1 tn Heb “come under the ban” (so NASB); NRSV “be set apart for destruction.” The same phrase occurs again at the end of this verse.
2 tn Or “like it is.”
3 tn This Hebrew verb (שָׁקַץ, shaqats) is essentially synonymous with the next verb (תָעַב, ta’av; cf. תּוֹעֵבָה, to’evah; see note on the word “abhorrent” in v. 25), though its field of meaning is more limited to cultic abomination (cf. Lev 11:11, 13; Ps 22:25).
4 tn Heb “detesting you must detest and abhorring you must abhor.” Both verbs are preceded by a cognate infinitive absolute indicating emphasis.
5 tn Or “anything that has been put under the divine curse”; Heb “anything of the ban” (cf. NASB). See note on the phrase “divine judgment” in Deut 2:34.
6 tn Heb “Only you keep [away] from what is set apart [to the
7 tn Heb “They have violated my covenant which I commanded them.”
8 tn Heb “what was set apart [to the
9 tn Heb “and also they have stolen, and also they have lied, and also they have placed [them] among their items.”
10 tn Heb “they turn [the] back before their enemies because they are set apart [to destruction by the
11 tn The second person pronoun is plural in Hebrew, indicating these words are addressed to the entire nation.
12 tn Heb “what is set apart [to destruction by the
13 tn Heb “what is set apart [to destruction by the
14 tn Heb “remove what is set apart [i.e., to destruction by the
15 tn Heb “by your tribes.”
16 tn Heb “takes forcefully, seizes.”
17 tn Heb “houses.”
18 tn Heb “by men.”
19 tn Heb “with what was set apart [to the
20 tn Heb “burned with fire.”
21 tn Or “trouble.” The word is “achor” in Hebrew (also in the following clause).
22 tc Heb “and they burned them with fire and they stoned them with stones.” These words are somewhat parenthetical in nature and are omitted in the LXX; they may represent a later scribal addition.
23 tn Heb “Is it not [true that] Achan son of Zerah was unfaithful with unfaithfulness concerning what was set apart [to the
24 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.