1. the Israelites violated the ban . . . Achan . . . took from the ban. This conjunction of subjects intimates why, in the harsh retribution of this episode, Achan must be extirpated: his violation of the ban imparts guilt, as though by contagion, to the whole people, as the defeat at Ai will immediately demonstrate.

3. about two thousand men or three thousand men. Boling’s contention that ʾelef here is not a number but means a “contingent,” perhaps no more than twenty or thirty men, may be supported by the fact that thirty-six deaths in the defeat are regarded as a catastrophic loss. This is not, however, conclusive evidence because the Israelites are supposed to carry out the conquest virtually unscathed, as at Jericho. Boling’s claim that the particle k^e before the number means “precisely” and not, as it usually does, “about,” is dubious because the alternative of “two or three,” whether thousand or contingents, suggests approximation, not exactitude.

5. pursued them from before the gate. The evident strategy is a sudden sortie from the gate of the town, taking the besiegers, who are too few in number, by surprise.

7. why did You insist on bringing this people across the Jordan to give us into the hand of the Amorite and to destroy us? Joshua’s complaint is distinctly reminiscent of the complaints of the Israelites in the wilderness to Moses, asking him why he brought them into the wilderness to perish instead of leaving them in peace in Egypt. The echo may suggest that Joshua is not quite as fit a leader as Moses.

9. the Canaanites. There is a loose interchange of reference between “Amorites” and “Canaanites.”

And what will You do for Your great name? God’s reputation as all-powerful deity is contingent on the success of His chosen people. Moses uses the same argument when God in His anger threatens to wipe out Israel.

11. also . . . also . . . also . . . also. These repetitions of gam—which equally has the sense of “even” or “actually”—vividly express God’s wrathful indignation.

12. they themselves have come under the ban. Through the contamination of having taken objects devoted to destruction, they have become subject to destruction. The word “themselves” has been added in the translation for the sake of clarity.

14. draw near. This is a technical term for approaching the Ark of the Covenant.

lets the lot fall. The verb repeatedly used in this section also means “to catch” or “to trap.” What is involved in this process is an oracular device—most likely the Urim and Thummim—that yields a binary yes/no answer, thus serving to select one from many.

17. the clans of Judah. The received text has “the clan of Judah,” but a tribe is not a clan. Several Hebrew manuscripts show the more plausible plural form.

19. My son, show honor, pray, to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to Him. Joshua’s language in addressing Achan is cunningly gentle, suggesting he intends to draw in his interlocutor and then lead him to divulge his crime. He begins by calling Achan “my son,” elsewhere an affectionate form of address in the Bible; he uses the polite particle of entreaty, na’, “pray,” and at first does not mention guilt but rather honoring God. The idiom for “make confession,” ten todah, more frequently means “to give thanks,” so it sounds almost as though Joshua were about to say something quite positive to the man who will be made to confess his guilt and then undergo horrendous punishment.

20. Indeed, it is I who offended. Achan’s immediate and full confession is probably best explained by his awareness that the oracle has singled him out, the lot falling on him alone of all the multitude of Israel, and so he feels he has no choice but to admit his guilt. Joshua’s ostensibly fatherly approach to him may also make him sense that he is a member of this community now gravely endangered by his act, and hence he must make restitution, whatever the price.

thus and so I have done. Although this is an idiom that can be used in place of a detailed account, here it is proleptic: the precise content of “thus and so” is laid out in the next verse.

21. a fine fur mantle. The Masoretic Text reads “a fine Shinar mantle,” neatly rendered in the King James Version as “a goodly Babylonish garment” because Shinar is another name for Babylon. There is no evidence that Shinar specialized in exporting fine apparel, and this translation reads instead of shinʿar, deleting the middle consonant, seiʿar, “hair” or “fur.”

24. And Joshua took Achan . . . and the silver and the mantle . . . and his sons and his daughters. The lining up in a single syntactic string of human beings, material treasure, and animal possessions is disturbing. The evident assumption about the family members is that they have been contaminated by Achan’s violation of the ban, and hence they must perish with him. One notes that Achan has considerable possessions (the donkey and ox may well be collective nouns), which makes his crime all the more heinous. The collective punishment is nevertheless troubling.

the Valley of Achor. This means the Valley of Trouble, making the end of this story an etiological tale about the origin of the place-name. It may have been originally called the Valley of Trouble for entirely different reasons—for example, because its terrain was treacherous or bleak and barren.

25. burned them in fire and pelted them with stones. The burning may refer only to the material objects because it was not customary to burn bodies after stoning. The repeated clause about pelting with stones seems redundant.

26. Therefore is the name of that place called. This is an explicit etiological formula.