Yosua 10:20

10:20 Joshua and the Israelites almost totally wiped them out, but some survivors did escape to the fortified cities. ¹ 

Yosua 10:35

10:35 That day they captured it and put the sword to all who lived there. That day they ²  annihilated it just as they ³  had done to Lachish.

Yosua 22:20

22:20 When Achan son of Zerah disobeyed the command about the city’s riches, the entire Israelite community was judged, ⁴  though only one man had sinned. He most certainly died for his sin!’” ⁵ 

[10:20]  ¹ tn Heb “When Joshua and the sons of Israel finished defeating them with a very great defeat until they were destroyed (now the survivors escaped to the fortified cities).” In the Hebrew text the initial temporal clause (“when Joshua…finished”) is subordinated to v. 21 (“the whole army returned”).

[10:35]  ² tn Heb “he”; the implied subject may be Israel, or Joshua (as the commanding general of the army).

[10:35]  ³ tn Heb “he”; the implied subject may be Israel, or Joshua (as the commanding general of the army).

[22:20]  ⁴ tn Heb “Is it not [true that] Achan son of Zerah was unfaithful with unfaithfulness concerning what was set apart [to the Lord] and against all the assembly of Israel there was anger?”

[22:20]  ⁵ 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.