And Judah went with Simeon his brother: Translators will have to decide how to render the Hebrew waw conjunction translated And. If this is considered a new event on the story line, New International Version‘s “Then” would be a good rendering. For Judah and Simeon, as well as his brother, see verse 1.2-3. Some versions omit his brother, since this relationship has already been made clear in verse 1.3. Note, however, this phrase underlines the positive aspects of the first part of the book when brothers fought side by side, in contrast to what is to come in the final part of the book when brothers fight against each other. Went is simply the general Hebrew verb for “go.”

And they defeated the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath: The combined troops went to the Canaanite town of Zephath, a town less than 30 kilometers (18 miles) to the west of Arad. Most of this vocabulary has appeared before. For defeated see verse 1.4; for the Canaanites, see verse 1.1; and for inhabited see verse 1.9, verse 16.

And utterly destroyed it: The Hebrew verb rendered utterly destroyed is charam. The word is used often in the book of Joshua but occurs only rarely in the book of Judges (verse 1.17; verse 21.11). According to God’s command, when the Israelites captured a town, they were to “dedicate” it to the LORD, which meant destroying it completely. This was considered a holy sacrifice. Because of the religious significance of the expression utterly destroyed, translators need to find a good rendering and perhaps explain this practice in a footnote or include it in the glossary. Good News Translation says “They put a curse on the city, destroyed it,” but this rendering does not seem completely correct because curses were not part of such destruction. New Revised Standard Version and English Standard Version say “devoted it [the city] to destruction.” We can say “dedicated the town and its people to destruction” or “destroyed everything in the town as a sign of their devotion to God.” It renders the Hebrew emphatic feminine pronoun for “her,” referring to the city of Zephath. In many languages it will be more natural to say “the town/city,” as in Contemporary English Version‘s “They completely destroyed the town.” Contemporary English Version also adds the following footnote: “completely destroyed: The Hebrew word means that the town was given completely to the LORD, and since it could not be used for normal purposes any more, it had to be destroyed.”

So the name of the city was called Hormah: This sentence describes the city’s change in name as a result of what happened there. So translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, which might also be rendered by an expression such as “that’s why,” “because of this,” or “therefore.” The town’s name is changed from Zephath to Hormah, because it was utterly destroyed (charam). This play on words in Hebrew cannot be seen in the Revised Standard Version translation, but the original readers immediately saw the connection. If translators simply transliterate the name Hormah, modern readers will not get the point, but there are several options for helping the reader understand. Good News Translation explains the meaning of the name in a footnote. But translators may also insert the meaning of the name into the text, for example, “So they called the city ‘Hormah,’ which means ‘completely destroyed.’ ” Some translators actually translate the meaning of the city name within the text by saying “So the name of the city was called ‘Utterly Destroyed.’ ” Such wordplays are frequent in Hebrew literature, even in passages describing tragedies (see verse 2.5).

Models for the translation of this verse are:

• Then the men from the brother tribes of Judah and Simeon joined together and attacked the Canaanites living in the city of Zephath and they totally destroyed it.* That is why this city was called Hormah meaning “Totally Destroyed.”
* This practice involved dedicating something completely to God which included destroying it.

• Then the armies of Judah and Simeon headed out to Zephath. They devoted that city to destruction, totally destroying the town. From then, that city was called “Totally Destroyed.”

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 .

Judah also took: Following the victory at Hormah, there is another military advance, this time toward the coastal region where the Philistines lived. In Hebrew the verse begins with the waw conjunction, which Revised Standard Version renders as also. “Then” would be a good transition word to express this sequence of events. For Judah see verse 1.2. For the Hebrew verb rendered took, see verse 1.8. Good News Translation combines 1.18-19, and following the Septuagint, adds the negative particle “not” to the verb, translating “Judah … did not capture,” but most versions follow the standard text here, which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives a {B} rating. New International Version marks the ver Septuagintver* reading in a footnote.

Gaza with its territory, and Ashkelon with its territory, and Ekron with its territory: Three towns and their surrounding areas are conquered. Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron were all towns on the coastal plain belonging to the Philistines. Gaza with its territory refers to the surrounding countryside that was under the control of the leaders of Gaza and/or the farming area around this town. Its territory can be expressed as “the land/area/region around it.” The repetition of the expression with its territory emphasizes the extensive victory of the Israelites. Translators can keep the repetition if it is acceptable in their language, or use a less repetitive style. For example, New International Version says “The men of Judah also took Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.”

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 .

This verse gives a summary of the Israelite advance into the Promised Land. The LORD gives the Israelites victory, but they are unable to do as he instructed, that is, they are unable to drive the inhabitants out of the land.

The Hebrew expression wayehi (literally “And it was”), rendered here as And, shows that a new episode is beginning. Some versions take this expression to be the verb for the following clause, and so do not render it in their translation. But it is more likely this expression is a discourse marker introducing the important fact that the LORD was with the people of Judah. Translators should look for a good transition word or expression to mark this important comment.

The LORD was with Judah is literally “YHWH with Judah,” a common expression in the Old Testament, indicating that the LORD was alongside the people, helping them. As elsewhere, the singular Judah refers to “the people of Judah” or even “the army of Judah.” Good News Translation has “The LORD helped the people of Judah,” and Contemporary English Version is similar with “The LORD helped the army of Judah.”

And he took possession of the hill country explains what the army from Judah was able to do with God’s help. In some languages the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and can thus be translated “so.” Yahweh enabled these warriors to capture the mountainous regions. Once again the singular pronoun he refers collectively to the men of Judah. Took possession of renders a key Hebrew verb (yarash) in this unit. Its repetition underlines the contrast between the Israelites’ victories and their failures. Revised English Bible says “occupied,” while New Jerusalem Bible has “made himself master of,” but we might also simply say “took” or “captured.” For the hill country, see verse 1.9.

But he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain: This clause introduces the first negative note in the book. From this point on, there will be victories, but these will all be tarnished by various shortcomings and defeat. But renders the Hebrew conjunction ki, which normally means “since” or “for.” However, most see a contrast or counter-expectation here, so but is a good rendering. New Jerusalem Bible is similar with “however.”

The pronoun he refers once again to Judah’s army. In Hebrew the verb rendered drive out is the same yarash, but here it is an infinitive form preceded by the negative marker, rendered in many versions as “dispossess” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), that is, make people leave a place by force. This is the second of seventeen occurrences of this verb in Judges, most of them appearing in the first part of the book (verse 1.19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; verse 2.21, 23). It also occurs three times in verse 11.23-24. Contemporary English Version says here “Judah was not able to make them leave or to take their land.” We might also say “they could not chase the inhabitants away.” For inhabitants see verse 1.11.

The Hebrew word for plain refers to a valley or low point. In Israel the plain is mostly on the coast. It was good for farming and therefore much desired. Some languages may find this a difficult term to render. We could say “flat land,” “good farming land,” or even “land by the coast.”

Because they had chariots of iron: This clause gives a brief explanation of why the warriors of Judah were unsuccessful in their attack. Because is a good rendering of the Hebrew particle ki, which could also be translated “for” or “since.” The pronoun they refers to the inhabitants of the plain, the Philistines. Some languages will need to specify “the inhabitants of that place.” The Philistines had a monopoly on the production of iron (see verse 1 Sam 13.19-22), so they had stronger weapons, including chariots of iron.

Chariots were small vehicles, as big as carriages or carts, pulled by horses. They were used mainly for war, and usually carried one or two soldiers. Most languages will not have a word for chariot, but some may say “car of war” or “war cart.”

Iron is one of the strongest metals known and its use revolutionized the peoples who had access to it, since their weapons were stronger and more effective. Most languages should have a term for this metal. Today scholars note that these chariots could not have been made entirely out of iron, because they would have been too heavy to move. Probably the expression chariots of iron means that the rims of the wheels of the chariots were covered with iron strips. Thus the chariots could be driven quickly over all kinds of terrain and last longer. Most translations say chariots of iron, but some may prefer to say “chariots with iron-rimmed wheels” or “chariots strengthened with iron.”

If necessary, the clauses in this second half of the verse can be reversed, as in the following model:

• The people who lived on the coast had chariots made strong with iron, so the people of Judah were not able to chase/drive them out of the land.

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 .

This verse poses a problem because in verse 1.10, it is stated that Judah fought against the inhabitants of Hebron and defeated them. However, as noted earlier, in this particular biblical narrative, facts do not seem to be always presented in strict chronological order. There is a dense history behind this present verse, which serves as a summary of what happened. In verse 14.6-15 the LORD, through Moses, promises Caleb that the land of the Anakim will be his. In verse 15.13-14 Caleb is then given “a portion among the people of Judah, Kiriath-arba, that is, Hebron.” It is possible to see these events as two different steps, the oral “giving” or allotting of the land, and the actual physical possession, which involved driving out the inhabitants. Caleb is part of the line of Judah, and his name, whether appearing in battle or in reference to his inheritance, refers not only to him as an individual, but also to his descendants. According to this account in Judges, it would seem that Joshua had died before Caleb actually drove out the descendants of the three sons of Anak who lived in that place.

And Hebron was given to Caleb is literally “And they gave Hebron to Caleb.” Many languages will have a similar construction, known as an impersonal passive, using an impersonal pronoun and an active verb. We could follow Revised Standard Version or use the impersonal “they” or “one.” For Hebron see verse 1.10. With the mention of Caleb, once again the verb “give” is in focus, as in verse 1.12-15.

As Moses had said: This clause modifies the previous one. Moses had promised that Caleb would inherit this city. Many languages will prefer to reverse the order of the clauses and say “As Moses had said, they gave Hebron to Caleb.” The general verb said can be rendered “promised” or “ordered.” Revised Standard Version uses an anterior past tense, had said, to show that this action happened a long time before the events recounted. To make things more explicit, we might say “Moses had said, ‘Give Hebron to Caleb.’ ”

And he drove out from it the three sons of Anak: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and expresses a sequence or a result. We might say “Then” or “So” here. Though most versions use the singular pronoun he, it is ambiguous, referring either to Caleb or to his clan. For drove out, see verse 1.19. From it is literally “from there.” Translators can also say “from that city.” The names of the three sons of Anak appear in verse 1.10. These Anakim were said to be giants (see Num 13.33). The three sons of Anak in this context refers to the descendants of these three men. Good News Translation gives a good model: “the three clans descended from Anak.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• They gave the town of Hebron to the family of Caleb just as Moses had told them. And that clan drove out the descendants of the three sons of Anak.

• As Moses directed, Caleb was given Hebron, and he drove the three clans descended from Anak from that town.

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 narrator moves on to the account of another tribal group, the people of Benjamin. With this change of focus, many versions begin a new paragraph here. This is a crucial turning point since the narrator says nothing positive about this group, even if they did in fact enter Jerusalem. Benjamin was the last son of Rachel and Jacob (Gen 35.18) and his descendants composed the smallest tribe in Israel. They traditionally occupied the area to the north of Judah. Jerusalem was just inside their territory (see verse 18.28). Nothing positive is said here about this tribe, and this foreshadows the terrible events recounted at the end of the book.

But the people of Benjamin did not drive out …: But renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which signals contrast here. Unlike Caleb’s clan, the tribe of Benjamin is unsuccessful in driving out those they conquered. The people of Benjamin is literally “the sons/children of Benjamin,” and translators can use the same expression used to refer to the peoples of Judah, Simeon, and so forth. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19.

The Jebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem: This clause begins the verse in Hebrew, which is literally “But the Jebusite who inhabited Jerusalem, the sons of Benjamin did not dispossess.” The Hebrew singular expression for “the Jebusite” refers to a group. Translators can call them “the people of Jebus” or “the sons of Jebus.” These people were apparently Amorites. Who dwelt in renders a participle of the Hebrew verb meaning “inhabit” (see verse 1.9).

The city of Jerusalem was originally in the hands of the Jebusites. In later times it marked the border between the territories belonging to Benjamin and Judah. It was built on an important water source, the Gihon spring. The city was not completely in the hands of the Israelites until the time of David, who brought the Covenant Box to the city and made that city his capital (verse 2 Sam 6.15). King Solomon built the Temple there. The first attack on this town by the men of Judah is described in verse 1.8. Once again, the beginning of the book of Judges presents a summary of the invasion of Canaan, without providing a precise chronological history.

So the Jebusites have dwelt with the people of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day: So is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since it introduces the result of the incomplete victory of the Benjaminites. Have dwelt with renders the same Hebrew verb as earlier in the verse (see also verse 1.9). The notion of “dwelling with” is important here, as it means that the two groups lived side by side, influencing each other in many ways. As the rest of this narration will show, one of the areas most affected was the religious life of the community. This “cohabitation” probably also involved intermarriage.

In Jerusalem repeats the name of the city for the second time, and certainly emphasizes the city’s crucial place in Israel’s history.

To this day does not mean until this present day. It takes as a point of reference the narrator’s or editor’s time, that is, the time of this book’s composition. Translators need to ensure that modern readers understand that the situation is not the same today. Rather than speak specifically of this day, translators might say “until now” or “until the present time.”

This verse is repetitive, with two occurrences each of the words the people of Benjamin, the Jebusites, dwelt, and Jerusalem. The repetition underlines the unacceptability of the situation, especially in light of Jerusalem’s future role in Israel’s history. Despite this fact, not all languages will appreciate the repetition, so translators may reduce it if necessary.

Possible translation models for this verse are:

• But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites, the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, so the two peoples have lived side by side till now.

• However, the Benjaminites were unable to chase the Jebusites out of the city of Jerusalem, so the two have lived together in the place till today.

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 previous verse seems to give a summary of the attack on Bethel, while the rest of this unit gives the details of the attack. For this reason Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version combine 1.22-23. However, in most languages this will not be necessary.

And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may also be translated “first” since this clause describes how the tribe of Joseph went about capturing Bethel. Once again the phrases house of Joseph and “house of God” (Bethel) seem to be placed together for a contrastive effect. If repeating the house of Joseph is unacceptable, the translator may simply use the pronoun “they.” See verse 1.22 for comments on the house of Joseph and Bethel.

Sent to spy out renders a single verb in Hebrew (tur), which is also used in Num 13–14. We could say “sent out spies to find out what they could about Bethel.” If a word for spy does not exist, translators might say “sent men out to observe/look around the city.” Many languages will need to make explicit “to see how they could capture it.”

(Now the name of the city was formerly Luz): Gen 28.19 gives this same information, noting that Jacob is the one who named the town Bethel. Once again Revised Standard Version puts background information in parentheses. See verse 1.10. New Jerusalem Bible says “In olden days, the name of the town was Luz.” We might also say “Previously, Bethel was known as Luz.” The name Luz is repeated at the end of this unit (verse 1.26), forming an inclusio.

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 the spies saw a man coming out of the city: The descendants of Joseph evidently got as far as the town, where they waited outside the wall. And translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, which should be rendered in a natural way, for example, “Then,” or possibly omitted. Some languages may need a transition phrase to begin this verse, for example, “When the spies got to the city” or “Outside the city walls.”

Here the spies renders a participle of a different Hebrew verb (shamar), which is literally “those watching/keeping guard.” Having arrived outside the city, the Israelites were looking for ways to get into the town without being noticed. They had only simple weapons, so they had to find a way into the well-defended town. It would have been obvious to the local Canaanites that these people waiting outside were strangers, so these spies had to figure out a way in. An illustration of a walled city would help the reader imagine the situation, especially if the target audience does not live in cities surrounded by walls.

Saw renders a Hebrew verb root that occurs twice in this verse (translated show the second time). The spies see a man coming out of Bethel. This is the first occurrence of the Hebrew verb meaning “come out” (yatsaʾ), which plays a very important role throughout this book, but especially in the appendices (verse 20.1, 21; verse 21.24).

And they said to him, “Pray, show us the way into the city”: The Israelite spies stop a local resident and ask him to tell them how to enter the town. This request from the spies sounds almost too polite for the circumstances. Pray renders the Hebrew particle naʾ, which may also be translated “Please.” The Hebrew verb rendered show is a causative form of the verb for “see,” literally “make us see.” The Hebrew word for way is related to the verb for “come” or “enter” and thus refers to the entrance to the city. However, obviously the Israelites are not referring to the main gate but to a secret passageway. Oftentimes, in ancient cities there was a tunnel dug from inside to bring water into the city from a well or spring outside its walls. Archaeologists have discovered many such tunnels in ancient cities in the area. The city of Hazor is especially famous for this, as was Hezekiah’s tunnel (verse 2 Kgs 20.20). For city see verse 1.8. We might say “Please show us how to get into the town.” Using indirect speech, we might say “The spies asked him to please tell them how to get into the town,” but this takes away from the liveliness of the exchange.

And we will deal kindly with you: Like the previous clause, this statement seems overly polite. Kindly renders the Old Testament Hebrew key term chesed, which is often translated “kindness” in other contexts. It is the same word that Rahab uses when she discusses her fate with the Israelite spies: “Now then, swear to me by the LORD that as I have dealt kindly with you, you also will deal kindly with my father’s house” (verse 2.12). For deal kindly with you, we could say “treat you well.” Good News Translation uses language associated with a threat by translating this clause as “we won’t hurt you.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “we will make sure that you aren’t harmed.” Some languages may prefer indirect speech, for example, “they promised to treat him well [or, not harm him].”

Translators may choose to render the spies’ words as a condition-consequence (if-then) construction, for example, “If you tell us how to get into the city, we will protect you [or, spare your life].” Taken at face value, the spies are speaking very kindly to the man, but this is really a veiled threat. The spies may have even been holding a knife to the man’s throat!

For the translation of this verse some models are:

• The spies noticed a man coming out of the town and they said to him, “Please, tell us how to get inside the town. If you do, then we will make sure nothing happens to you.”

• The men waiting outside saw a man coming out of the town. They stopped him and said, “Please show us the secret entrance, so we can be kind to you.”

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 .

This verse uses many of the same terms of the preceding verses. Hebrew appreciates this repetitive style.

The initial Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And is better translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version), since the man has virtually no choice.

For he showed them the way into the city, see comments on verse 1.24.

And they smote the city with the edge of the sword: See comments on verse 1.8. Some languages may need a transition phrase to begin this clause, such as “So they went in and killed….”

But they let the man and all his family go: But renders well this contrastive use of the Hebrew waw conjunction. The order in the Hebrew text shows that the man and his family were exceptions, saying literally “but the man and his whole family, they sent away.” Some languages will prefer this order, which contrasts the fate of the city and the fate of this man. The Hebrew expression rendered all his family does not mean only his immediate family, but certainly his extended family as well. Thus New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “all his relatives,” and New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible, “his whole clan.”

The Hebrew verb for let … go (shalach) is literally “sent away,” which may also be rendered “spared” or “let go untouched.” This verb will occur frequently in the accounts of the Israelite victories. These spies kept their word to the man, as the spies did in the Rahab story.

Models for the translation of this verse are:

• So the man showed them how to enter the town secretly and the Israelites entered the town and killed all the inhabitants. But they spared the man and his family, letting them go away free.

• Then the man told them how they could secretly get into the town, so they went in and killed everyone there. But as for the man and his family, they sent them away [unharmed].

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 .