Translation commentary on Joshua 5:8

After the circumcision was completed may be translated “After all the men had been circumcised.” It may be necessary to translate “After Joshua had circumcised all the men” or “… had caused (commanded) all the men to be circumcised.”

The whole nation is a reference to the men of Israel, as the Hebrew form of the verb stayed (masculine plural) clarifies. The verse may then be rendered, “After all the men of Israel had been circumcised, they stayed in the camp until their wounds had healed.”

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 7:1

This verse is not simply the statement about one man’s sin; all the Israelites suffer as a consequence of his sin: The LORD was furious with the Israelites.

The first sentence of Good News Translation is difficult because it contains (a) two negatives (not to take; was not obeyed) and (b) a series of four events: command, take, destroy, and obey. The complexity may be somewhat eased as follows: “The LORD commanded the people of Israel to destroy Jericho and everything in it. But a man named Achan did not obey the LORD’s command, and so the LORD was very angry with the people of Israel.” Or, if repetition is more effective: “… but not everyone obeyed this command. A man named Achan disobeyed what the LORD had said….” Direct discourse may be employed for the Lord’s command: “The LORD had told the people of Israel, ‘Destroy Jericho and everything in it.’ ….”

Achan’s disobedience is spoken of as treachery, as “an act of unfaithfulness” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). He defied the Lord’s explicit command and “took some of the devoted things” (Revised Standard Version), that is, “things devoted to destruction.” Achan’s lineage is given: Carmi, Zabdi, Zerah, and tribe of Judah (see verses 16-18). In identifying Achan Good News Translation follows the order of the Hebrew: son of … grandson of … clan of … tribe of…. Some languages may prefer to go from the larger units of tribe and clan to that of the family.

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 8:11

The soldiers with him includes all the men mentioned in the previous verse. The reading of Good News Translation is ambiguous; it suggests that there was another group or other groups led by someone else. In order to avoid this ambiguity, at least two solutions are possible: (1) The last part of the previous verse may be connected with the first part of this verse: “Then he and the leaders of Israel led the fighting men 11 up toward the main entrance to the city of Ai.” (2) The other solution would be to begin verse 11 with the pronoun “They,” referring back to Joshua, the leaders of Israel, and the fighting men: “They went up toward the main entrance to the city….”

The main body took up its position north of the city, where it would be in plain sight of the enemy (verse 11); between the Israelite army and the city was a valley. The explanation with a valley between themselves and Ai may fare better as a separate statement: “Only a valley separated them from the city of Ai” or “There was a valley between their camp and the city of Ai.”

In translating verses 11-13 one should not attempt either to “sew up the seams” or to remove what seem to be contradictions between verses 10-12 and verses 3-9. Jerusalem Bible places verses 11-13 together in such a manner as to make them agree with the earlier account, while Living Bible even adds a footnote with an explanation which assumes that one person must have written the narrative in a singular and consistent manner. This is dishonest; the translator’s first duty is to be honest with the text.

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 9:19 - 9:20

We (also us) of this and the following two verses must be translated as an inclusive first personal pronoun, in those languages that make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive forms. The leaders are saying that no one in Israel is allowed to harm these people. Although the Hebrew text has “touch” (Revised Standard Version), it is used in the sense of bringing harm to the persons touched, and so the basis for Good News Translation.

God will punish us translates the Hebrew “anger will be upon us” (see Revised Standard Version), a reference to God’s anger.

It is possible to place verses 19-20 together and so translate “19-20 But they answered, ‘We have promised them freedom in the name of the LORD, the God of Israel. Therefore we must let them live. Otherwise the LORD will punish us severely.’ ”

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 10:40 - 10:41

Verses 40-43 summarize Joshua’s conquest of the whole land (verse 40), by which is meant the southern part of Canaan. Again the statement is made (verse 42) that the victories were due to the Lord, the God of Israel.

The area conquered by Joshua is divided into four regions (verse 40). Following Revised Standard Version, these regions are called: (1) “the hill country,” by which is meant the central highlands; (2) “the Negeb,” or Negev, which is the southern region, the semiarid country southwest of the Dead Sea; (3) “the lowland” translates “The Shephelah”; this is the region of the western foothills, between the central highlands and the coastal plain; (4) “the slopes” refers to the region between the central highlands and the Dead Sea; the land falls steeply and there are high cliffs. See 12.8, where these four geographical terms, and others, are also used.

Again the explicit statement is made that Joshua “utterly destroyed” (Revised Standard Version) all living beings (literally “all breath” or “life”), which refers only to people, not to animals as well, as Bright notes, this is exaggerated language. Joshua did this in obedience to the Lord’s command.

The whole area conquered by Joshua is further defined (verse 41) as going from Kadesh Barnea (which lies 88 kilometers south of Beersheba) in the south, to Gaza, the Philistine city near the Mediterranean coast. Goshen is “an undetermined area in southern Palestine” (Bright), not to be confused with Goshen in the Nile Delta, in Egypt. The town of Goshen is located about 7 kilometers southeast of Debir. Gibeon is the northernmost city captured, the place where the campaign began (10.6-9).

Verses 40-41 may be translated as a unit by separating between the geographical references and the references to the slaughtering of the kings and the inhabitants of their territories. For example:

• Joshua conquered the whole land: the hill country, the eastern slopes, the western foothills, and the dry country in the south. Joshua led his army from Kadesh Barnea in the south to Gaza near the coast. He led them across the area of Goshen, and as far north as Gibeon.

Since there is possibility of confusing the Goshen of this account with that of Egypt, it may be wise to supply a footnote indicating which Goshen is here intended.

After describing the territories conquered by Joshua, one may then proceed to relate its effects: “Joshua defeated every king in the land and put to death all its people. He spared no one, because the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded him to kill them all.”

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 13:7

The Hebrew particle translated Now then may serve either as a temporal marker or else a transitional to a new thought, as in Good News Translation. In either case the implication is that Joshua must now divide the land, at least in principle, among the other nine tribes and half of the tribe of Manasseh.

For them to possess as their own translates the Hebrew “for an inheritance” (Revised Standard Version; see 1.6).The Septuagint has a considerably longer text in verse 7: “And now divide this land as an inheritance for the nine tribes and half the tribe of Manasseh; you shall give it from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea on the west. The Mediterranean Sea will be its frontier.” And then verse 8 follows: “And to the two tribes of Reuben and Gad and to half the tribe of Manasseh Moses had given (land) on the east side of the Jordan River.” Soggin follows this text in verse 7 (also Bible de Jérusalem Jerusalem Bible); Hebrew Old Testament Text Project follows the Septuagint in verse 7 and 8 (see its notes on 13.7; 13.8, and the translation it proposes for the two verses). It must be said that the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project conjectural restoration of the Hebrew text is not exactly what the Septuagint text is (at least the Septuagint in Rahlfs’ edition). The Masoretic text may certainly be corrupt, as Hebrew Old Testament Text Project says, and a translation may prefer to follow the Septuagint in verse 7.

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 15:6

The translator should notice the places where Good News Translation differs from the literal Hebrew (as represented by Revised Standard Version): “North of Beth-Arabah” (Revised Standard Version) is in Good News Translation north of the ridge overlooking the Jordan Valley, which is interpreted as the same location given as the southern border of the tribe of Benjamin in 18.18 (see the text there); “the Arabah” in this context is the Jordan Valley.

The last part of verse 5 and the beginning of verse 6 may be translated:

• From here the border extended in a northerly direction 6 to Beth Hoglah, and it proceeded north of the ridge overlooking the Jordan Valley. From there it went up to the Stone of Bohan, which was named after Bohan, a son of Reuben.

Nothing precisely is known about the Stone of Bohan; here Bohan is merely identified as a son of Reuben. It should be remembered that the territory of the tribe of Reuben was on the east side of the Jordan River.

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 17:5 - 17:6

The information ends (verse 6b) with the redundant note that the land of Gilead, on the east side of the Jordan was assigned to the rest of the descendants of Manasseh.

For the sake of avoiding unnecessary words, it is possible to place verses 5-6 together:

• Joshua assigned land to Manasseh’s male descendants and to his female descendants. That is why the tribe of Manasseh received ten shares of land on the west side of the Jordan River in addition to the territories of Gilead and Bashan on the east side.

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 .