Deuteronomy 3:4
וַנִּלְכֹּד אֶת־כָּל־עָרָיו בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֹא הָֽיְתָה קִרְיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־לָקַחְנוּ מֵֽאִתָּם שִׁשִּׁים עִיר כָּל־חֶבֶל אַרְגֹּב מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג בַּבָּשָֽׁן׃
✦ Hebrew interlinear
Tap a word to see its entry
✦ The same verse in five languages
וַנִּלְכֹּ֤ד אֶת־כָּל־עָרָיו֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא לֹ֤א הָֽיְתָה֙ קִרְיָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־לָקַ֖חְנוּ מֵֽאִתָּ֑ם שִׁשִּׁ֥ים עִיר֙ כָּל־חֶ֣בֶל אַרְגֹּ֔ב מַמְלֶ֥כֶת ע֖וֹג בַּבָּשָֽׁן׃
καὶ ἐκρατήσαμεν πασῶν τῶν πόλεων αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ, οὐκ ἦν πόλις ἣν οὐκ ἐλάβομεν παρ’ αὐτῶν· ἑξήκοντα πόλεις, πάντα τὰ συνκυροῦντα Ἀργὸβ βασιλέως Ὢγ ἐν βασᾶν·
Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0
Latin (Vulgate)
vastantes cunctas civitates illius uno tempore. Non fuit oppidum, quod nos effugeret: sexaginta urbes, omnem regionem Argob regni Og in Basan.
En ese momento tomamos todas sus ciudades. No hubo ciudad que no les tomáramos: sesenta ciudades, toda la región de Argob, el reino de Og en Basán.
Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)
Y tomamos entonces todas sus ciudades; no quedó ciudad que no les tomásemos: sesenta ciudades, toda la tierra de Argob, del reino de Og en Basán.
At that time we captured all sixty of his cities. There was not a single city we failed to take — the entire region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
✦ What the text says
Summary
This verse describes the capture of sixty cities belonging to Og, king of Bashan, emphasizing through a double negative construction that not a single town escaped capture. It closes by identifying the conquered territory as "the region of Argob," part of "the kingdom of Og in Bashan."
Key words
- nilKod ("we captured", H3920) — qal narrative form, first-person plural, continuing the sequential storyline begun with the vav-consecutive.
- 'aRay ("his cities", H5892B) — construct plural with pronominal suffix -o ("his"), linking the cities directly to Og as possessor.
- lo' ("not", H3808) — appears twice in the verse (lines 11 and 15), forming a double-negative clause that functions as an emphatic statement of totality.
- qir'Yah ("a town", H7151) — singular noun, the grammatical subject of the negated clause, standing for "any town" in this context.
- mamLekhet ("kingdom of", H4467) — feminine singular construct, placing "Og" in a possessive relationship as ruler of the named kingdom.
What the text says
The verse continues the narrative sequence from the previous verse using the vav-consecutive verb nilKod ("we captured," H3920), followed by the direct object marker 'et (H0853) and the construct phrase kol-'aRay ("all of his cities," H3605 + H5892B), with the pronominal suffix -o pointing back to Og. The temporal phrase ba-'Et ha-Hiv' ("at that time") anchors the action.
The central rhetorical feature is the negation structure in lines 10–16: lo' hayeTah qirYah 'asher lo' laKachnu meItam — literally "there was not a town which we did not take from them." This doubled negative (lo'... lo') is a Hebrew idiom expressing absolute totality — every town without exception was taken. The verb haYetah (H1961, qal perfect) marks this as a completed, past state.
The final clause lists the conquered territory using three stacked construct chains: kol-Chevel 'arGob ("all the region of Argob," H2256M + H0709G), mamLekhet 'Og ("the kingdom of Og," H4467 + H5747), and ba-baShan ("in Bashan," H1316). Each construct noun (chevel, mamlekhet) sets up a possessive relationship that culminates in identifying the geographic and political scope of the sixty captured cities.
Differences between versions
The Hebrew reads mamLekhet 'Og ("kingdom of Og," H4467 construct), which the Vulgate renders equivalently as "regni Og" ("of the kingdom of Og"). The LXX instead reads "βασιλέως Ὢγ" ("of king Og"), shifting from "kingdom of" to "king," a rendering that changes the construct noun's referent from the political entity to the ruler's title. The BSB translation restructures the verse by placing "sixty" earlier, attaching it directly to "cities" in the first sentence, whereas the Hebrew places the number shiShim ("sixty," H8346) only after the double-negative clause, as a summary count following the assertion of totality.
This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.