39and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining; just as he had done to Hebron and as he had done to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and its king.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 10:39:
Kupsabiny: “Then, they took that city, the king and all the villages which were near there. They killed every person in that place and they killed the king as they had done in Eglon and Libnah. All died so there was no one who escaped.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “They captured the town, its king, and all of its surrounding villages. They totally destroyed everyone it. They did not keep anyone alive at all. Just as they had done to Hebron and Libnah and the kings who were there they also did to Debir and the king who was there.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “They seized the city/took- the city -by-force and killed the king and all its residents, as-well-as the people around the towns. No-one at-all was-left alive. What they did to Hebron and Libna and to their kings, they also did to Debir and its king.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “They captured the city and its king, and also captured the nearby towns. Then they killed everyone ; they did to the people there the same thing that they had done at Hebron and Libnah.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Finally the Israelites advance on Debir, also in the highlands, 20 kilometers southwest of Hebron. They take the city and all the nearby towns. The language is the same: he “utterly destroyed” (Revised Standard Version) everyone, and Joshua did to Debir and its king what he had done to Hebron and Libnah.The Hebrew is rather clumsy at the end of verse 39: “as he did to Hebron so he did to Debir and its king and as he did to Libnah and its king.” The final “and as he did to Libnah and its king” is omitted by one Hebrew manuscript and by the Septuagint.
Turned back to Debir must not be translated so as to imply that Joshua and his army had previously been to Debir. The verb turned back to in the present context is best taken to mean “turned and went to.” As a glance at the location of the cities on a map will indicate, Debir is actually farther south than Joshua and his army had previously gone.
He captured it may be translated, “They captured it,” with Joshua and his army as the antecedent. Moreover, it is perhaps unnecessary to mention with its king at this place, since the king is also brought into focus in the second sentence of this verse. One may then translate the verse:
• They captured the city of Debir and all the small towns around it. Then they put to death everyone they captured, just as they had put to death everyone in the city of Hebron. They did the same thing to the city of Debir and its king that they had done to Libnah and its king.
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 .
And they captured Debir, its king, and all its villages: In some languages it may be more natural to begin a new sentence, as in the Berean Standard Bible. The clause they captured Debir, its king, and all its villages is similar to verse 10:37a-b. It indicates that the Israelite army captured the king and all the people of Debir and he also captured the small towns that were close by.
10:39b
They put them to the sword: The clause They put them to the sword indicates that the Israelite army killed the people of Debir and the nearby towns. This is a Hebrew idiom that is similar to the clauses in verses 28b, 30b, 32b, 35a, and 37a. It is recommended that you translate it the same way in all these places.
10:39c-d
and devoted to destruction everyone in the city, leaving no survivors: These two clauses are similar to verse 10:37.
devoted to destruction: The phrase devoted to destruction indicates that Yahweh had claimed these people for himself and they could not be bought back by any means. They must be destroyed.
leaving no survivors: The clause leaving no survivors indicates that not a single person was left alive in the town of Debir and the surrounding towns.
10:39e
Joshua did to Debir and its king as he had done to Hebron and as he had done to Libnah and its king: Here is another example of how to translate this verse part:
Joshua did the same thing to Debir and its king as he had done to Hebron and as he had done to Libnah and its king
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.