Yosua 6:26

6:26 At that time Joshua made this solemn declaration: ¹  “The man who attempts to rebuild ²  this city of Jericho ³  will stand condemned before the Lord. ⁴  He will lose his firstborn son when he lays its foundations and his youngest son when he erects its gates!” ⁵ 

Yosua 7:26

7:26 Then they erected over him a large pile of stones (it remains to this very day ⁶ ) and the Lord’s anger subsided. So that place is called the Valley of Disaster to this very day.

Yosua 22:20

22:20 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 

[6:26]  ¹ tn Normally the Hiphil of שָׁבַע (shava’) has a causative sense (“make [someone] take an oath”; see Josh 2:17, 20), but here (see also Josh 23:7) no object is stated or implied. If Joshua is calling divine judgment down upon the one who attempts to rebuild Jericho, then “make a solemn appeal [to God as judge]” or “pronounce a curse” would be an appropriate translation. However, the tone seems stronger. Joshua appears to be announcing the certain punishment of the violator. 1 Kgs 16:34, which records the fulfillment of Joshua’s prediction, supports this. Casting Joshua in a prophetic role, it refers to Joshua’s statement as the “word of the Lord” spoken through Joshua.

[6:26]  ² tn Heb “rises up and builds.”

[6:26]  ³ tc The LXX omits “Jericho.” It is probably a scribal addition.

[6:26]  ⁴ tn The Hebrew phrase אָרוּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה (’arur lifney yÿhvah, “cursed [i.e., condemned] before the Lord”) also occurs in 1 Sam 26:19.

[6:26]  ⁵ tn Heb “With his firstborn he will lay its foundations and with his youngest he will erect its gates.” The Hebrew verb יַצִּיב (yatsiv, “he will erect”) is imperfect, not jussive, suggesting Joshua’s statement is a prediction, not an imprecation.

[7:26]  ⁶ tc Heb “to this day.” The phrase “to this day” is omitted in the LXX and may represent a later scribal addition.

[22:20]  ⁷ 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]  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.