Finally the body of Joseph (Hebrew “bones of Joseph”) is given permanent burial (see Gen 50.25-26; Exo 13.19). For the purchase of the field of Jacob, see Genesis 33.18-20. The sons of Hamor should probably be “the descendant of Hamor,” as in Genesis 33.19. It is not known exactly how much the hundred pieces of silver would be worth in modern currency.

Which the people of Israel had brought from Egypt is chronologically prior to The body of Joseph … was buried at Shechem. Moreover, the piece of land that Jacob had bought comes first in the historical sequence of events. It is possible (1) to translate so that all three events fall in chronological sequence or (2) to place only the first two in chronological sequence with the mention of the purchase of the field as a flashback, as Good News Translation has done. If all three events are placed in chronological sequence, the following will serve as a pattern:

• Many years ago the Israelites’ ancestor Jacob had bought a piece of land from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. He had paid them a hundred pieces of silver for this land. When the people of Israel left Egypt, they brought the body of their ancestor Joseph with them. They had carried it with them all this while, and now they buried it in that piece of land that Jacob had bought at Shechem.

The last part of the verse in the Masoretic text is “they were (or, became) for the sons (or, descendants) of Joseph an inheritance.” Most translations (An American Translation, Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, New American Bible) understand that the piece of land is being referred to; but New English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project take the plural to refer to “the bones of Joseph” (New English Bible “and they passed into the patrimony of the house of Joseph”). This seems strange but appears to be what the Masoretic text says. The singular “it was (or, became)” should be considered a textual change, based on the Syriac andVulgate texts.

If the exegesis of Good News Translation is maintained, This land was inherited by Joseph’s descendants may be translated, “Joseph’s descendants received this land as their own.” If the alternative interpretation is accepted, “Joseph’s descendants received these bones as their possession.”

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 .

Their wives, children, and livestock will remain on the east side, while the men themselves, armed for battle, will take the lead in crossing over to the west side ahead of their fellow Israelites.

Soldiers translates a phrase “men of valor among you” (Revised Standard Version), “all the warriors among you” (New English Bible, New American Bible), “all of you who are fighting men” (Jerusalem Bible). They were not permanent military men, as the modern term means, but men of twenty years of age or older who were fit for battle, equivalent to a modern militia. They were “citizen soldiers,” not professional warriors. Since the Hebrew word “soldiers” does not refer specifically to military men, one might render “able-bodied men” or “men fit for battle.” The clause may then be translated, “But all of your men who are fit for battle must take their weapons and cross over….”

Armed for battle translates the participle of a verb related to the word “five,” and may designate a battle formation of five groups; one in the lead, one in the rear, one in the middle, and one on each side. Since these men would not have their families and animals with them, they would go first. Although armed for battle does originally come from the word “five,” it is not necessary (and is probably impossible) to reproduce this root meaning in translation. In fact, it is quite likely that even for the author of the book the term no longer held this specific meaning. Soldiers, armed for battle may be rendered “battle-ready men” or “able-bodied men.”

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 .

Here again it may be more effective to shift back to the direct discourse of the Hebrew. For example, “Tell the priests who carry the Covenant Box, ‘When you….’ ” Joshua’s command to the priests may be translated, “As soon as all of you have gone a few steps into the water, stop and stand there.” Or, “As soon as you have taken your first steps into the water….”

The instruction to the priests is a bit unclear in Hebrew, but it seems to mean what Good News Translation says, namely, that they were to enter the Jordan only a few feet and then stop. See also the discussion on 3.17.

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 .

In some languages it may be preferable not to repeat the full title the commander of the LORD’s army. One may translate either “he” or “the man.” If either of these is used of the commander of the Lord’s army, then one may want to mention Joshua by name: “He said to Joshua.”

Take your sandals off; you are standing on holy ground are exactly the same instructions as those given by the Lord to Moses at the burning bush (Exo 3.5). The ground on which Joshua is standing is holy because of the presence of the commander of the Lord’s army. The order of the words may need to be inverted in translation: “You are standing on holy ground. So take off your sandals.” The phrase holy ground may not be understood; or worse, it may be misunderstood as “ground that is taboo,” or in a negative sense as “ground that defiles people who touch it.” One may even be compelled to dispense with the “ground” imagery and translate “You are standing in the presence of the LORD.” If the imagery is maintained one may translate “You are standing on ground where the LORD has chosen to be worshiped.”

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 .

The question What can I say…? may be restructured as a statement: “I do not know what to say….” The order may be inverted: “O Lord, our army has retreated from the enemy, and I do not know what to say.” Or “O Lord, the men of Ai made our men turn and run, and I do not know what to say.”

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 .

The Hebrew of this verse speaks of “Ai and Bethel” (see Revised Standard Version; Good News Translation footnote); the Septuagint omits “and Bethel,” which Good News Translation, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible follow; there seems to be no reason for supposing that the men of Bethel were involved in this campaign. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project favors the Hebrew text, and a translator should feel free to follow it. Ai was left unprotected, an easy target for the Israelite troops lying in ambush west of the city.

Went after represents two verbs in Hebrew (Revised Standard Version “go out after … pursued”). Some languages will require the retention of two verbs, one indicating departure from the city and the other the actual pursuit of the Israelites.

The city was left wide open refers specifically to the city gates. One may then translate the verse “Every man in Ai left the city and ran after the Israelites. There was no one left to defend the city, and the gates of the city were left wide open.” Or “… and the men of the city had left the gates wide open.”

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 .

The news of Joshua’s victories reaches Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem (for king see 2.2), which at that time was a Jebusite city (Good News Translation footnote).The Hebrew adoni-tsedeq means “my lord (is) Zedek”; the Hebrew word tsedeq itself (as a common noun) means “righteousness.” See Melchizedek, king of Salem (Jerusalem), in Gen 14.18; his name is “my king (is) Zedek” (see Heb 7.1-2). The name “Zedek” appears to be, then, the name of one of the Amorite gods. Again (see 8.2), mention is expressly made of the death of the king of Jericho; this will occur later on in this chapter (see verses 28, 30).

Two translational adjustments may be necessary in order to give this verse maximum readability. (1) A link, showing time relationships, may be established between this chapter and the preceding chapter: “At that time Adonizedek was king of Jerusalem.” (2) The events in this verse may be narrated in a somewhat more chronological order:

• He heard that Joshua had captured and destroyed the cities of Jericho and Ai, and he heard that Joshua had killed the kings of these two cities. He also heard that the people of Gibeon …

Or:

• He heard that Joshua had captured and destroyed the city of Jericho and had killed its king. And he heard that Joshua had done the same thing to the city of Ai and its king. He also heard that the people of Gibeon …

Or:

• Joshua had captured and destroyed the city of Ai just as he had done with the city of Jericho. The city had been burned to the ground, and the king and all the people who lived there had been killed. After that the people of Gibeon had made peace with the Israelites and were living among them. When king Adonizedek of Jerusalem learned of this, 2 all the people of Jerusalem became greatly alarmed …

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 .