one may translate “About forty thousand men ready for war crossed over to the plain near Jericho, and the LORD was with them because his Covenant Box was there among them.” If, on the other hand, in the presence of the LORD is not specifically related to the Covenant Box, one may translate “and the LORD was with them” or “under the leadership of the LORD.”

The number about forty thousand refers to the warriors of the two and one-half eastern tribes. In translation one should avoid the possibility that the reader may understand about forty thousand men to include the total number of Israelites who crossed over. Therefore one may render “about forty thousand men from these two and one-half tribes crossed over to the plain near Jericho, and they were all ready for war.”

In verse 13 ready for war (Revised Standard Version “ready armed for war”) translates a Hebrew verb which means “stripped,” a reference to discarding for work or battle those garments which were ordinarily worn.

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 6:18

The order to destroy everything and everyone in the city is reinforced with the warning that unless the Israelites do so the Israelite camp itself will have to be destroyed.The Masoretic text of verse 18 has the verb charam “to dedicate to destruction” (Revised Standard Version “lest when you have devoted them”); Septuagint translates the Hebrew verb chamad “to desire, covet,” which is preferred by Bright and Gray and is followed by An American Translation New English Bible New American Bible Jerusalem Bible, and also by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project on the basis of what it calls Factor 12, “other scribal errors.” This is certainly an easier text; but as Soggin says, “the correction is useful but not essential.” Revised Standard Version Good News Translation Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translate the Masoretic text. But you translates a strongly emphatic form in Hebrew.

That is to be destroyed may be translated “that I have told you to destroy.” This dreadful warning of destruction is followed in Hebrew by another verbal phrase which Revised Standard Version translates “and bring trouble upon it.” This seems rather anticlimactic; the Jerusalem Bible rendering is more effective, “bring disaster on it.” For the sake of making the passage more climactic, Good News Translation inverts the order of the Hebrew nouns “trouble” and “destruction.” It is possible to take the noun phrase trouble and destruction as meaning “great trouble” or “terrible destruction.” With this in mind, and representing the two nouns as verbs, one may translate “If you do take anything that belongs to the LORD, he will totally destroy everyone in our camp. And it will be your own fault.” It should be observed that in this restructuring the Israelite camp of Good News Translation is rendered “our camp,” since Joshua himself is included in the group. This is also in keeping with the use of our spies of verse 17. The Hebrew verb translated bring trouble … on is used also in 7.25, in connection with Achan’s disregard of this very order requiring the destruction of all the enemy loot.

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 7:26

Achan’s sin has made him and his family and everything he owns devoted to destruction; so he, his family, and his animals are all stoned to death, while his belongings are all burned. Thus the Lord’s order is finally obeyed, and he was no longer furious.

The execution takes place in Trouble Valley (Revised Standard Version “Valley of Achor”). The Hebrew noun akor means “trouble.” Joshua’s words in verse 25 contain a play on words: Achan has brought … trouble (Hebrew verb akar) on Israel, and now the Lord will … bring trouble on him.

As in the case of Circumcision Hill (5.3), the name Trouble Valley here was given to the valley as a result of the execution of Achan. At the time of the writing of this account, the place still had that name and the pile of stones was still there.

In the phrase over him Achan is in focus; however, the meaning is surely “over them,” including everything that was burned, especially Achan and his relatives.

Then the LORD was no longer furious may need to be translated, “After the death of Achan, the LORD was no longer furious with the people of Israel.” Or “After the people of Israel had put Achan to death, the LORD was no longer angry with them.”

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 .