And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. Here it introduces new information that is presented as a kind of flashback. There is no reason to think the capture of Jerusalem described here took place immediately after the death of Adoni-bezek. Rather, it is more likely that this event occurred prior to this incident. Though Revised Standard Version renders this conjunction as And, it will be more helpful to say “Earlier” or “Before this time.”

The men of Judah is literally “the sons/children of Judah,” a slight change from the simple “Judah” in verse 1.2. Good News Translation says “The people of Judah,” but since this is a context of war, we might say “the warriors [of the tribe] of Judah.” Though we know from verse 1.3 that the descendants of Simeon joined them, the narrator consistently refers to “the sons of Judah,” so translators should probably maintain this focus in the Hebrew text throughout the passage.

Fought against Jerusalem: Fought renders the same Hebrew verb translated “fight” in verse 1.1. Here the object is a city, Jerusalem, but this would imply that they attacked the inhabitants as well. Jerusalem was a walled city, so the soldiers of Judah would need to find a way to enter in before they could fight the people. Here fought against can be rendered “attacked” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

And took it: The soldiers evidently found a way to get into Jerusalem “and captured it” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). Translators should find a verb here that applies in this context of war, such as “took possession of.”

And smote it with the edge of the sword: Smote renders the same Hebrew verb translated “defeated” in verse 1.4. Here it refers to the killing of the residents of the city. Though the pronoun it refers to the city, what is really intended are the people living there. Smote … with the edge of the sword is a very common Hebrew idiom, which may refer specifically to death by slitting the throat. However, in many contexts this idiomatic expression seems to refer to different kinds of killing, perhaps with weapons other than the sword. The edge of the sword is literally “the mouth of the sword,” a figurative way of referring to the sharp edge of the blade. In most languages a literal rendering will not be natural and translators will need to look for an equivalent expression. New International Version says “They put the city to the sword,” and Revised English Bible is similar with “they put its people to the sword.” Good News Translation says simply “They killed its people,” which loses any reference to the mode of killing. Contemporary English Version tries to express some of the impact, saying they “killed everyone who lived there.” Translators should find a strong expression, for example, “they massacred everyone who lived there.”

And set the city on fire: As present archaeological remains show, setting cities on fire was very common in Palestine. They did not simply burn some structures, but actually burnt entire cities to the ground. The city refers to Jerusalem. Most ancient cities were small towns surrounded by walls. Their population probably exceeded no more than a few thousand inhabitants. In many languages there may be only one word for a village, town, or city. If the referent to the city is already clear, a pronoun can also be used here by rendering this clause as “and they burned it to the ground.”

This verse presents another problem of sequencing, since at verse 1.21 the narrator recounts that the people of Benjamin were unable to drive out the first residents of Jerusalem, the Jebusites. Some suggest that the city is a reference to the Jebusite stronghold, which remained until the time of David (verse 2 Sam 5.6-9), rather than the city of Jerusalem itself. Thus the soldiers of Judah would have captured the walled city, but would have failed to capture the fort there. Contemporary English Version has the following footnote on Jerusalem here: “This probably refers to towns and villages belonging to Jerusalem but lying in Judah’s territory south of the city wall. Jerusalem itself was just inside Benjamin’s territory, but was not captured by Israel at this time (see verse 21; verse 15.5-9; verse 18.15-18).” Translators will not be able to resolve all the issues here, so the best option may be to simply render the text as it stands and include a footnote if so desired.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And afterward renders an important time marker in Hebrew, here signaling a lapse in time between the siege of Jerusalem and the next military campaign. If possible, translators should find an appropriate term that is stronger than “And” or “Then” (Revised English Bible). We might say “[Some time] later” or “After a while.”

The men of Judah is literally “the sons/children of Judah,” as in verse 1.8. If this verse and the next one are grouped together with 1.8, a pronoun can replace this noun phrase. As elsewhere, though warriors from Simeon seem to be present (verse 1.3), the narrator continues to put the emphasis on Judah, and translators should respect this style.

Went down to fight against the Canaanites: Here the verb went down (yarad in Hebrew) is used in the same way as the verb “go up” in verse 1.1, that is, referring to going into battle. However, since Jerusalem is set in the mountains, it is possible there is a directional meaning as well. We might say they “went [out] to fight.” For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1. This is a kind of cover term for the various tribal groups who lived in the land of Canaan.

Who dwelt in the hill country, in the Negeb, and in the lowland: The Canaanites were spread out all over the region. Dwelt renders a very important Hebrew root y-sh-b, meaning “inhabit,” “live,” or “dwell.” Here it seems to refer to permanent residency or occupation of the land. As will be seen (verse 2.3), the Canaanite presence in the Promised Land is the principal problem facing the Israelites. This verb is repeated again and again throughout this section, emphasizing the enemy’s presence and the Israelites’ incapacity to drive them out from the land they are supposed to conquer.

The hill country (literally “the mountain”) refers to the central range of mountains extending from Shechem, south through Jerusalem and Hebron. Later in this verse reference is made to the lowland or an area of small rolling hills. It may be necessary to use a word like “mountains” here, reserving the word “hills” for the lowland. In some languages this kind of terrain is not known, so translators may need to contrast “big hills” and “small hills” or “high land” and “low land.”

The Negeb, meaning “the south,” refers to the desert or very dry area in the southern part of Canaan. However, many versions keep the transliteration Negeb in the text, since this is the name of the region to this day. Though it might be possible to render the word as “the south,” the proper name Negeb evokes a hot, dry, and inhospitable place. So translators might decide to make this explicit by saying “the Negeb, the dry area in the south of the country,” “the southern desert,” or “the dry lands to the south.” Good News Translation has “the dry country to the south,” which is a good model to follow.

Many languages have difficulty identifying directions or compass points. East and west are less troublesome than north and south, since they are often described with reference to the rising and setting of the sun. For example, English pidgin languages have words like “sunkumup” and “sungodan.” However, north and south pose more of a problem, especially in some island communities where directions are given only in reference to the sea. The Old Testament makes reference to all points of the compass, so translators will need to take the time to identify the vocabulary needed to express these notions.

The lowland is an area located to the west of the Jerusalem-Hebron line, leading down to the coastal plain. Clouds coming in from the west provide it with good amounts of rain, and so it is very good farming land, which attracted a large population. Additionally, the major roads from the coast passed through the valleys of this region to reach the hills, including the ancient highway from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Thus the area was prime land and greatly valued. Though some older versions, as well as Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, transliterate the Hebrew word shefelah here (which comes from the root meaning “be low”), most versions speak of “foothills to/in the west.” If the word “foothill” does not exist, a descriptive phrase can be used. Indeed, for all three areas we might say “the region of the high mountains, the region of the small mountains, and the dry desert to the south.” (The order here has been switched because, in English, it seems more logical to group the mountainous regions together before mentioning the desert.)

Translators are encouraged to provide a map that can be printed within the book of Judges. This will go a long way in helping readers understand the many geographical references in this book.

Some possible translation models for this verse are:

• After a while, the men of Judah went out to wage war against the Canaanites living in the mountains. They also fought against those living in the small hill area to the west and in the Negev Desert to the south.

• Sometime later, the people of Judah went to fight against the people of Canaan living in the region of mountains, those in the Southern Desert, and those in the low hills to the west.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The general statement in verse 1.9 is now followed by details of an attack on Hebron, a town that plays an important role throughout the Old Testament. There is another break in the Hebrew text here, which leads some versions (for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) to begin a new paragraph. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which many versions omit, probably because here it does not introduce the next event, but gives details of what precedes.

Judah went against the Canaanites: Went renders the general Hebrew verb meaning “go,” rather than the ones for “going up” and “going down.” However, combined with the preposition against, it has the meaning “attack” or “engage in a battle with.” The same verb appears in verse 1.11. For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1.

Who dwelt in Hebron: For dwelt see verse 1.9. Hebron is a town in the central mountain region, which eventually became part of Judah’s territory. It is mentioned again in verse 1.20 and later in the Samson story (verse 16.3). It is here King David was later crowned and where he set up his capital before moving to Jerusalem (verse 2 Sam 2.1-4; verse 5.5).

(Now the name of Hebron was formerly Kiriath-arba): The narrator provides this historical note, which Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh put in parentheses. New Jerusalem Bible separates this material off by long dashes. Contemporary English Version chooses to put this information at the end of the verse: “At that time, Hebron was called Kiriath-Arba.” Translators can decide how to best present this background material. Revised Standard Version translates the Hebrew waw conjunction here as Now, which is a good transition.

The name of Hebron was formerly … reflects the Hebrew structure and many languages will be able to follow this model. However, several versions prefer to shorten the independent sentence and say “Hebron was formerly called….” Good News Translation says Hebron “used to be called….” Formerly is literally “to faces,” which New Jerusalem Bible renders as “in olden days.”

Kiriath-arba or “town of Arba” was the former name of Hebron. According to verse 15.13, “Arba” is the name of Anak’s father, that is, the ancestor of the people known as “Anakim,” who were so tall they were sometimes called “giants.” Thus the town had been named after the “giants” who inhabited it. To the Israelites, capturing such a town represented a great victory, which may be one of the reasons this town is mentioned here.

And they defeated Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai: The initial Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces the results of the attack. The pronoun they refers to the people of Judah, also accompanied by the soldiers from the tribe of Simeon, though not overtly mentioned. For defeated see verse 1.4.

Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai are three men who were descendants of Anak (see verse 1.20, and verse 15.14), and here their names represent their descendants. Thus Good News Translation makes explicit “the clans of…” (similarly Contemporary English Version). Revised Standard Version respects the Hebrew structure by translating and each time there is a waw conjunction. However, in many languages commas may replace some of the conjunctions. For example, we might say “Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.”

Translation examples for this verse are:

• They attacked the Canaanites who lived in the town of Hebron, formerly known as “the town of Arba”* and they defeated the clans of Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai.
* Arba was the name of Anak’s father, and Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai were Anak’s sons. The people of Anak or the “Anakim” were called “giants” because they were so tall (Num 13.33).

• They fought the Canaanites who lived in Hebron. This town was formerly called Kiriath-arba. There they defeated the descendants of Anak: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

There is a change in scene here, perhaps warranting a new paragraph. However, there is no full noun subject, such as “Judah” or “the men of Judah,” so another possibility is to link this verse directly to what precedes.

From there they went against is literally “And he went from there against.” The singular “he” refers collectively to the men of Judah. From there assumes Hebron as their point of departure. For went against, see verse 1.10.

The inhabitants of Debir: Inhabitants renders a Hebrew participle of a verb meaning “reside” or “dwell” (see verse 1.9). Debir was a walled town located to the southwest of. The attack on Hebron involved a military conquest in the higher mountains, while Debir represents their advance into the lower regions or foothills.

The name of Debir was formerly Kiriath-sepher: Like Hebron, Debir also had an earlier name. The name Debir seems derived from the Hebrew root d-b-r, meaning “word” or “to speak,” while its former name Kiriath-sepher seems related, meaning “the town of [the] book.” These names probably indicate the town was an important cultural center. Like Hebron, its capture was significant enough to be recorded here. This time Revised Standard Version does not put the historical note in parentheses. Translators should use the strategies of their own language to present such comments, but probably the related comments should be treated in the same way. For formerly see verse 1.10.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And Caleb said: This sudden introduction of a new character Caleb at this point in the narrative is somewhat surprising. As in verse 1.1, the narrator seems to assume the hearer-reader is familiar with the contents of the book of Joshua. If the book of Judges is to be published as a portion by itself, information about who Caleb is might be provided in introductory notes or in a footnote.

Caleb is Joshua’s successor and has already proven his bravery. He was one of the spies sent into the Promised Land by Moses. Later, because of his faithfulness to the LORD, he was given the town of Hebron (Num 13–14; verse 14.6-15), a detail that explains in part Caleb’s appearance here, given the mention of this town in verse 1.10. Though the name Caleb means “dog” (usually considered an insult in Hebrew; see verse 1 Sam 17.43), most scholars make no mention of the meaning of his name here.

Because of this new participant, a few versions begin a new paragraph here. However, it is clear from the Hebrew text that the narrator sees a tight connection between this verse and what precedes. In order to give a smooth transition to help the reader identify this new participant, Good News Translation begins with “One of them, called Caleb….” This may be a helpful model in some languages. We may be even more explicit: “One of the men of Judah named Caleb…” or “One of Judah’s leaders, Caleb….”

The Hebrew verb rendered said is very general. Contemporary English Version specifies the addressee: “Caleb told his troops.” His speech is a public declaration, so if there is a kind of formulaic language typical of such a situation, it can be used here. We might say “One of Judah’s men, named Caleb, cried out [or, declared].”

He who attacks Kiriath-sepher and takes it describes the person whom Caleb will reward. In Hebrew this clause begins with the relative pronoun “Who.” Translators might say “Anyone who,” “Whoever,” or “The man who.”

For the Hebrew verbs rendered attacks and takes, see verse 1.8, where they are translated “smote” and “took.” Not every language will need two verbs here. We might say “successfully attacks” or “captures.”

For Kiriath-sepher, see verse 1.11. If a new paragraph begins here, this name can be reintroduced. If not, translators may prefer to say “the town.”

I will give him Achsah my daughter as wife: This reflects the cultural setting of the time of the judges. Daughters were under the jurisdiction of their fathers and though sometimes consulted, they normally had little say in the marriages arranged by their parents (Gen 29.23; verse 1 Sam 18.27; verse 2 Sam 3.13). Translators should use natural expressions in their language reflecting the customs of that day. In many parts of the world, these practices still exist. In old English, people spoke of “asking for the hand of” or “giving the hand of” a daughter in marriage, and even today, people speak of “giving away” their daughter. In languages where the verb give is not appropriate, translators can find other expressions, such as “I will offer him my daughter Achsah to be his wife” or “I will let him marry my daughter Achsah.” As in many languages, the Hebrew word for wife is simply “woman.”

The text does not mention how many daughters Caleb had, or if Achsah had some special qualities. Usually in this kind of story, it is the most beautiful or valiant daughter who is offered as a reward. Achsah my daughter reflects the order in Hebrew, but in many languages it may be more natural to say “my daughter Achsah.”

Many languages will follow the same order as Hebrew, putting the relative clause in initial position. However, some languages will prefer to reverse the clauses, as in Good News Translation: “I will give my daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who succeeds in capturing Kiriath Sepher.”

Possible models for this verse are:

• One of the leaders of Judah, Caleb, announced to his troops: “To the one who captures Kiriath-sepher, I will give my daughter Achsah in marriage.”

• Caleb, one of the men of Judah, cried out, “To the man who captures the City of the Book, I will give Achsah my daughter as a reward.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The storyteller now introduces Othni-el, the man who took up Caleb’s challenge, conquered the town, and married his daughter. The initial Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And could indicate time (“Then”) or a result (“So”). Some languages may prefer “Now,” which might be appropriate as a new character is introduced.

The latter part of name Othni-el means “God” (ʾel in Hebrew), but scholars differ as to the meaning of the name as a whole. Some believe it means “God is my strength,” while others say it means “God has helped me.”

Achsah’s husband, Othni-el, is presented as the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. This introduction is crucial since Othniel is to become the first judge in Israel (verse 3.7-11). His presentation as the son of Kenaz seems to link him back to the line of Esau (Gen 36.10-11). Kenaz is qualified as Caleb’s younger brother. Translators should ensure that this descriptive phrase qualifies Kenaz and not Othni-el himself. Some commentators note that Othniel must have inherited some of the bravery from his uncle Caleb, who was known for his courage and leadership (Num 13–14).

Some readers will be surprised to learn that Othni-el married his cousin, as he was, in fact, the nephew of Caleb. However, in early Israelite culture this kind of intermarriage was allowed and even encouraged. Of course, other types of unions, for example, between brothers and sisters-in-law, were considered incest (see Lev 18.16).

Translators may rearrange the presentation of Othniel and his family relationships according to the norms and forms in their language. Good News Translation adjusts the order to say “Othniel, the son of Caleb’s younger brother Kenaz” (similarly Revised English Bible). In some languages it may be necessary to slow down the story line by beginning this verse with “Now Caleb’s younger brother Kenaz had a son named Othniel. It was he who….” This presentation, which begins with the oldest and ends with the youngest, may be preferred in some languages.

Took it means “captured it.” See verse 1.8. In Hebrew the pronoun it is literally “her,” referring not to the daughter, but rather to the city that was captured. In many languages it may be better to be more specific and say “captured the city.”

And he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces a result clause here, so it can be translated “so,” as in Good News Translation. For the rest of the clause, see verse 1.12. If possible, the same expression should be used here. The pronouns he and his refer to Caleb, and him points to Othniel. These pronouns can be made explicit if necessary.

One model for translating this verse is:

• It was Othniel, the son of Caleb’s younger brother Kenaz, who captured the city, so Caleb gave him his daughter Achsah to be his wife.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Judg 1.:14

This verse poses a problem because the Hebrew text and the Greek translation, the Septuagint, show several differences. Other details in this short episode are also hard to interpret.

When she came to him: This verse begins with the Hebrew expression wayehi (literally “And it was”), which seems to indicate a new episode is starting. There is certainly a time lapse between the battle and the time the young people were married. However, When she came to him is ambiguous. Good News Translation thinks this clause refers to their wedding day, while other versions refer to a time after this day. For example, Contemporary English Version says “Right after the wedding,” and Revised English Bible has “When she became his wife.” These renderings are more general and so perhaps more acceptable. New International Version sees a time much later after their marriage, saying “One day when she came to Othniel.” Translators will have to decide which interpretation to follow here.

She urged him: This clause also causes a serious problem for interpreters. Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New American Bible, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follow the Hebrew text. But Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible follow the Septuagint, which has “he urged her.” Good News Translation makes this explicit, saying “Othniel urged her,” and Revised English Bible is similar with “Othniel induced her.” It is possible the Greek translators changed the Hebrew text to make it more logical, with the husband urging his wife to go to her father with a special request. However, the parallel passage in verse 15.18 has exactly the same text, “she urged him,” so there seems no reason to deviate from the Hebrew text here. Indeed, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends translators follow this text. Othniel is Caleb’s nephew, so it does not seem unreasonable that the daughter pushes her husband to make a request of her father. Translators should follow the Hebrew text, putting the Greek rendering in a footnote if so desired. She urged him means she made a strong suggestion to her husband. For urged some versions have “induced” (New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “incited,” but it will be simpler to say she “pushed” or “suggested to.”

To ask her father for a field: Many think this request is made in the context of their marriage, suggesting the new couple may have had the right to request a wedding gift. If so, this is another reason to maintain the Hebrew text above (she urged him). The text here is literally “to ask from her father the field.” Normally the Hebrew word for field refers to fertile land or farmland. However, the next verse reveals her real concern is not the quality of the land, but rather a source of water for her land. For a field we could say “a piece of land” (Revised English Bible), “some land,” or “some property” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). New Jerusalem Bible anticipates the discussion to come, saying “arable land.” Certainly terms that might refer to wet fields, such as rice paddy fields, should not be used here.

Some translation models for this first half of the verse are:

• After their marriage, Achsah kept asking her husband* to request some farmland from her father.
* The Greek translation says rather “he asked her.”

• Following their marriage, Othniel urged her* to ask her father to give them a field.
* This follows the Septuagint. The Hebrew says “she urged him.”

And she alighted from her ass: Revised Standard Version‘s rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction as and seems unnatural. The connection between this clause and the previous one is difficult, since there has been no mention of the daughter setting out to visit her father. In many languages it will be necessary to supply some transition material, saying for example, “Having arrived at her father’s place” or “When she got there.” If this is done, the waw conjunction would be omitted. The verb alighted means “got off” (New International Version), “got down from” (Good News Translation), “dismounted” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) the donkey.

The Hebrew word for ass is a generic term for donkey. Translators will notice that many English translations use the word “donkey” instead of ass, since in modern English, this word has a negative connotation. Most languages have a word for “donkey,” even if it is borrowed from another language. If not, translators can speak of “the animal [she was riding on].” The pronoun her could mean that the donkey belonged to her, or simply that this was the donkey she was riding on.

And Caleb said to her, “What do you wish?”: Here and (waw in Hebrew) connects the events in the story. However, many versions prefer to express the previous clause as a time clause, and omit the conjunction and. For example, New International Version has “When she got off her donkey, Caleb….”

Caleb is Achsah’s father and in some languages the phrase “her father” may be preferred, or we could say “her father Caleb.” Since Caleb is asking a question, said may be rendered “asked” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

What do you wish? renders a Hebrew idiomatic expression that is literally “What to you?” It is hard to discern the tone of this greeting formula. It could be a simple “How are you?” but in many cultures such words would seem abrupt or even impolite. Many versions think the father is simply concerned about his daughter, asking “What’s bothering you?” (Contemporary English Version), “What is troubling you?” (New American Bible), or “What is the matter?” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). If this interpretation is correct, the father’s concern is evident. Revised Standard Version renders the question in more neutral terms, as does Revised English Bible: “What do you want?” Translators will have to decide which interpretation is best. The question could be softened by mentioning the daughter’s name: “Achsah, what do you want?” Another possibility is to follow Good News Translation, which uses indirect speech: “Caleb asked her what she wanted.” New International Version has “What can I do for you?” but this rendering does not seem to fit the context of a father-daughter exchange.

Some translation models for the last half of this verse are:

• She got down from her donkey and her father Caleb asked what she wanted.

• When she arrived there, she got off her donkey, and her father said, “Achsah, what do you want?”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Here Achsah makes her request to her father clear. The Hebrew verb for “give” is very prominent, occurring three times (rendered set, give, and gave).

She said to him: In Hebrew this phrase begins with the waw conjunction, so we might translate “And she said to him.” Since she is answering her father, we could also say “So she replied to him.”

Give me a present renders a Hebrew expression that is literally “Give to me a blessing.” New Jerusalem Bible is close to the original with “Grant me a blessing.” The Hebrew verb here is different from the root meaning “give” that appears in the rest of this verse. Some versions speak of granting a favor. For example, New International Version has “Do me a special favor,” and Revised English Bible says “Grant me this favour” (similarly Jerusalem Bible [Jerusalem Bible]). Contemporary English Version has “I need your help.” These renderings do not exactly speak of a blessing, which might be important to express. In many cultures a daughter cannot address her father so abruptly, so we might have to say “Father [or, Papa], give me a special blessing.”

Since you have set me in the land of the Negeb is literally “Since the land of Negeb you have given me.” This is the beginning of Achsah’s request. In Hebrew it begins with the ki conjunction, which may be translated “because,” “for,” or “since.” Apparently her father has already given the newlyweds one gift, in the form of some land, but it is in the Negeb, a very dry place (see verse 1.9). Contemporary English Version makes this explicit, saying “The land you gave me is in the Southern Desert.”

Give me also springs of water: Here Achsah makes her request. She wants her father to also give her a source of water so she can exploit the land he has given her. Thus Achsah’s strategy is to:

(1) ask for a blessing
(2) express a kind of complaint
(3) make her real request

Some languages will follow this order, while some will wish to change the order of these clauses (see Good News Translation).

Give me also springs of water may not sound polite in some languages, and Contemporary English Version, for example, tries to tone down the request by saying “so please give me some spring-fed ponds for a water supply.” Good News Translation omits the verb give and says “I want some water holes,” but this also seems too direct. Translators should try to use language with a respectful tone.

The word also probably renders the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause, but we might also say “so” (Contemporary English Version).

Though the Hebrew word rendered springs can sometimes refer to bowls or basins that hold oil, here it refers to “pools” (Revised English Bible), “wells,” or “water holes” (Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version‘s “spring-fed ponds” seems too specific. Translators can also use a general term referring to a “water supply” or “source of water.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Though seemingly straightforward, this verse poses several problems for translators. First, the rendering by Revised Standard Version of the initial Hebrew waw conjunction as And is questionable, since this verse does not seem directly linked to what precedes. Most versions do not translate this conjunction. However, NET Bible‘s “Now” seems appropriate to introduce this new material.

The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law describes people related through marriage to Moses. Though the descendants of the Kenite is literally “the sons/children of [the] Kenite,” no personal name is given here. However, in other parts of Scripture (Exo 3.1; Num 10.29), Moses’ father-in-law, a Midianite priest, is presented by two different names: Jethro or Hobab. The Kenites are a clan or tribe of people who lived in the desert south of Israel. The LORD had promised the Israelites that the land of the Kenites would become part of the Promised Land, to be inherited by the people of Israel (Gen 15.19). According to Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, two translations are possible here; first, “the descendants of the Kenite [who was] Moses’ father-in-law,” and second, “the Kenites [who descended] from Moses’ father-in-law.”

The expression Moses’ father-in-law causes other problems for translators and interpreters. Revised Standard Version follows the Masoretic Text, which has the Hebrew word chothen, meaning “father-in-law.” But some manuscripts of the ver Septuagintver* read “brother-in-law.” However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project does not support this reading. To avoid this problem we might say “The Kenite clan, in-laws of Moses” or “The Kenites, of which Moses was the in-law.” Translators will have to decide which interpretation to follow, and if they so desire, put the alternative in a footnote. Most English versions are similar to Revised Standard Version, translating “father-in-law.”

Went up with the people of Judah: In verse 1.1 the Hebrew verb for “go up” means “fight against,” but in this context went up seems to refer to some kind of group migration. Indeed if, as most believe, the city of palms is Jericho, the people would be leaving a lower area for the higher Negeb region. Some see rather the verb as meaning “get up and leave,” as in Contemporary English Version‘s “left.” For the people of Judah (literally “the sons/children of Judah”), see verse 1.8.

From the city of palms: From means this was their point of departure. The city of palms is a descriptive name for Jericho, a well-known town slightly northeast of Jerusalem and east of the Judean hills in the Jordan Valley. In biblical times anyone hearing or reading the phrase “the city of palms” would know immediately what this expression was referring to (see verse 2 Chr 28.15). For modern-day readers, it may be better to include at least the known name. Good News Translation, for example, says “from Jericho, the city of palm trees.” Palm trees are fairly well known the world over. The reference here is to date palms, which grew even in desert regions near oases. If date palms are not known, a general word for palm tree may be used. Note, however, that these palms were not the kind that bears coconuts.

Into the wilderness of Judah: Even though the word into does not occur in Hebrew, this word gives the direction of the migration. Some languages will have to expand here by saying “and they went [or, traveled] to….” The Hebrew word for wilderness (midbar) refers to a desert, that is, a dry, sandy region with very little vegetation. Within the tribal territory of Judah to the south, there were large expanses of desert. Due to lack of water and vegetation, these areas were rarely inhabited. However, during some times in the year, there was rainfall, and grass could grow and flocks could graze there. This is not the same wilderness where Jesus was tempted, which was farther to the north. However, the term used in the New Testament may be used here, if it fits this context. Good News Translation says “barren country.” The reference to the wilderness of Judah is from the perspective of a later time, since this land did not yet belong to Judah.

Which lies in the Negeb near Arad: The Hebrew text has “which [is] in Negeb of Arad.” For Negeb see verse 1.9. Arad was a city located in the southern region of Palestine. It was almost directly south of Hebron and a little northeast of Beersheba. Contemporary English Version offers a good model, saying “near Arad in the Southern Desert of Judah.”

And they went and settled with the people: This clause, introduced by the Hebrew waw conjunction, can be seen as a kind of summary statement. Though the Hebrew has a singular “and he went and settled…,” Revised Standard Version and most other versions use the plural pronoun they. Went translates the simple Hebrew verb for “go,” while settled renders a verb meaning “sit,” “dwell,” “inhabit,” or “settle” (more or less permanently). See verse 1.9. However, many languages omit went here as it repeats information. The verbs might also be combined to say “went to settle.” With the people (similarly New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) renders the Masoretic Text, but many versions, including New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible and New American Bible, have decided to follow some manuscripts of the ver Septuagintver*, which says “with the Amalekites.” In fact, the beginning of the Hebrew words for people and “Amalek” are identical. Also the southern area described here was the traditional homeland of the Amalekite people (see Exo 17.8-16). Translators may follow either reading, but if the Septuagint is followed, it is good to mark the Hebrew in a footnote (see second model below).

Models for the translation of this verse are:

• The descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenites, joined together with the people of Judah and left the town of Jericho. They headed south to the desert near Arad in the wilderness of Judah and settled with the people there.

• The Kenites, in-laws of Moses,* joined with the people of Judah and went south from Jericho, the Town of Palm Trees, and settled in the southern desert, near the town of Arad among the Amalekites.*
* Some think this is a reference to the father-in-law of Moses, while others think it refers to his brother-in-law.
* This follows some manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Hebrew says “with the people.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .