Discovery BoxJoshua 1:11 
Context1:11 “Go through the camp and command the people, ‘Prepare your supplies, for within three days you will cross the Jordan River and begin the conquest of the land the Lord your God is ready to hand over to you.’” 1
Joshua 7:1
Context7:1 But the Israelites disobeyed the command about the city’s riches. 2 Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, 3 son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, stole some of the riches. 4 The Lord was furious with the Israelites. 5
Joshua 22:9
Context22:9 So the Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh left the Israelites in Shiloh in the land of Canaan and headed home to their own land in Gilead, 6 which they acquired by the Lord’s command through Moses.
Joshua 22:20
Context22:20 When Achan son of Zerah disobeyed the command about the city’s riches, the entire Israelite community was judged, 7 though only one man had sinned. He most certainly died for his sin!’” 8
1 tn Heb “to enter to possess the land which the
2 tn Heb “But the sons of Israel were unfaithful with unfaithfulness concerning what was set apart [to the
3 tn 1 Chr 2:6 lists a “Zimri” (but no Zabdi) as one of the five sons of Zerah (cf. also 1 Chr 7:17, 18).
4 tn Heb “took from what was set apart [to the
5 tn Heb “the anger of the
sn This incident illustrates well the principle of corporate solidarity and corporate guilt. The sin of one man brought the
6 tn Heb “returned and went from the sons of Israel, from Shiloh which is in the land of Canaan, to go to the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession.”
7 tn Heb “Is it not [true that] Achan son of Zerah was unfaithful with unfaithfulness concerning what was set apart [to the
8 tn The second half of the verse reads literally, “and he [was] one man, he did not die for his sin.” There are at least two possible ways to explain this statement: (1) One might interpret the statement to mean that Achan was not the only person who died for his sin. In this case it could be translated, “and he was not the only one to die because of his sin.” (2) Another option, the one reflected in the translation, is to take the words וְהוּא אִישׁ אֶחָד (vÿhu’ ’ish ’ekhad, “and he [was] one man”) as a concessive clause and join it with what precedes. The remaining words (לֹא גָוַע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ, lo’ gava’ ba’avono) must then be taken as a rhetorical question (“Did he not die for his sin?”). Taking the last sentence as interrogative is consistent with the first part of the verse, a rhetorical question introduced with the interrogative particle. The present translation has converted these rhetorical questions into affirmative statements to bring out more clearly the points they are emphasizing. For further discussion, see T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 240.
