Translation commentary on Joshua 6:23

They is literally “young men” (Revised Standard Version), which may be taken to mean that they were in their early twenties; the Hebrew word is used sometimes of unmarried males, but it does not necessarily imply that the young male so indicated is in fact a bachelor. However, if the receptor language requires a choice between “unmarried young men” and “married young men,” it would be better to use “unmarried young men.” There are indications elsewhere in the Old Testament that married men, or men with families, were occasionally released from the responsibilities of warfare. In the Hebrew text an appositional is attached to “young men” so that the text is literally “the young men, the spies.” However, they were identified as spies in verse 22, and many languages will prefer not to repeat this information so soon. Here, as elsewhere, one must be alert to the demands of the larger discourse unit, and not merely to the sentence as an isolated entity.

Rahab and all her family are brought out of Jericho and taken to a place near the Israelite camp. The significance of their being brought near, that is, not into the camp, is that they are all Gentiles and cannot enter the camp of Israel, which is holy.

All, family and slaves translates two phrases in Hebrew, “and all who belonged to her and all her group (or, clan)”; most translations, like Revised Standard Version, translate the second phrase “and all her kindred,” thus taking this Hebrew phrase to be completely equivalent in meaning to the preceding phrase. Some take it to be a summary statement (see New English Bible), “so they took out all her family (clan).” Good News Translation has made explicit the fact that the slaves would also be included in the group; but no other translation uses the word “slaves” here.

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 8:6

It may be better to invert the order of the two sentences in this verse. To do so will have two advantages: (1) the first sentence leads more naturally into verse 7, and (2) the second sentence ties closely with the last part of verse 5. Moreover, that we are running from them as we did before may need to be shifted back to the direct discourse of the Hebrew (see Revised Standard Version).There is a textual problem in verse 6; Good News Translation has omitted, translationally, the end of the verse “and we will flee from them” (see Revised Standard Version); New English Bible Bible de Jérusalem Jerusalem Bible, following the Septuagint, omit. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project labels this a “D” decision, which means that it is impossible to decide which is the correct reading. Following these suggestions, the verse may be translated, “They will think, ‘Those Israelites are running from us, as they did before.’ Then they will pursue us, and we will lead them away from the city.”

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 9:11

Leaders (Revised Standard Version “elders”) indicates that the Gibeonites did not have a king as their ruler (see 10.2). The Gibeonites tell their elaborate story, seeking to convince the Israelites that indeed they have come from a very distant land.

The instructions given the men by their leaders and by all the people of Gibeon may be made into direct discourse: “Our leaders and everyone in our country told us, ‘Get some food ready for a trip and go meet the people of Israel. Put yourselves at their service, and ask them to make a treaty with us.’ ”

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 10:29 - 10:30

After this, Joshua and his army went on from Makkedah may be translated “From Makkedah Joshua and his army went on to.” From Makkedah Joshua goes about 11 kilometers southwest to Libnah, where the same thing happens. By this time in the narrative most readers should expect the place-names to be those of cities, but for some languages it may be important to say “to the city of Libnah.”

The language is stylized; in verse 30 the statement is made again that the Lord gave … victory to the Israelites (literally “gave … into the hand of,” Revised Standard Version), as at verse 19 and elsewhere.

The verbs continue in the singular, without an explicit change of subject, and “he smote … he left … he did” (Revised Standard Version) could be read as having the Lord as subject. Probably Joshua or the Israelite army is to be understood as the subject.

They spared no one, but killed every person in it may be translated without the repetition of information: “They killed everyone in the city.”

Here, as in verse 39, the statement is made that the king of Libnah was put to death, just as the king of Jericho had been (see 8.2). The last sentence of verse 30 may be translated, “They killed the king of Libnah, just as they had killed the king of Jericho.”

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 12:9 - 12:24

In this list of thirty-one kings, the kings of the following cities have already been named: Jericho (6.1-27; see note on 8.2 and 10.1); Ai (8.10-29); Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (10.22-27); Gezer (10.33); and Debir (10.38).

Revised Standard Version reproduces the formal features of the Hebrew; from verses 9-23 the Hebrew lists two kings in each of the fifteen verses, giving the name of the king and then adding the numeral “one” after each name; in verse 24a the last king is named, followed also by the numeral “one.” This gives a total of thirty-one kings.

Good News Translation has simplified the form in an attempt to make the list easier to read.

If the form of Good News Translation is preferred over the tabular form of An American Translation, then verse numbers “9-24” may be indicated at verse 9, so as to avoid the awkwardness of having verse numbers precede so many of the names in the text.

In such a list as this the precise location of each city is not important, since there is no movement from one place to the next. The cities in verses 9-16a (Jericho to Makkedah) are in the south: the cities in verses 16b-24 are in the central and northern part of the country. Commentators point out that no campaigns in the central part of the country (in the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh) have been described.

There are several textual problems in this list.In verse 18 the Masoretic text lists two kings: of Aphek and of Lasharon. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project emends the text by deleting the first numeral “one” and taking lasharon to mean “of Sharon,” and translates “the king of Aphek-in-Sharon, one” (so Gray). Thus verses 18, following Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, lists only one king. Bible de Jérusalem translates “the king in Sharon” (not of Sharon). In verse 19 Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends deleting “king of Madon: one.” In verse 20, instead of two kings in the Masoretic text, of Shimron Meron and of Achshaph, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project conjectures three kings: of Shimeon, of Meron, and of Achshaph. There is some support from the Septuagint in some of these textual items; but it should be noted that the Septuagint lists only twenty-nine kings in all. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project comes up with thirty (and not thirty-one) kings in all. It does not seem necessary to follow Hebrew Old Testament Text Project here. In verse 23a the Hebrew for “Naphath-dor” (see Revised Standard Version) is taken by Good News Translation to mean (see 11.2) “the Dor on the coast” (New English Bible has “Dor in the district of Dor”; Jerusalem Bible “Dor on the hillsides of Dor”; Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “Dor on the crest of Dor”).

In verse 23b the Masoretic text has “Gilgal.” The Septuagint has “Galilee” (so An American Translation, Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible), supported by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, which judges that the reading “Gilgal” represents either a misunderstanding of the historical situation by a later scribe, or a scribal error. New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible prefer the Masoretic text. Goiim represents the transliteration of a Hebrew word which as a common noun means “nations, peoples, Gentiles”: so An American Translation, Bible de Jérusalem. New American Bible translates the Masoretic text by “the foreign king at Gilgal.” Gray suggests a scribal mistake for “Harosheth-of-the-Gentiles” (see Judges 4.2), which was in Galilee.

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 14:14

Still belongs refers to the time of the writing of the account.

Even if son of Jephunneh is felt to be obligatory in verse 13, certainly son of Jeshunneh the Kenizzite should be deleted from this verse.

The verse may be inverted to reflect chronological order, “Because Caleb fully trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel, the city of Hebron still belongs to his descendants.” Some languages may require explicit mention of the Lord’s giving the city to Caleb: “Caleb trusted fully in the LORD, and so the LORD gave him the city of Hebron. His descendants still live there.”

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 16:10

Verse 10 takes notice of the fact that the original inhabitants of Gezer were not driven out of their city, but that their descendants were still living there as slaves at the time of the writing of the account.

But they did not drive out the Canaanite who lived in Gezer may be translated, “But the people of Ephraim did not drive the Canaanites out of the city of Gezer,” by which who lived in is clearly implicit.

So the Canaanites have lived among the Ephraimites to this day may be translated, “That is why the Canaanites still live among the people of Ephraim.”

The Hebrew expression translated forced to work as slaves implies the lowest form of compulsory labor, that is, complete enslavement. The expression is used also at Genesis 49.15.

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 19:11 - 19:14

In the translation of verses 11-14, Good News Translation has fairly well marked out the directions of movement; however, attention should be given to the need for marking each of the place-names as a city.

In addition, the three participial phrases (touching, verse 11; turning, verse 13; ending, verse 14) as well as then to Daberath and up to Japhia (verse 12) may need drastic restructuring. That is, the participial phrases presuppose a subject (“the border”), while the “then” clause of verse 12 presupposes both subject (“the border”) and verb (“went”).

Finally, some languages may find it appropriate to divide the text into sentences at places other than where this is done in Good News Translation.

In verse 13 Gath Hepher (5 kilometers northeast of Nazareth) is identified as the birthplace of the prophet Jonah (2 Kgs 14.25).

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 .