Translation commentary on Joshua 9:6

The camp at Gilgal may be specified as “the Israelite camp at Gilgal”; or since the last place mentioned for the Israelites was in the valley between Mount Ebal and Gerizim, “the Israelite camp, which was now near the town of Gilgal.” A treaty (Revised Standard Version “covenant”) is an agreement that is made between two groups, usually in order to ensure peace between them.

The request of the Gibeonites may be stated: “We have come from a distant land, and we would like for you 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 10:22 - 10:24

After defeating the armies of the five kings, Joshua ordered that the five kings themselves be brought from the cave in which they had been trapped (verse 16-18). In the presence of all the Israelite soldiers, Joshua ordered the officers who had taken part with him in the campaign to place their feet on the necks of the prostrate kings. As commentators point out, this gesture of domination was widespread at that time (see 1 Kgs 5.3, Revised Standard Version; Psa 110.1).

Then Joshua said may be translated more specifically as “Then Joshua commanded his men.”

Inasmuch as the break between verses 23 and 24 comes at an unusual place, the two verses may be translated as a unit. Moreover, the two passive verbs (was opened and were brought out) may be translated into active constructions: “So Joshua’s men opened the cave and brought to Joshua the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon.”

The officers who had gone with him may imply that some officers had not gone with Joshua. To translate “his (or, their) officers” would avoid this wrong implication.

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 12:5

Bashan is the region east and northeast of Lake Galilee. The northern limit of Og’s territory was Mount Hermon. Salecah lay about 100 kilometers east of Lake Galilee. Geshur and Maacah were not well-defined territories; they lay east and northeast of Lake Galilee, beyond the territory conquered by the Israelites, and were inhabited by tribal groups. Og ruled over (the northern) half of Gilead. The southern limit of his kingdom was the border with Sihon’s territory.

It is possible to translate this verse so that the geographical directions are more explicit:

• He ruled land as far north as Mount Hermon and as far east as the city of Salecah. He also ruled all of Bashan, as far as the territories of Geshur and Maacah to the east. In addition he ruled the northern half of Gilead, as far south as the territory of King Sihon of Heshbon.

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 14:10 - 14:11

But now, look translates the Hebrew “And now, behold” (Revised Standard Version), which serves as an attention getter. In some languages this expression will be best left implicit.

It was been forty-five years since the LORD said that to Moses may be abbreviated as “Since that time forty-five years have gone by” or “That was forty-five years ago.” By a slight rearrangement of Good News Translation clauses, one may translate “That was forty-five years ago, and the LORD kept me alive all the time that our people traveled through the desert, just as he promised. Look at me! I am eighty-five years old….”

And am just as strong today as I was when Moses sent me out translates a Hebrew parallelism: “I am still as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me out; as my strength was then, so also my strength is now.” Good News Translation avoids the redundancy, though for some languages the repetition may make the affirmation stronger. Also, in Good News Translation this represents a continuation of a sentence begun at the end of verse 10. In order to simplify this structure for English readers, one may translate “and I am” in place of and am. For other languages it may be more acceptable to begin a new sentence at the beginning of the verse.

Or for anything else represents “and for going and coming” (Revised Standard Version). In Hebrew “to go and come” is an idiomatic expression indicating daily activity. The force of this expression may be included implicitly by the use of “even” if one translates either “I am strong enough (even) for war” or “and I am still strong enough (even) to fight in war.”

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 16:2 - 16:3

It is strange that the text here speaks of Bethel and Luz as two different places (verse 2), whereas in other texts Luz is said to be the earlier name of Bethel (see 18.13; Judges 1.23; Gen 28.19; 35.6). Consequently, Bright says the text here cannot be right, and he proposes changes; but most translations retain the form of the Hebrew text.

In verse 2 Good News Translation has Ataroth Addar, as in 16.5; 18.13, so as to distinguish it from the other Ataroth (verse 7); Hebrew has only “Ataroth” here (see Revised Standard Version).

Nothing definite is known of the tribal groups the Archites (see 2 Sam 15.32) or the Japhletites.

For Lower Beth Horon see 10.10, and for Gezer see 10.33.

Verses 2-3 should not pose too many difficulties, since Good News Translation is rather easy to understand. Two minor alternations may be made: (1) the place names may need to be marked specifically as cities; and (2) one of the occurrences of it (once in verse 2 and twice in verse 3) may need to be marked specifically as “the southern boundary of the land.” Moreover, it may be advisable to keep the readers aware that the directions are toward the west.

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 19:1 - 19:6

For the translation of the first sentence of this verse, see the proposed restructuring at 18.11. One may also translate “The second lot fell to the tribe of Simeon.”

Its territory extended into the land assigned to the tribe of Judah is more literally “And its inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah.” This appears to be a more accurate representation of the text, especially in light of verse 9, which states that the tribe of Simeon was given a part of the territory within the land of Judah, because Judah had been given more land then it needed. Accordingly, one may translate “Its territory lay within the territory of the tribe of Judah.”

In verse 2 the second name in Hebrew is Sheba. This, however, seems like an accidental repetition of the second part of the name of the preceding city, Beersheba, and makes a total of fourteen place-names, whereas verse 6 gives the total as thirteen. Consequently New English Bible (with a footnote that refers to the lack of this name in 1 Chr 4.18) omits Sheba; Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project revise the Hebrew to “Shema” (see 15.26); Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible follow the Masoretic text. It seems best to follow the Masoretic text 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 22:1

Then is a literal rendering of the Hebrew text; one may translate “after the tribes of Israel had conquered the land west of the Jordan River.”

Joshua calls together the men of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and East Manasseh and recalls how Moses had commanded them to help their fellow Israelites conquer Canaan (Num 32.28-32; Deut 3.18-20). Although the Hebrew text does not specify, it is better to assume that Joshua called together only the men of the tribes, rather than all the people (Good News Translation), and one may want to make this specific in translation.

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 23:7

Associate (Revised Standard Version “be mixed with”) translates the Hebrew “go into,” which refers specifically to intermarriage (see verse 12). The danger in marrying Canaanites was that the Israelites would be led to worship their gods (see Bright).

In this verse, four different Hebrew verbs are used with reference to the worship of pagan gods: “to speak their names,” “to swear,”The Masoretic text has the hiphil (causative) form of the verb, “cause to swear” (so King James Version); the Syriac, Targum and Vulgate have the qal form, “to swear,” which is preferred by the other translations. “to serve,” and “to bow down.” The first verb in this series of four (“to speak their names”) may be taken as a reference to prayer. “To swear” by the name of a god means to use that god’s name in making promises. The last two verbs in the series carry essentially the same meaning and refer to the act of worship. One may then translate “Do not worship their gods. Do not pray to them, or use their names when you take an oath.”

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 .