The text does not say how the Israelites discovered that they had been deceived, but the intimation is that they learned by accident; this would seem the better alternative in translation, if a choice must be made between intentional and unintentional learning. In any case, they set out at once and went to the four cities of the Gibeonites, but because of their treaty with them they could not kill them. Instead, the Gibeonites became slaves of the Israelites.

Three days later (in both 16 and 17) means “the day after tomorrow” (see comments on 1.11).It should be noticed that Hebrew Old Testament Text Project says that the two periods of three days in verses 16 and 17 refer to the same three days, not to six days, and propose a translation what will reflect this understanding of the text. On the face of it, this sounds correct, but it must be said that the Hebrew text as it now stands does not read as though the two three-day periods are just one three-day period. Many languages will have idiomatic ways of describing such short periods of time. Concerning the possibility of understanding three days later of both verses as a reference to the same time period, see below.

After the treaty had been made may be restructured as an active clause: either “after the Israelites had made the treaty with the Gibeonites” or “after the Israelites and the Gibeonites had made a treaty.”

The Israelites learn the truth about the Gibeonites, that they did indeed live nearby (the Hebrew is quite repetitious; “they were neighbors to them and in their neighborhood they lived”). At once the Israelites set out and arrive at Gibeon on the third day (Gibeon was only 30 kilometers from the Israelites camp at Gilgal; and notice that in 10.9 the Israelites are able to cover the distance in a nightlong forced march). The four cities were quite close together: Beeroth was about 7 kilometers northeast of Gibeon; Chephirah was about 7 kilometers southwest of Gibeon, and Kiriath Jearim a bit farther away in the same direction.

The Hebrew text of verse 16 reads “At the end of three days,” while in verse 17 it reads “on the third day.” There is the possibility that the same period of time is designated by each of these temporal phrases. If that is the case, then the text would appear to mean that three days after the treaty was signed the people of Israel happened to arrive in the area where the Gibeonites’ cities were. It was at this time that they learned that they had been tricked. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recognizes the problem and recommends that these three-day periods be identified as one in translation. If the translator follows the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommendation, verses 16-17 may then become a unit:

• After making the treaty with the Gibeonites, the Israelites broke camp and were on the move again. At the end of the third day, they arrived in the vicinity of the cities of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath Jearim. It was then that the Israelites learned that the Gibeonites did indeed live nearby.

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 .

Joshua and his army may be translated by the pronoun “they,” since they are fully identified in verse 34.

Went … up into the kills to Hebron translates “went up to Hebron” of the Hebrew text. The verb “went up” is the normal one used of attacking cities, since cities were generally placed on the highest geographical point possible. Here, however, Good News Translation attempts to indicate that Hebron is in the highlands; it is some 36 kilometers from Eglon.

The same language is used; there is complete slaughter and destruction, as is indicated by the use once again of the verb meaning condemned … to total destruction. The king is killed; either he is the successor of the former king executed by (Joshua verses 23-25), or (as some scholars think is likely) there is an inconsistency in the two accounts.

The size and importance of Hebron are emphasized by the mention of the nearby towns. As well as in the nearby towns may be translated as a complete statement: “They also captured the nearby towns, and killed everyone in them as well.”

Joshua condemned the city to total destruction may be too abstract for many readers. It is possible to translate “Joshua told his men, ‘Completely destroy the city, just as you completely destroyed the city of Eglon. Kill everyone in it.’ ”

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 .

Verses 4-6 describe territory in the north. Mearah is located north of Sidon, the important Phoenician city on the Mediterranean coast, north of Palestine. Aphek here is not the same as in 12.18; perhaps it lay east of Gebal. (the land of the Gebalites, verse 5), which is known also as Byblos, north of Beirut (in Lebanon). Baalgad: see 11.17. Hamath Pass was regarded as the northern limit of Israel, in the valley between the two ranges of the Lebanon Mountains. Misrephoth Maim (see 11.8) was the southern boundary of the Sidonians, as the Lebanon Mountains were the northern boundary.It should be noticed that the Hebrew text in such places as 13.2-6 can be understood in different ways, so translations do not always agree.

A proposed restructuring for verse 4 is given in conjunction with the comments at 13.2-3.

In order to aid the reader’s comprehension, one may want to begin a new sentence at verse 5, or even divide it into two complete sentences: “You still have not conquered the land of the Gebalites. You have not taken the territory of Lebanon to the east, from the city of Baalgad, which is south of Mount Hermon, to Hamath Pass.” Or, “You have still not taken the territory that belongs to the city of Gebal. And you have not conquered all the territory of Lebanon from the city of Baalgad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Hamath Pass.”

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 .

Inasmuch as verses 2-4 give the details of the southern border of Judah, it may be useful to introduce this information by some formula such as “Specifically, this southern border ran….”

It may also be helpful to identify Zin (verse 3) as the wilderness of Zin, and Kadesh Barnea, Hezron, Addar, Karka, and Azmon as cities. Furthermore, in place of went southward (verse 3) it would be more nearly accurate to render “went in a southwesterly direction.”

In restructuring, it may be wise at some point to break the lengthy sentence which runs from the last half of verse 2 to the first part of verse 4. For example: “4 went on to the city of Azmon. From there it followed the stream on the border of Egypt in a northwesterly direction to the Mediterranean Sea.”

In Hebrew That was the southern border of Judah is in direct discourse, and it states “This shall be your southern border” (see Revised Standard Version). This statement is addressed either to the people of the tribe of Judah or to the Israelites as a whole; Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends the second interpretation, which is not followed by Good News Translation.

Since the southern borders of Judah and the Israelite nation are the same, it is possible to combine both interpretations: “That was the southern border of Judah and also of all the tribes of Israel.” Or, on the assumption that it is implicitly the southern border of Judah, one may translate “That was at the same time the southern border of all the tribes of Israel.”

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 .

Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation follow the Masoretic text spelling of the places cited. In verse 28, instead of Masoretic text Ebron, Soggin, citing 1 Chronicles 6.74, prefers “Abdon”; so New English Bible, New American Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project.

Sidon (Revised Standard Version “Sidon the Great”) in verse 28 and Tyre in verse 29 are the two important Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean.

In verse 29 the Masoretic text has “Mehebel” (which could be taken to mean “from Hebel”); the Septuagint favors Mahalab (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation and others); Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers to spell it “Mahlab”. It seems best to follow Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation spelling.

In verse 30, for Ummah of the Masoretic text, the Septuagint has “Acco” (see Judges 1.31), which is modern Acre; Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefer to follow the Septuagint. A translator should feel free to follow the Septuagint here.

Since some of the cities in verses 25-30 are mentioned in geographical relationship to other cities, the passage may be translated similarly to the first proposal for verses 18-23.

It is possible to translate verses 30-31 as a unit, and a proposal for doing so is given below. But first, it should be noted that Good News Translation once again fails to identify the place-names as cities, and this causes confusion, since Zebulun (verse 27) represents a tribe, not a city. To help with this difficulty, verses 25 and 27 may be translated:

• 25 The southern border of its territory led westward from the city of Helkath to…. 27 The eastern border went north from the city of Helkath to the city of Bethdagon. It touched the territory of the tribe of Zebulun …

The last part of verse 29 and all of verses 30-31 may be translated, “It included Mahalab, Achzib, 30-31 Ummah, Aphek, and Rehob, a total of twenty-two cities, along with the towns around them. This entire region was given to the tribe of Asher.”

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 .