Hakim-hakim 1:35

1:35 The Amorites managed ¹  to remain in Har Heres, ²  Aijalon, and Shaalbim. Whenever the tribe of Joseph was strong militarily, ³  the Amorites were forced to do hard labor.

Hakim-hakim 2:22

2:22 Joshua left those nations ⁴  to test ⁵  Israel. I wanted to see ⁶  whether or not the people ⁷  would carefully walk in the path ⁸  marked out by ⁹  the Lord, as their ancestors ¹⁰  were careful to do.”

Hakim-hakim 5:17

5:17 Gilead stayed put ¹¹  beyond the Jordan River.

As for Dan – why did he seek temporary employment in the shipyards? ¹² 

Asher remained ¹³  on the seacoast,

he stayed ¹⁴  by his harbors. ¹⁵ 

Hakim-hakim 9:31

9:31 He sent messengers to Abimelech, who was in Arumah, ¹⁶  reporting, “Beware! ¹⁷  Gaal son of Ebed and his brothers are coming ¹⁸  to Shechem and inciting the city to rebel against you. ¹⁹ 

Hakim-hakim 11:24

11:24 You have the right to take what Chemosh your god gives you, but we will take the land of all whom the Lord our God has driven out before us. ²⁰ 

[1:35]  ¹ tn Or “were determined.”

[1:35]  ² tn Or “Mount Heres”; the term הַר (har) means “mount” or “mountain” in Hebrew.

[1:35]  ³ tn Heb “Whenever the hand of the tribe of Joseph was heavy.”

[2:22]  ⁴ tn The words “Joshua left those nations” are interpretive. The Hebrew text of v. 22 simply begins with “to test.” Some subordinate this phrase to “I will no longer remove” (v. 21). In this case the Lord announces that he has now decided to leave these nations as a test for Israel. Another possibility is to subordinate “to test” to “He said” (v. 20; see B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 111). In this case the statement recorded in vv. 20b-21 is the test in that it forces Israel to respond either positively (through repentance) or negatively to the Lord’s declaration. A third possibility (the one reflected in the present translation) is to subordinate “to test” to “left unconquered” (v. 21). In this case the Lord recalls that Joshua left these nations as a test. Israel has failed the test (v. 20), so the Lord announces that the punishment threatened earlier (Josh 23:12-13; see also Judg 2:3) will now be implemented. As B. G. Webb (Judges [JSOTSup], 115) observes, “The nations which were originally left as a test are now left as a punishment.” This view best harmonizes v. 23, which explains that the Lord did not give all the nations to Joshua, with v. 22. (For a grammatical parallel, where the infinitive construct of נָסָה [nasah] is subordinated to the perfect of עָזַב [’azav], see 2 Chr 32:31.)

[2:22]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew text includes the phrase “by them,” but this is somewhat redundant in English and has been omitted from the translation for stylistic reasons.

[2:22]  ⁶ tn The words “I [i.e., the Lord] wanted to see” are supplied in the translation for clarification.

[2:22]  ⁷ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:22]  ⁸ tn Or “way [of life].”

[2:22]  ⁹ tn “The words “marked out by” are interpretive.

[2:22]  ¹⁰ tn Or “fathers.”

[5:17]  ¹¹ tn Heb “lived” or “settled down.”

[5:17]  sn Apparently the people of Gilead remained on the other side of the river and did not participate in the battle.

[5:17]  ¹² tn Heb “Dan, why did he live as a resident alien, ships.” The verb גּוּר (gur) usually refers to taking up residence outside one’s native land. Perhaps the Danites, rather than rallying to Barak, were content to move to the Mediterranean coast and work in the shipyards. For further discussion, see B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 262.

[5:17]  ¹³ tn Heb “lived.”

[5:17]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “lived” or “settled down.”

[5:17]  ¹⁵ tn The meaning of the Hebrew word מִפְרָץ (mifrats) is uncertain, but the parallelism (note “seacoast”) suggests “harbors.”

[9:31]  ¹⁶ tn The form בְּתָרְמָה (bÿtarmah) in the Hebrew text, which occurs only here, has traditionally been understood to mean “secretly” or “with deception.” If this is correct, it is derived from II רָמָה (ramah, “to deceive”). Some interpreters object, pointing out that this would imply Zebul was trying to deceive Abimelech, which is clearly not the case in this context. But this objection is unwarranted. If retained, the phrase would refer instead to deceptive measures used by Zebul to avoid the suspicion of Gaal when he dispatched the messengers from Shechem. The present translation assumes an emendation to “in Arumah” (בָּארוּמָה, ba’rumah), a site mentioned in v. 41 as the headquarters of Abimelech. Confusion of alef and tav in archaic Hebrew script, while uncommon, is certainly not unimaginable.

[9:31]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “Look!”

[9:31]  ¹⁸ tn The participle, as used here, suggests Gaal and his brothers are in the process of arriving, but the preceding verses imply they have already settled in. Perhaps Zebul uses understatement to avoid the appearance of negligence on his part. After all, if he made the situation sound too bad, Abimelech, when he was informed, might ask why he had allowed this rebellion to reach such a stage.

[9:31]  ¹⁹ tn The words “to rebel” are interpretive. The precise meaning of the Hebrew verb צוּר (tsur) is unclear here. It is best to take it in the sense of “to instigate; to incite; to provoke” (see Deut 2:9, 19 and R. G. Boling, Judges [AB], 178).

[11:24]  ²⁰ tn Heb “Is it not so that what Chemosh your god causes you to possess, you possess, and all whom the Lord our God dispossesses before us we will possess?” Jephthah speaks of Chemosh as if he is on a par with the Lord God of Israel. This does not necessarily mean that Jephthah is polytheistic or that he recognizes the Lord as only a local deity. He may simply be assuming the Ammonite king’s perspective for the sake of argument. Other texts, as well as the extrabiblical Mesha inscription, associate Chemosh with Moab, while Milcom is identified as the god of the Ammonites. Why then does Jephthah refer to Chemosh as the Ammonite god? Ammon had likely conquered Moab and the Ammonite king probably regarded himself as heir of all territory formerly held by Moab. Originally Moab had owned the disputed territory (cf. Num 21:26-29), meaning that Chemosh was regarded as the god of the region (see R. G. Boling, Judges [AB], 203-4). Jephthah argues that Chemosh had long ago relinquished claim to the area (by allowing Sihon to conquer it), while the Lord had long ago established jurisdiction over it (by taking it from Sihon and giving it to Israel). Both sides should abide by the decisions of the gods which had stood firm for three hundred years.