7:1 VA YIM'ALU VENEY YISRA-EL MA'AL BA CHEREM VA YIKACH ACHAN BEN KARMI VEN ZAVDI VEN ZERACH LE MATEH YEHUDAH MIN HA CHEREM VA YICHAR APH YHVH BI VENEY YISRA-EL
וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם וַיִּקַּח עָכָן בֶּן כַּרְמִי בֶן זַבְדִּי בֶן זֶרַח לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה מִן הַחֵרֶם וַיִּחַר אַף יְהוָה בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ (King James translation): But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
BN (BibleNet standard translation): But the Beney Yisra-El violated the ban regarding the "accursed thing"; for Achan ben Karmi ben Zavdi ben Zerach, of the tribe of Yehudah, helped himself to some of the "accursed thing": and the anger of YHVH was kindled against the children of Yisra-El.
BN (preferred translation): But the Beney Yisra-El violated the ban regarding the booty dedicated to YHVH through the Kohanim; for Achan ben Karmi ben Zavdi ben Zerach, of the tribe of Yehudah, helped himself to some of the booty dedicated to YHVH through the Kohanim: and the anger of YHVH was kindled against the children of Yisra-El.
CHEREM: See my several notes on this in the previous chapter; but even more interestingly, see my note in the next chapter - to verse 27 specifically (or click here for my notes on Karmi if you can't wait that long) It becomes evident that the concept of CHEREM must have changed at some point of history: here, the Cherem was pronounced against the city, its total destruction thereby required, save only that which YHVH wanted for himself; so everything is either "accursed", and cannot be touched, or "sacred" and can only be touched in order to transport it to the Treasury. Achan has obviously been pocketing stuff he shouldn't have been. Deuteronomy 7:26 and 13:17 are the sources for this.
ACHAN BEN KARMI BEN ZAVDI BEN ZERACH: The Tanach rarely if ever gives names to the fourth generation, so there must be a reason for this, both in the persons listed and the fact of fourth generationing (the fourth generation is usually remembered as the end of te line of YHVH's revenge upon those who hate him: Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8, et al). Significantly, he is a prince of the tribe of Yehudah, Yehoshu'a's own tribe, and the only surviving tribe at the time of the Redaction, the fifth generation after Yehudah himself, great-grandson of Zerach, who was one of the twins fathered incestuously on Tamar (Genesis 38) - so perhaps not surprising that a child of sin would have his punishment, "even unto the fourth generation" - except for one problem: four generations is about 100 years, and the Torah has told us that rather more than that elapsed, even before the Habiru were enslaved, let alone before Mosheh came along and liberated them, let alone the 40 years in the wilderness (so it depends on which part of the text you are reading: Exodus 12:40 says 430 years, but Exodus 6:14–25 totals up at precisely four generations.
And if it was just this one man, why does the text accuse the entire people?
7:2 VA YISHLACH YEHOSHU'A ANASHIM MI YERICHO HA AI ASHER IM BEIT AVEN MI KEDEM LE VEIT-EL VA YOMER ALEYHEM LEMOR ALU VE RAGLU ET HA ARETS VA YA'ALU HA ANASHIM VA YERAGLU ET HA AI
KJ: And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Bethaven, on the east side of Bethel, and spake unto them, saying, Go up and view the country. And the men went up and viewed Ai.
BN: And Yehoshu'a sent men from Yericho to Ai, which is beside Beit Aven, to the east of Beit-El. And he spoke to them, saying: Go up and reconnoitre the country. And the men went up and reconnoitred Ai.
AI: See the link.
BEIT AVEN: See the link.
BEIT-EL: See the link.
This time it is clearly reconnaissance. But are they visiting towns, or shrines? Or both?
Every military and political ruler in history employs spies, so there is nothing particularly significant in Yehoshu'a doing this; but for the men chosen it would have been, because Yehoshu'a was himself famous for having been a spy. A modern writer would no doubt make something of this.
7:3 VA YASHUVU EL YEHOSHU'A VA YOMRU ELAV AL YA'AL KOL HA AM KE ALPAYIM ISH O KI SHELOSHET ALAPHIM ISH YA'ALU VE YAKU ET HA AI AL TEYAGA SHAMAH ET KOL HA AM KI ME'AT HEMAH
KJ: And they returned to Joshua, and said unto him, Let not all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and smite Ai; and make not all the people to labour thither; for they are but few.
BN: And they came back to Yehoshu'a, and said to him: Don't have all the people go up. Just have maybe two or three thousand men go and take Ai. But don't make all the people waste their energy on this one. It's a tiny place.
Following my note to the previous verse, Yehoshu'a became famous as a spy because he and Kalev ben Yephuneh were the only two out of the twelve to speak positively, even optimistically, about the options for entering Kena'an, while the others saw steep hills, desert terrain, fortified towns, and armies, and turned coward, and advised going elsewhere (Numbers 13). So these spies echo Yehoshu'a in their positivity, as I have attempted to do in the colloquial tone of my strictly accurate translation.
7:4 VA YA'ALU MIN HA AM SHAMAH KI SHELOSHET ALAPHIM ISH VA YANUSU LIPHNEY ANSHEY HA AI
KJ: So there went up thither of the people about three thousand men: and they fled before the men of Ai.
BN: So about three thousand men from among the people went up there; and they fled before the men of Ai.
And I said that a modern writer would no doubt make something of this. As has this one. The spies trying too hard to please their chief by being like his legend, which was probably an exaggerated legend anyway, and therefore being far too positive, over-optimistic, arrogantly smug even (I think my colloquial translation captures that especially well); and then the come-uppance. Psychological literature, circa 450 BCE!
7:5 VA YAKU ME HEM ANSHEY HA AI KI SHELOSHIM VE SHISHAH ISH VA YIRDEPHUM LIPHNEY HA SHA'AR AD HA SHEVARIM VA YAKUM BA MORAD VA YIMAS LEVAV HA AM VA YEHI LE MAYIM
KJ: And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men: for they chased them from before the gate even unto Shebarim, and smote them in the going down: wherefore the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.
BN: And the men of Ai killed about thirty-six of the men. They chased them from outside the gate, as far as Shevarim, and killed them on the way down; at which the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.
KI SHELOSHIM VE SHISHAH: "About" is odd, because 36 is a very precise number, and it either was, or it wasn't. Thirty-six is also a very significant number. King David's "gibborim", his personal bodyguard, were numbered at 36 (2 Samuel 23:8ff); one set of "knights" for his "round table", for each of the three phrases of the moon goddess (Guinevere in the Arthurian, Mary Magdalene in the Jesuitic) who was his guardianess (Yedid-Yah, his full name, means "Beloved of Yah, the foddess of the full moon). The Lamed Vav in later Jewish mysticism likewise. And AI means "ruins", which, based on the story, appears to denote some sort of journey into the Underworld, or the darkness of moonless night perhaps, taking place in te mythological mapping which this "history" really is. Logical enough, at following the capture of the moon in the aftermath of Passover - we should be at the end of the month, and would expect three days of darkness before the new moon rises.
SHEVARIM: And they pursued them as far as Shevarim. As though the trumpets of Yericho were still sounding, or at least echoing in the distance. Shevarim is another of the melodies sounded on the shofar at the New Year and on Yom Kippur; at Yericho we had the teru'ah gedolah (6:6). There is more to this than meets the ear!
Further to my mentioning Yehoshu'a's background as, so to speak, 007: is the writer in fact doing the Biblical equivalent of the modern psychological thriller-writer, playing with the lousy advice given by Yehoshua's colleagues on their return to Mosheh, by having something similar befall Yehoshu'a now, and him gain some maturity from the experience? No question that "the people's hearts melted like water" is exactly what happened after the other spies' reports were given credit, and why the people were forced to remain in the wilderness for thirty-eight more years; and wasn't it because of water that Mosheh was forbidden to enter the Promised Land? John Grisham was never this subtly nuanced!
7:6 VA YIKRA YEHOSHU'A SIMLOTAV VA YIPOL AL PANAV ARTSAH LIPHNEY ARON YHVH AD HA AREV HU VE ZIKNEY YISRA'EL VA YA'ALU AHAR AL RO'SHAM
KJ: And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads.
BN: And Yehoshu'a tore his clothes, and prostrated himself on the ground before the Ark of YHVH, and stayed there until evening, he and the elders of Yisra-El; and they sprinkled dust on their heads.
Deep in the darkness of the Underworld indeed!
KJ: And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord GOD, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!
BN: And Yehoshu'a said: Alas, alas, my Lord YHVH, why have you gone to the trouble of bringing this people across the Yarden, if it is only to deliver us into the hands of the Emori, in order to destroy us? If only we had been content to dwell on the other side of the Yarden!
KJ: O Lord, what shall I say, when Israel turneth their backs before their enemies!
BN: O my Lord, what can I say, when Yisra-El turns its back before its enemies!...
Verse 4 sounded like a man venting inside his head, dealing internally with his self-annoyance that he got it so badly wrong. This sounds rather more like prayer, outward expressions of his regret in the language of formal litrugy - Selichah indeed. Though the next does revert to the same internal venting.
OREPH: Interesting word! The neck, really, rather than the back, as in KESHEH OREPH, "stiff-necked people" (Exodus 32:9). But it also has mythological connotations, just as Yericho did; because there is a star named Oreph, in the constellation Lyra, and thebeloved hero Orpheus who traversed the Underworld played that lyre, as did the beloved hero of Yisra-El King David, whose heavenly star, the Magen David, is also Oreph, and who likewise spent years pursued by the King of the Underworld, Sha'ul of She'ol. And then there is David's ancestry, because his grandmother was named Rut (Ruth), but her sister-in-law was named Orpah (Ruth 1:4), which is Oreph in the feminine, and that triplet of Rut, Orpah and Na'amah (Naomi) is yet another version of the triple-goddess, the daughters of al-Lah, the trinity of Maries, the three sisters Regan, Goneril and Cordelia - so many mythical accounts of the three phases of the moon, the virgin-crescent, the full-moon Madonna and the old waning crone. None of that, of course, has anything to do with the turn-coats of Yisra-El here; I have included it only because the name came up and it seemed to me marginally interesting, though you will probably be more interested to learn that Oprah Winfrey was originally Orpah Winfrey, but changed it because Oprah sounded better as a stage-name (did I mention previously that Orpheus is a western Greek variant of Phoroneus, who is Hittite Ephron, who sold the Cave of Machpelah to Av-Raham; at Chevron, where Yah, his sister, was the full-moon goddess? Yes, I am sure I must have mentioned it at some point).
At a historical level, it is rather disappointing (though sadly not at all surprising) to discover that the leader is blaming the men, and not himself. He relied on the spies, he sent only three thousand, he organised the training and preparation, he presumably gave instructions for strategy. But it is their cowardice that is reprehensible. And no doubt he would have taken all the credit (or as much as YHVH let him) if things had gone well.
7:9 VE YISHME'U HA KENA'ANI VE CHOL YOSHVEY HA ARETS VE NASABU ALEYNU VE HICHRIYTU ET SHEMENU MIN HA ARETS U MAH TA'ASEH LE SHIMCHA HA GADOL
KJ: For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name?
BN: For the Kena'ani and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and they will surround us, and cut off our name from the Earth. And what will that do to your great name?
But if the previous verse was disappointing, this is frankly - boo, hoo and sob - pathetic. Because apparently it was also YHVH's fault (I don't understand Yehoshu'a, why you don't just fire him, and make a public statement of his incompetence: that's what Donald Trump would have done).
MAH TA'ASEH: A fault in the original? This is ungrammatical. Is there a "that" missing - "what will that do to your great name"? I have re-instated it in my translation.
Remember again that there are supposed to be 1.5 million of these people, based on the census in the Book of Numbers, and a fighting force that has spread terror through the country. They lost a small raiding party, which in the context of war at that time was as nothing. Yehoshua's reaction is ludicrous - except the unstated but underlying concern, not for YHVH's reputation, but his own. He screwed up.
samech break
7:10 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A KUM LACH LAMAH ZEH ATAH NOPHEL AL PANEYCHA
KJ: And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?
BN: Then YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: Get up! Why are you lying on your face?
You may not have liked my commentary on the last verse, but YHVH clearly agrees with me, and is going to give him the verbal reproach that he deserves. But not by means of a wise critique, pointing out the naiveties in his military strategy, counselling and guiding him towards improvement. Ten verses ago we read about Achan ben Karmi ben Zavdi ben Zerach, and the "accursed thing", and wondered why he was mentioned and then no more. Here is the more (whenever anything bad happens in the world, it is always the consequence of sin).
7:11 CHATA YISRA-EL VE GAM AVRU ET BERITI ASHER TSIVIYTI OTAM VE GAM LAKCHU MIN HA CHEREM VE GAM GANVU VE GAM KICHASHU VE GAM SAMU VI CHLEYHEM
KJ: Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.
BN: Yisra-El has sinned. They have also transgressed the instructions in my covenant, by taking some of the objects marked for the sacred Treasury. And they have stolen, and they have lied, and they have even tried to hide some of what they have stolen among their own legitimate possessions...
This is one of those points at which history and theology converge, and make each other nonsensical. YHVH effectively exonerates Yehoshu'a's military failure by stating his own interference in human history. They did not lose at Ai because Yehoshu'a made a bad military decision; YHVH made them lose at Ai as a punishment for the sin of Achan at Yericho (it's always someone else's fault!).
7:12 VE LO YUCHLU BENEY YISRA-EL LAKUM LIPHNEY OYEVEYHEM OREPH YIPHNU LIPHNEY OYEVEYHEM KI HAYU LE CHEREM LO OSIPH LIHEYOT IMACHEM IM LO TASHMIYDU HA CHEREM MI KIRBECHEM
KJ: Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.
BN: Therefore the Beney Yisra-El could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs on their enemies, because they were accursed. Nor will I be there for you any more, unless you destroy the accursed from among you...
In the same way that Islam requires the beheading of the Munafiqun and Catholicism the burning of the heretics. Religious fundamentalism can allow no dissenters, rebels, or breakers even of the most minor rules.
7:13 KUM KADESH ET HA AM VE AMARTA HITKADSHU LE MACHAR KI CHOH AMAR YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL CHEREM BE KIRBECHA YISRA-EL LO TUCHAL LAKUM LIPHNEY OYEVECHA AD HASIYRCHEM HA CHEREM MI KIRBECHEM
KJ: Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.
BN: Get up now. Go and sanctify the people. Tell them: Sanctify yourselves in readiness for tomorrow, for thus says YHVH, the god of Yisra-El: Someone among you has stolen booty in their possession. O Yisra-El, you cannot stand before your enemies, until you have dealt with whoever has that stolen booty among you...
HASIYRCHEM: Where the "accursed thing" was previously the items marked for the Treasury, it has now become the people who stole it, and they are themselves now Cherem, which is to say they may not be touched, except by stones thrown from a judicial distance (let us hope it won't be worse than that. Please, don't let it be... see verse 15).
Does YHVH speaking end here, and the next is Yehoshu'a; or is the next still YHVH telling Yehoshu'a what to say in his name? It makes a huge difference.
7:14 VE NIKRAVTEM BA BOKER LE SHIVTEYCHEM VE HAYAH HA SHEVET ASHER YILKEDENU YHVH YIKRAV LA MISHPACHOT VE HA MISHPACHOT ASHER YILKEDENAH YHVH TIKRAV LA BATIM VE HA BAYIT ASHER YILKEDENU YHVH YIKRAV LA GEVARIM
KJ: In the morning therefore ye shall be brought according to your tribes: and it shall be, that the tribe which the LORD taketh shall come according to the families thereof; and the family which the LORD shall take shall come by households; and the household which the LORD shall take shall come man by man.
BN: In the morning therefore you shall be brought out tribe by tribe. And it shall work as follows: the tribe which YHVH intends to take prisoner shall come as a family; and the family which YHVH intends to take prisoner shall come as a household; and the household which YHVH intends to take prisoner shall come man by man...
The text is almost willfully convoluted. Yehoshu'a is carrying out a search, which is reasonable, because he cannot possibly know who has taken anything, or even what they might have taken (no, that was my late grandmother's wedding ring; it's been in the family for generations). But YHVH is almighty and knows everything - then why can he not just name the culprit? To which the answer is obvious of course, but the text does not really drive that message home: that he needs to make this communal, so that everyone will understand the importance, and maybe there was more than Achan etc. The same method of simultaneously punishing and instructing is used in school assemblies when someone has left graffiti on a wall, and is the source of the bulldozing of the homes of Palestinian terrorists.
What is not clear, though I believe it to be the case and have made it so in my translation, is the method of finding out: the idea that the guilty will reveal themselves by the way they come to the assembly.
YILKEDEYNU: The root is LAKAD (לכד), which means to take, or capture, usually used for trapping or snaring animals, or seizing captives in battle. But I wonder if, on this occasion, it doesn't mean "arrested", even if only "on suspicion".
7:15 VE HAYAH HA NILKAD BA CHEREM YISAREPH BA ESH OTO VE ET KOL ASHER LO KI AVAR ET BERIT YHVH VE CHI ASAH NEVALAH BE YISRA-EL
KJ: And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.
BN: And it shall be that he who is caught in possession of any item marked for the holy treasury shall be burnt to death by fire, he and everything that he owns; because he has transgressed the covenant of YHVH, and because he has wrought folly in Yisra-El."
KOL ASHER LO: Does that include his wives and children, his animals and slaves, or just his material possessions? They are normally counted among his possessions.
KJ: So Joshua rose up early in the morning, and brought Israel by their tribes; and the tribe of Judah was taken:
BN: So Yehoshu'a rose up early in the morning, and brought Yisra-El out tribe by tribe; and the tribe of Yehudah was held on suspicion.
The phrasing of this seems to indicate that it was indeed still YHVH speaking to Yehoshu'a, and telling him what to do and say. What it does not make clear is how he knew. And yet, we already knew, because he was named verses ago. And perhaps, as per my translation of YILACHED, perhaps he already knew, but needed an appearance of fairness, even of randomness and miraculousness, through a broader search, as a means of instilling fear of YHVH in the people. See verse 19 for confirmation of this.
7:17 VA YAKREV ET MISHPACHAT YEHUDAH VA YILKOD ET MISHPACHAT HA ZARCHI VA YAKREV ET MISHPACHAT HA ZARCHI LA GEVARIM VA YILACHED ZAVDI
KJ: And he brought the family of Judah; and he took the family of the Zarhites: and he brought the family of the Zarhites man by man; and Zabdi was taken:
BN: And one of the families of Yehudah was made to approach him; and he took the family of the Zarchi, and the family of the Zarchi was made to approach him man by man; and Zavdi was taken.
MISHPACHAT YEHUDAH: Mishpechah this time, where it was Shevet in the previous verse - a family within the clan within the tribe.
ZARCHI: The descendants of Zerach ben Yehudah, as noted previously. The Tanach has two forms for denoting people, and they are alternated quite randomly: Zarchi here, but elsewhere it could have been Beney Zerach.
ZAVDI: Whereas Zavdi is the name of the individual, not the family, clan or tribe.
7:18 VA YAKREV ET BEITO LA GEVARIM VA YILACHED ACHAN BEN KARMI VEN ZAVDI BEN ZERACH LE MATEH YEHUDAH
KJ: And he brought his household man by man; and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken.
BN: And his household was made to approach him, man by man; and Achan ben Karmi ven Zavdi ben Zerach of the tribe of Yehudah, was arrested.
VEN ZAVDI: How the decision is made for VEN or BEN is beyond me, and clearly beyond the official pointer too, because verse 1 has it differently from verse 18, and they cannot both be correct.
7:19 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL ACHAN BENI SIM NA CHAVOD LA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL VE TEN LO TODAH VE HAGED NA LI MEH ASIYTA AL TECHACHED MIMENI
KJ: And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to Achan: "My son, I beseech you, give credit to YHVH the god of Yisra-El, and give thanks to him; and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me."
TODAH: The word today means "thanks", but traditionally is translated as "confession". Or is it actually left untranslated? Did it once mean something different?
A similar incident happens with Yah-Natan (Jonathan) after one of Sha'ul's battles (1 Samuel 14: 24-52); but on that occasion Sha'ul declined to carry out the death penalty.
7:20 VA YA'AN ACHAN ET YEHOSHU'A VA YOMAR AMNAH ANOCHI CHATA'TI LA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL VE CHA ZOT VE CHA ZOT ASIYTI
KJ: And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:
BN: And Achan answered Yehoshu'a, and said: "I have indeed sinned against YHVH the god of Yisra-El, and thus and thus have I done...
VE CHA ZOT VE CHA ZOT: Is he being flippant? Or is the writer simply too lazy to tell us the detail? Or perhaps it's because the detail doesn't matter, rather the fact of finding out, and the method of finding out, which gives the "credit" to YHVH once again? But the detail does then come, next verse.
7:21 VE ER'EH VA SHALAL ADERET SHIN'AR ACHAT TOVAH U MA'TAYIM SHEKALIM KESEPH U LESHON ZAHAV ECHAD CHAMISHIM SHEKALIM MISHKALO VE ECHMEDEM VA EKACHEM VE HINAM TEMUNIM BA ARETS BETOCH HA AHALI VE HA KESEPH TACHTEYHA
KJ: When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
BN: I saw among the spoils a beautiful robe from Shin'ar, and two hundred shekels in silver coins, and a piece of gold bullion that weighed fifty shekels, and I wanted them, so I took them. They are hidden in the soil in the middle of my tent, and the silver is at the bottom.
SHIN'AR: My notes are at the link on the name; for more, there is excellent material here.
Note the order in which he confesses; the robe, then the silver, finally the gold. Can we fill in the spaces between the three confessions, and assume Yehoshu'a pressed him, if only with looks, and he admitted the more heinous under pressure?
"A goodly Babylonish garment" (or "a beautiful robe from Shin'ar" as you prefer) is however a very interesting thing: that a man who grew up as a refugee from slavery in Mitsrayim (Egypt), his entire life spent in the desert, should even be able to recognise "a goodly Babylonish garment". If you saw someone in a sari, would you know it was Punjabi rather than from Andra Pradesh? That a silk blouse was made in France and not China? "A goodly Babylonish garment" is sophisticated knowledge to such a man - but everyday stuff to the Redactor, himself of Babylonian origin, in a world where all good clothing for the last hundred and fifty years has come from Babylon. Nothing better than a good anachronism to help a scholar date a text!
7:22 VA YISHLACH YEHOSHU'A MAL'ACHIM VA YARUTSU HA OHELAH VE HINEH TEMUNAH BE AHALO VE HA KESEPH TACHTEYHA
KJ: So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.
BN: So Yehoshu'a sent footmen, and they ran to the tent; and, there it was, hidden in the tent, and the silver underneath it.
MAL'ACHIM: Messengers now, not spies, deinitely not "angels", tough we have seen it used for both. The correct word for spies is actually MERAGLIM (cf Genesis 42:49). And here they aren't eally messengers either: junior constables perhaps; gofors of some description anyway.
VA YARUTSU: Why the need to run?
And the gold? No mention of the gold. I hope they didn't pocket it!
7:23 VA YIKACHUM MI TOCH HA OHEL VA YEVI'UM EL YEHOSHU'A VE EL KOL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YATSIKUM LIPHNEY YHVH
KJ: And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.
BN: And they gathered up everything that was inside the tent, and brought them out to Yehoshu'a, and presented them before all the Beney Yisra-El, and laid them out before YHVH.
The booty belongs to YHVH, for his treasure-chest. So apparently it's okay to steal for god, but not for self! (just wanting to put all this moral righteousness into perspective).
And apparently, to the Merciful, Compassionate YHVH, burning a man to death for stealing for himself makes manifest the bounty of the Saviour, whereas a man who steals for YHVH is named a saint.
And you haven't read the next verse yet!
7:24 VA YIKACH YEHOSHU'A ET ACHAN BEN ZERACH VE ET HA KESEPH VE ET HA ADERET VE ET LESHON HA ZAHAV VE ET BANAV VE ET BENOTAV VE ET SORO VE ET CHAMORO VE ET TSONO VE ET AHALO VE ET KOL ASHER LO VE CHOL YISRA'EL IMO VA YA'ALU OTAM EMEK ACHOR
KJ: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
BN: And Yehoshu'a, and all Yisra-El with him, took Achan ben Zerach, and the silver, and the robe, and the gold bullion, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them into the valley of Oswiecim.
ACHAN BEN ZERACH: What happened to Karmi and Zavdi? This renders him a good guy after all, based on the scale of moral descent that we recognised earlier. Lazy scribe again, I suspect, who didn't understand the text that he was writing down.
KJ: And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
BN: And Yehoshua said: "Why have you caused us trouble? YHVH shall trouble you today." And all Yisra-El stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
Him or them? Did the text get changed at some point, perhaps to weaken it (take them out), perhaps to strengthen it (put them in), but the scribe failed to erase the alternate? No, eventually it is clear (I think my close scrutiny has been, in part, out of a hope that I might find proof of a different outcome): the whole bally lot of them are stoned, and then burned, down to the baby in the crib and the great great grand-donkey.
ACHARTANU: is there another pun here, this time between ACHARTANU and ACHOR? The next verse seems to infer that there is, and all this is indeed just another made-up tale to give another aetiological explanation - we are mapping the heavens in their earthly parallels, not reporting actual history. The next verse explicitly confirms this.
7:26 VA YAKIYMU ALAV GAL AVANIM GADOL AD HAYOM HA ZEH VA YASHAV YHVH ME CHARON APHO AL KEN KARA SHEM HA MAKOM HA HU EMEK ACHOR AD HAYOM HA ZEH
KJ: And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The Valley of Achor, unto this day.
BN: And they buried him in a large cairn, which can still be seen to this day. So YHVH turned from the fierceness of his anger. And this is why the place was named the Valley of Achor, and it is still called by that name to this day.
ACHAN BEN KARMI BEN ZAVDI BEN ZERACH: The Tanach rarely if ever gives names to the fourth generation, so there must be a reason for this, both in the persons listed and the fact of fourth generationing (the fourth generation is usually remembered as the end of te line of YHVH's revenge upon those who hate him: Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8, et al). Significantly, he is a prince of the tribe of Yehudah, Yehoshu'a's own tribe, and the only surviving tribe at the time of the Redaction, the fifth generation after Yehudah himself, great-grandson of Zerach, who was one of the twins fathered incestuously on Tamar (Genesis 38) - so perhaps not surprising that a child of sin would have his punishment, "even unto the fourth generation" - except for one problem: four generations is about 100 years, and the Torah has told us that rather more than that elapsed, even before the Habiru were enslaved, let alone before Mosheh came along and liberated them, let alone the 40 years in the wilderness (so it depends on which part of the text you are reading: Exodus 12:40 says 430 years, but Exodus 6:14–25 totals up at precisely four generations.
And if it was just this one man, why does the text accuse the entire people?
And then note - though it may well be pure coincidence - that the "accursed thing" is a CHEREM (חרם), while the man who took it is a son of KEREM (כרם), and that K softens to a CH when any prefix is added, so the jokes on his name must have been standard and commonplace.
ACHAR: Following Gesenius, who knew as much about Biblical etymology as anyone who ever lived, Achan is an error for Achar, which is how the name appears in 1 Chronicles 2:7, though no one noticed that until Gesenius pointed it out - you can follow this through by clicking here. Achan is in fact an unknown root in Yehudit, whereas ACHAR means "to disturb" or "to cause trouble" - and if you give that name to your son, expect him to live up to it! Clearly we are yetagain in the realm of mythology, and these names are all entirely metaphorical. I have included the etymological explanation of Zavdi below.
ACHAR: Following Gesenius, who knew as much about Biblical etymology as anyone who ever lived, Achan is an error for Achar, which is how the name appears in 1 Chronicles 2:7, though no one noticed that until Gesenius pointed it out - you can follow this through by clicking here. Achan is in fact an unknown root in Yehudit, whereas ACHAR means "to disturb" or "to cause trouble" - and if you give that name to your son, expect him to live up to it! Clearly we are yetagain in the realm of mythology, and these names are all entirely metaphorical. I have included the etymological explanation of Zavdi below.
BN (metaphorical translation): But the Beney Yisra-El violated the ban regarding the booty dedicated to YHVH through the Kohanim; for "Trouble-Maker", the son of "Cursed-or-Dedicated", the grandson of "Gift-Giver", the great-grandson of "Illuminated", from the tribe of "Praised", helped himself to some of the booty dedicated to YHVH through the Kohanim: and the anger of YHVH was kindled against the children of Yisra-El.
Which appears to describe a downward scale, Zerach (Mizrach is the east, where the sun rises), producing a generously unselfish gift-giver, after whom the matter begins to go both ways, but ends in selfish plundering. Names in the Bible are never, ever, accidental.
Which appears to describe a downward scale, Zerach (Mizrach is the east, where the sun rises), producing a generously unselfish gift-giver, after whom the matter begins to go both ways, but ends in selfish plundering. Names in the Bible are never, ever, accidental.
7:2 VA YISHLACH YEHOSHU'A ANASHIM MI YERICHO HA AI ASHER IM BEIT AVEN MI KEDEM LE VEIT-EL VA YOMER ALEYHEM LEMOR ALU VE RAGLU ET HA ARETS VA YA'ALU HA ANASHIM VA YERAGLU ET HA AI
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֲנָשִׁים מִירִיחֹו הָעַי אֲשֶׁר עִם בֵּית אָוֶן מִקֶּדֶם לְבֵית אֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וְרַגְּלוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וַיַּעֲלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיְרַגְּלוּ אֶת הָעָי
BN: And Yehoshu'a sent men from Yericho to Ai, which is beside Beit Aven, to the east of Beit-El. And he spoke to them, saying: Go up and reconnoitre the country. And the men went up and reconnoitred Ai.
BEIT AVEN: See the link.
BEIT-EL: See the link.
This time it is clearly reconnaissance. But are they visiting towns, or shrines? Or both?
Every military and political ruler in history employs spies, so there is nothing particularly significant in Yehoshu'a doing this; but for the men chosen it would have been, because Yehoshu'a was himself famous for having been a spy. A modern writer would no doubt make something of this.
7:3 VA YASHUVU EL YEHOSHU'A VA YOMRU ELAV AL YA'AL KOL HA AM KE ALPAYIM ISH O KI SHELOSHET ALAPHIM ISH YA'ALU VE YAKU ET HA AI AL TEYAGA SHAMAH ET KOL HA AM KI ME'AT HEMAH
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַל יַעַל כָּל הָעָם כְּאַלְפַּיִם אִישׁ אֹו כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ יַעֲלוּ וְיַכּוּ אֶת הָעָי אַל תְּיַגַּע שָׁמָּה אֶת כָּל הָעָם כִּי מְעַט הֵמָּה
BN: And they came back to Yehoshu'a, and said to him: Don't have all the people go up. Just have maybe two or three thousand men go and take Ai. But don't make all the people waste their energy on this one. It's a tiny place.
Following my note to the previous verse, Yehoshu'a became famous as a spy because he and Kalev ben Yephuneh were the only two out of the twelve to speak positively, even optimistically, about the options for entering Kena'an, while the others saw steep hills, desert terrain, fortified towns, and armies, and turned coward, and advised going elsewhere (Numbers 13). So these spies echo Yehoshu'a in their positivity, as I have attempted to do in the colloquial tone of my strictly accurate translation.
7:4 VA YA'ALU MIN HA AM SHAMAH KI SHELOSHET ALAPHIM ISH VA YANUSU LIPHNEY ANSHEY HA AI
וַיַּעֲלוּ מִן הָעָם שָׁמָּה כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וַיָּנֻסוּ לִפְנֵי אַנְשֵׁי הָעָי
KJ: So there went up thither of the people about three thousand men: and they fled before the men of Ai.
BN: So about three thousand men from among the people went up there; and they fled before the men of Ai.
And I said that a modern writer would no doubt make something of this. As has this one. The spies trying too hard to please their chief by being like his legend, which was probably an exaggerated legend anyway, and therefore being far too positive, over-optimistic, arrogantly smug even (I think my colloquial translation captures that especially well); and then the come-uppance. Psychological literature, circa 450 BCE!
7:5 VA YAKU ME HEM ANSHEY HA AI KI SHELOSHIM VE SHISHAH ISH VA YIRDEPHUM LIPHNEY HA SHA'AR AD HA SHEVARIM VA YAKUM BA MORAD VA YIMAS LEVAV HA AM VA YEHI LE MAYIM
וַיַּכּוּ מֵהֶם אַנְשֵׁי הָעַי כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה אִישׁ וַיִּרְדְּפוּם לִפְנֵי הַשַּׁעַר עַד הַשְּׁבָרִים וַיַּכּוּם בַּמֹּורָד וַיִּמַּס לְבַב הָעָם וַיְהִי לְמָיִם
BN: And the men of Ai killed about thirty-six of the men. They chased them from outside the gate, as far as Shevarim, and killed them on the way down; at which the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.
KI SHELOSHIM VE SHISHAH: "About" is odd, because 36 is a very precise number, and it either was, or it wasn't. Thirty-six is also a very significant number. King David's "gibborim", his personal bodyguard, were numbered at 36 (2 Samuel 23:8ff); one set of "knights" for his "round table", for each of the three phrases of the moon goddess (Guinevere in the Arthurian, Mary Magdalene in the Jesuitic) who was his guardianess (Yedid-Yah, his full name, means "Beloved of Yah, the foddess of the full moon). The Lamed Vav in later Jewish mysticism likewise. And AI means "ruins", which, based on the story, appears to denote some sort of journey into the Underworld, or the darkness of moonless night perhaps, taking place in te mythological mapping which this "history" really is. Logical enough, at following the capture of the moon in the aftermath of Passover - we should be at the end of the month, and would expect three days of darkness before the new moon rises.
SHEVARIM: And they pursued them as far as Shevarim. As though the trumpets of Yericho were still sounding, or at least echoing in the distance. Shevarim is another of the melodies sounded on the shofar at the New Year and on Yom Kippur; at Yericho we had the teru'ah gedolah (6:6). There is more to this than meets the ear!
Further to my mentioning Yehoshu'a's background as, so to speak, 007: is the writer in fact doing the Biblical equivalent of the modern psychological thriller-writer, playing with the lousy advice given by Yehoshua's colleagues on their return to Mosheh, by having something similar befall Yehoshu'a now, and him gain some maturity from the experience? No question that "the people's hearts melted like water" is exactly what happened after the other spies' reports were given credit, and why the people were forced to remain in the wilderness for thirty-eight more years; and wasn't it because of water that Mosheh was forbidden to enter the Promised Land? John Grisham was never this subtly nuanced!
7:6 VA YIKRA YEHOSHU'A SIMLOTAV VA YIPOL AL PANAV ARTSAH LIPHNEY ARON YHVH AD HA AREV HU VE ZIKNEY YISRA'EL VA YA'ALU AHAR AL RO'SHAM
וַיִּקְרַע יְהֹושֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל פָּנָיו אַרְצָה לִפְנֵי אֲרֹון יְהוָה עַד הָעֶרֶב הוּא וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עָפָר עַל רֹאשָׁם
BN: And Yehoshu'a tore his clothes, and prostrated himself on the ground before the Ark of YHVH, and stayed there until evening, he and the elders of Yisra-El; and they sprinkled dust on their heads.
Deep in the darkness of the Underworld indeed!
They just wiped out hundreds if not thousands at Yericho without batting an eyelid, but 36 of their own men is a universal catastrophe!
VA YIKRA SIMLOTAV: Ancient mourning ritual, still very much in use today; click here.
AD HA AREV: Forgive me, but am I hearing Yom Kippur liturgy - again? And if I am, is the next echo-line of that liturgy not MI BOKER - a short journey from the sunrise at Yericho in the last chapter to the sunset here at Ai. And it was evening, and then morning, the second day of this Creation myth.
VA YIKRA SIMLOTAV: Ancient mourning ritual, still very much in use today; click here.
AD HA AREV: Forgive me, but am I hearing Yom Kippur liturgy - again? And if I am, is the next echo-line of that liturgy not MI BOKER - a short journey from the sunrise at Yericho in the last chapter to the sunset here at Ai. And it was evening, and then morning, the second day of this Creation myth.
(The Yom Kippur text is in the section called Ya'aleh - and was that not the very surprisingly colloquial and ungrammatical phrase used by the spies in their report: AL YA'AL at verse 3? And it says AD AREV, not AD HA AREV. Ya'aleh is part of Selichot, which is exactly what Yehoshu'a is about to undertake here. Ya'aleh was written in the mediaeval epoch, so clearly it is not this, then; but the overlaps are inexorable).
VA YA'ALU APHAR: Like the cloth-tearing, this was the standard mourning ritual. Yet it uses, and most oddly, and therefore we notice it as such, the same verb YA'ALU, yet again. From LA'ALOT, "to go up", as with the Aliyah of the immigrant to Israel, or the person called to the Amud to read from the Torah, or the pilgrim to Yeru-Shala'im. The moon has gone down into the Underworld, so obviously the sun must be rising, upon everything.
7:7 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A AHAH ADONAI YHVH LAMAH HE'AVARTA HA'AVIR ET HA AM HA ZEH ET HA YARDEN LATET OTANU BE YAD HA EMORI LE HA'AVIYDENU VE LU HO'ALNU VA NESHEV BE EVER HA YARDEN
VA YA'ALU APHAR: Like the cloth-tearing, this was the standard mourning ritual. Yet it uses, and most oddly, and therefore we notice it as such, the same verb YA'ALU, yet again. From LA'ALOT, "to go up", as with the Aliyah of the immigrant to Israel, or the person called to the Amud to read from the Torah, or the pilgrim to Yeru-Shala'im. The moon has gone down into the Underworld, so obviously the sun must be rising, upon everything.
7:7 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A AHAH ADONAI YHVH LAMAH HE'AVARTA HA'AVIR ET HA AM HA ZEH ET HA YARDEN LATET OTANU BE YAD HA EMORI LE HA'AVIYDENU VE LU HO'ALNU VA NESHEV BE EVER HA YARDEN
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה לָמָה הֵעֲבַרְתָּ הַעֲבִיר אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן לָתֵת אֹתָנוּ בְּיַד הָאֱמֹרִי לְהַאֲבִידֵנוּ וְלוּ הֹואַלְנוּ וַנֵּשֶׁב בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן
KJ: And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord GOD, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!
BN: And Yehoshu'a said: Alas, alas, my Lord YHVH, why have you gone to the trouble of bringing this people across the Yarden, if it is only to deliver us into the hands of the Emori, in order to destroy us? If only we had been content to dwell on the other side of the Yarden!
Oh, but he gives up so quickly. And anyway it's his own stupid fault for listening to his spies and not sending a proper militia to do the job. It was his first battle, mind. YHVH won Yericho for him with miracles. Now he has to learn military strategy!
And does that not sound like the sort of comment I kept on making about Mosheh? They are the same man, I'm sure of it. The same man, the same mythological events transformed into historical narrative, the same religious liturgy rooted in that mythology - but the name and geography and other details changed, exactly as Herakles is different from Arthur is different from David is different from Siegfried, and yet still the same.
And does that not sound like the sort of comment I kept on making about Mosheh? They are the same man, I'm sure of it. The same man, the same mythological events transformed into historical narrative, the same religious liturgy rooted in that mythology - but the name and geography and other details changed, exactly as Herakles is different from Arthur is different from David is different from Siegfried, and yet still the same.
One more point: this book is chapter six of the biography of YHVH, who has to be the one and only superhero throughout, no matter what. So, just as all women are barren until the goddess bestows fertility upon them, and therefore gets the praise, so no human leader can ever be skilled or competent, but must be totally reliant upon the deity to make success for him. So every tale is told accordingly, and faith may be imparted to the cult-followers.
AHAH: There is no English equivalent to this, because our"Ahah!" has an entirely different tone and intent. "Alas, alas" will have to do.
ADONAI YHVH: Many modern Jews, unwilling to pronounce the name of the Jewish deity, will say Adonai, which means, as here "My Lord". But this usage of the two together does rather undermine that.
LATET OTANU: Interesting and useful grammatical variation that has not been retained in modern Ivrit; useful because it allows the verb "to give" both a transitive and an intransitive. Modern Ivrit has LATET LANU.
LU: Many translations offer "would to God that", which is simply absurd...
7:8 BI ADONAI MAH OMAR ACHAREY ASHER HAPHACH YISRA-EL OREPH LIPHNEY OYEVAV
AHAH: There is no English equivalent to this, because our"Ahah!" has an entirely different tone and intent. "Alas, alas" will have to do.
ADONAI YHVH: Many modern Jews, unwilling to pronounce the name of the Jewish deity, will say Adonai, which means, as here "My Lord". But this usage of the two together does rather undermine that.
LATET OTANU: Interesting and useful grammatical variation that has not been retained in modern Ivrit; useful because it allows the verb "to give" both a transitive and an intransitive. Modern Ivrit has LATET LANU.
LU: Many translations offer "would to God that", which is simply absurd...
7:8 BI ADONAI MAH OMAR ACHAREY ASHER HAPHACH YISRA-EL OREPH LIPHNEY OYEVAV
בִּי אֲדֹנָי מָה אֹמַר אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹרֶף לִפְנֵי אֹיְבָיו
BN: O my Lord, what can I say, when Yisra-El turns its back before its enemies!...
Verse 4 sounded like a man venting inside his head, dealing internally with his self-annoyance that he got it so badly wrong. This sounds rather more like prayer, outward expressions of his regret in the language of formal litrugy - Selichah indeed. Though the next does revert to the same internal venting.
OREPH: Interesting word! The neck, really, rather than the back, as in KESHEH OREPH, "stiff-necked people" (Exodus 32:9). But it also has mythological connotations, just as Yericho did; because there is a star named Oreph, in the constellation Lyra, and thebeloved hero Orpheus who traversed the Underworld played that lyre, as did the beloved hero of Yisra-El King David, whose heavenly star, the Magen David, is also Oreph, and who likewise spent years pursued by the King of the Underworld, Sha'ul of She'ol. And then there is David's ancestry, because his grandmother was named Rut (Ruth), but her sister-in-law was named Orpah (Ruth 1:4), which is Oreph in the feminine, and that triplet of Rut, Orpah and Na'amah (Naomi) is yet another version of the triple-goddess, the daughters of al-Lah, the trinity of Maries, the three sisters Regan, Goneril and Cordelia - so many mythical accounts of the three phases of the moon, the virgin-crescent, the full-moon Madonna and the old waning crone. None of that, of course, has anything to do with the turn-coats of Yisra-El here; I have included it only because the name came up and it seemed to me marginally interesting, though you will probably be more interested to learn that Oprah Winfrey was originally Orpah Winfrey, but changed it because Oprah sounded better as a stage-name (did I mention previously that Orpheus is a western Greek variant of Phoroneus, who is Hittite Ephron, who sold the Cave of Machpelah to Av-Raham; at Chevron, where Yah, his sister, was the full-moon goddess? Yes, I am sure I must have mentioned it at some point).
At a historical level, it is rather disappointing (though sadly not at all surprising) to discover that the leader is blaming the men, and not himself. He relied on the spies, he sent only three thousand, he organised the training and preparation, he presumably gave instructions for strategy. But it is their cowardice that is reprehensible. And no doubt he would have taken all the credit (or as much as YHVH let him) if things had gone well.
7:9 VE YISHME'U HA KENA'ANI VE CHOL YOSHVEY HA ARETS VE NASABU ALEYNU VE HICHRIYTU ET SHEMENU MIN HA ARETS U MAH TA'ASEH LE SHIMCHA HA GADOL
וְיִשְׁמְעוּ הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְכֹל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ וְנָסַבּוּ עָלֵינוּ וְהִכְרִיתוּ אֶת שְׁמֵנוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ וּמַה תַּעֲשֵׂה לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדֹול
KJ: For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name?
BN: For the Kena'ani and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and they will surround us, and cut off our name from the Earth. And what will that do to your great name?
But if the previous verse was disappointing, this is frankly - boo, hoo and sob - pathetic. Because apparently it was also YHVH's fault (I don't understand Yehoshu'a, why you don't just fire him, and make a public statement of his incompetence: that's what Donald Trump would have done).
MAH TA'ASEH: A fault in the original? This is ungrammatical. Is there a "that" missing - "what will that do to your great name"? I have re-instated it in my translation.
Remember again that there are supposed to be 1.5 million of these people, based on the census in the Book of Numbers, and a fighting force that has spread terror through the country. They lost a small raiding party, which in the context of war at that time was as nothing. Yehoshua's reaction is ludicrous - except the unstated but underlying concern, not for YHVH's reputation, but his own. He screwed up.
samech break
7:10 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A KUM LACH LAMAH ZEH ATAH NOPHEL AL PANEYCHA
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ קֻם לָךְ לָמָּה זֶּה אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל פָּנֶיךָ
KJ: And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?
BN: Then YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: Get up! Why are you lying on your face?
You may not have liked my commentary on the last verse, but YHVH clearly agrees with me, and is going to give him the verbal reproach that he deserves. But not by means of a wise critique, pointing out the naiveties in his military strategy, counselling and guiding him towards improvement. Ten verses ago we read about Achan ben Karmi ben Zavdi ben Zerach, and the "accursed thing", and wondered why he was mentioned and then no more. Here is the more (whenever anything bad happens in the world, it is always the consequence of sin).
7:11 CHATA YISRA-EL VE GAM AVRU ET BERITI ASHER TSIVIYTI OTAM VE GAM LAKCHU MIN HA CHEREM VE GAM GANVU VE GAM KICHASHU VE GAM SAMU VI CHLEYHEM
חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֹותָם וְגַם לָקְחוּ מִן הַחֵרֶם וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וְגַם כִּחֲשׁוּ וְגַם שָׂמוּ בִכְלֵיהֶם
BN: Yisra-El has sinned. They have also transgressed the instructions in my covenant, by taking some of the objects marked for the sacred Treasury. And they have stolen, and they have lied, and they have even tried to hide some of what they have stolen among their own legitimate possessions...
This is one of those points at which history and theology converge, and make each other nonsensical. YHVH effectively exonerates Yehoshu'a's military failure by stating his own interference in human history. They did not lose at Ai because Yehoshu'a made a bad military decision; YHVH made them lose at Ai as a punishment for the sin of Achan at Yericho (it's always someone else's fault!).
All of which yet again has its parallels in the Mosaic version: Korach's rebellion for example (Numbers 16), and previous booty-stealings already referenced.
7:12 VE LO YUCHLU BENEY YISRA-EL LAKUM LIPHNEY OYEVEYHEM OREPH YIPHNU LIPHNEY OYEVEYHEM KI HAYU LE CHEREM LO OSIPH LIHEYOT IMACHEM IM LO TASHMIYDU HA CHEREM MI KIRBECHEM
וְלֹא יֻכְלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָקוּם לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיהֶם עֹרֶף יִפְנוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיהֶם כִּי הָיוּ לְחֵרֶם לֹא אֹוסִיף לִהְיֹות עִמָּכֶם אִם לֹא תַשְׁמִידוּ הַחֵרֶם מִקִּרְבְּכֶם
BN: Therefore the Beney Yisra-El could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs on their enemies, because they were accursed. Nor will I be there for you any more, unless you destroy the accursed from among you...
In the same way that Islam requires the beheading of the Munafiqun and Catholicism the burning of the heretics. Religious fundamentalism can allow no dissenters, rebels, or breakers even of the most minor rules.
7:13 KUM KADESH ET HA AM VE AMARTA HITKADSHU LE MACHAR KI CHOH AMAR YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL CHEREM BE KIRBECHA YISRA-EL LO TUCHAL LAKUM LIPHNEY OYEVECHA AD HASIYRCHEM HA CHEREM MI KIRBECHEM
קֻם קַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָעָם וְאָמַרְתָּ הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לְמָחָר כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֵרֶם בְּקִרְבְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תוּכַל לָקוּם לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֶיךָ עַד הֲסִירְכֶם הַחֵרֶם מִקִּרְבְּכֶם
KJ: Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.
BN: Get up now. Go and sanctify the people. Tell them: Sanctify yourselves in readiness for tomorrow, for thus says YHVH, the god of Yisra-El: Someone among you has stolen booty in their possession. O Yisra-El, you cannot stand before your enemies, until you have dealt with whoever has that stolen booty among you...
HASIYRCHEM: Where the "accursed thing" was previously the items marked for the Treasury, it has now become the people who stole it, and they are themselves now Cherem, which is to say they may not be touched, except by stones thrown from a judicial distance (let us hope it won't be worse than that. Please, don't let it be... see verse 15).
Does YHVH speaking end here, and the next is Yehoshu'a; or is the next still YHVH telling Yehoshu'a what to say in his name? It makes a huge difference.
וְנִקְרַבְתֶּם בַּבֹּקֶר לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְהָיָה הַשֵּׁבֶט אֲשֶׁר יִלְכְּדֶנּוּ יְהוָה יִקְרַב לַמִּשְׁפָּחֹות וְהַמִּשְׁפָּחָה אֲשֶׁר יִלְכְּדֶנָּה יְהוָה תִּקְרַב לַבָּתִּים וְהַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר יִלְכְּדֶנּוּ יְהוָה יִקְרַב לַגְּבָרִים
BN: In the morning therefore you shall be brought out tribe by tribe. And it shall work as follows: the tribe which YHVH intends to take prisoner shall come as a family; and the family which YHVH intends to take prisoner shall come as a household; and the household which YHVH intends to take prisoner shall come man by man...
The text is almost willfully convoluted. Yehoshu'a is carrying out a search, which is reasonable, because he cannot possibly know who has taken anything, or even what they might have taken (no, that was my late grandmother's wedding ring; it's been in the family for generations). But YHVH is almighty and knows everything - then why can he not just name the culprit? To which the answer is obvious of course, but the text does not really drive that message home: that he needs to make this communal, so that everyone will understand the importance, and maybe there was more than Achan etc. The same method of simultaneously punishing and instructing is used in school assemblies when someone has left graffiti on a wall, and is the source of the bulldozing of the homes of Palestinian terrorists.
What is not clear, though I believe it to be the case and have made it so in my translation, is the method of finding out: the idea that the guilty will reveal themselves by the way they come to the assembly.
YILKEDEYNU: The root is LAKAD (לכד), which means to take, or capture, usually used for trapping or snaring animals, or seizing captives in battle. But I wonder if, on this occasion, it doesn't mean "arrested", even if only "on suspicion".
7:15 VE HAYAH HA NILKAD BA CHEREM YISAREPH BA ESH OTO VE ET KOL ASHER LO KI AVAR ET BERIT YHVH VE CHI ASAH NEVALAH BE YISRA-EL
וְהָיָה הַנִּלְכָּד בַּחֵרֶם יִשָּׂרֵף בָּאֵשׁ אֹתֹו וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לֹו כִּי עָבַר אֶת בְּרִית יְהוָה וְכִי עָשָׂה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.
BN: And it shall be that he who is caught in possession of any item marked for the holy treasury shall be burnt to death by fire, he and everything that he owns; because he has transgressed the covenant of YHVH, and because he has wrought folly in Yisra-El."
KOL ASHER LO: Does that include his wives and children, his animals and slaves, or just his material possessions? They are normally counted among his possessions.
Burning by fire, of course, makes them Kurban - which takes us right back to where we ended up in Yericho - see my notes at Joshua 6, verse 24 especially.
7:16 VA YASHKEM YEHOSHU'A BA BOKER VA YAKREV ET YISRA-EL LI SHEVATAV VA YILACHED SHEVET YEHUDAH
7:16 VA YASHKEM YEHOSHU'A BA BOKER VA YAKREV ET YISRA-EL LI SHEVATAV VA YILACHED SHEVET YEHUDAH
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהֹושֻׁעַ בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבָטָיו וַיִּלָּכֵד שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה
KJ: So Joshua rose up early in the morning, and brought Israel by their tribes; and the tribe of Judah was taken:
BN: So Yehoshu'a rose up early in the morning, and brought Yisra-El out tribe by tribe; and the tribe of Yehudah was held on suspicion.
The phrasing of this seems to indicate that it was indeed still YHVH speaking to Yehoshu'a, and telling him what to do and say. What it does not make clear is how he knew. And yet, we already knew, because he was named verses ago. And perhaps, as per my translation of YILACHED, perhaps he already knew, but needed an appearance of fairness, even of randomness and miraculousness, through a broader search, as a means of instilling fear of YHVH in the people. See verse 19 for confirmation of this.
7:17 VA YAKREV ET MISHPACHAT YEHUDAH VA YILKOD ET MISHPACHAT HA ZARCHI VA YAKREV ET MISHPACHAT HA ZARCHI LA GEVARIM VA YILACHED ZAVDI
וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת מִשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וַיִּלְכֹּד אֵת מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי לַגְּבָרִים וַיִּלָּכֵד זַבְדִּי
BN: And one of the families of Yehudah was made to approach him; and he took the family of the Zarchi, and the family of the Zarchi was made to approach him man by man; and Zavdi was taken.
MISHPACHAT YEHUDAH: Mishpechah this time, where it was Shevet in the previous verse - a family within the clan within the tribe.
ZARCHI: The descendants of Zerach ben Yehudah, as noted previously. The Tanach has two forms for denoting people, and they are alternated quite randomly: Zarchi here, but elsewhere it could have been Beney Zerach.
ZAVDI: Whereas Zavdi is the name of the individual, not the family, clan or tribe.
7:18 VA YAKREV ET BEITO LA GEVARIM VA YILACHED ACHAN BEN KARMI VEN ZAVDI BEN ZERACH LE MATEH YEHUDAH
וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת בֵּיתֹו לַגְּבָרִים וַיִּלָּכֵד עָכָן בֶּן כַּרְמִי בֶן זַבְדִּי בֶּן זֶרַח לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה
BN: And his household was made to approach him, man by man; and Achan ben Karmi ven Zavdi ben Zerach of the tribe of Yehudah, was arrested.
VEN ZAVDI: How the decision is made for VEN or BEN is beyond me, and clearly beyond the official pointer too, because verse 1 has it differently from verse 18, and they cannot both be correct.
7:19 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL ACHAN BENI SIM NA CHAVOD LA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL VE TEN LO TODAH VE HAGED NA LI MEH ASIYTA AL TECHACHED MIMENI
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל עָכָן בְּנִי שִׂים נָא כָבֹוד לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתֶן לֹו תֹודָה וְהַגֶּד נָא לִי מֶה עָשִׂיתָ אַל תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי
KJ: And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to Achan: "My son, I beseech you, give credit to YHVH the god of Yisra-El, and give thanks to him; and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me."
TODAH: The word today means "thanks", but traditionally is translated as "confession". Or is it actually left untranslated? Did it once mean something different?
A similar incident happens with Yah-Natan (Jonathan) after one of Sha'ul's battles (1 Samuel 14: 24-52); but on that occasion Sha'ul declined to carry out the death penalty.
7:20 VA YA'AN ACHAN ET YEHOSHU'A VA YOMAR AMNAH ANOCHI CHATA'TI LA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL VE CHA ZOT VE CHA ZOT ASIYTI
וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמַר אָמְנָה אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָזֹאת וְכָזֹאת עָשִׂיתִי
BN: And Achan answered Yehoshu'a, and said: "I have indeed sinned against YHVH the god of Yisra-El, and thus and thus have I done...
VE CHA ZOT VE CHA ZOT: Is he being flippant? Or is the writer simply too lazy to tell us the detail? Or perhaps it's because the detail doesn't matter, rather the fact of finding out, and the method of finding out, which gives the "credit" to YHVH once again? But the detail does then come, next verse.
7:21 VE ER'EH VA SHALAL ADERET SHIN'AR ACHAT TOVAH U MA'TAYIM SHEKALIM KESEPH U LESHON ZAHAV ECHAD CHAMISHIM SHEKALIM MISHKALO VE ECHMEDEM VA EKACHEM VE HINAM TEMUNIM BA ARETS BETOCH HA AHALI VE HA KESEPH TACHTEYHA
וָאֶרְאֶה (וָאֵרֶא) בַשָּׁלָל אַדֶּרֶת שִׁנְעָר אַחַת טֹובָה וּמָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים כֶּסֶף וּלְשֹׁון זָהָב אֶחָד חֲמִשִּׁים שְׁקָלִים מִשְׁקָלֹו וָאֶחְמְדֵם וָאֶקָּחֵם וְהִנָּם טְמוּנִים בָּאָרֶץ בְּתֹוךְ הָאָהֳלִי וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ
KJ: When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
BN: I saw among the spoils a beautiful robe from Shin'ar, and two hundred shekels in silver coins, and a piece of gold bullion that weighed fifty shekels, and I wanted them, so I took them. They are hidden in the soil in the middle of my tent, and the silver is at the bottom.
SHIN'AR: My notes are at the link on the name; for more, there is excellent material here.
Note the order in which he confesses; the robe, then the silver, finally the gold. Can we fill in the spaces between the three confessions, and assume Yehoshu'a pressed him, if only with looks, and he admitted the more heinous under pressure?
"A goodly Babylonish garment" (or "a beautiful robe from Shin'ar" as you prefer) is however a very interesting thing: that a man who grew up as a refugee from slavery in Mitsrayim (Egypt), his entire life spent in the desert, should even be able to recognise "a goodly Babylonish garment". If you saw someone in a sari, would you know it was Punjabi rather than from Andra Pradesh? That a silk blouse was made in France and not China? "A goodly Babylonish garment" is sophisticated knowledge to such a man - but everyday stuff to the Redactor, himself of Babylonian origin, in a world where all good clothing for the last hundred and fifty years has come from Babylon. Nothing better than a good anachronism to help a scholar date a text!
7:22 VA YISHLACH YEHOSHU'A MAL'ACHIM VA YARUTSU HA OHELAH VE HINEH TEMUNAH BE AHALO VE HA KESEPH TACHTEYHA
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהֹושֻׁעַ מַלְאָכִים וַיָּרֻצוּ הָאֹהֱלָה וְהִנֵּה טְמוּנָה בְּאָהֳלֹו וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ
BN: So Yehoshu'a sent footmen, and they ran to the tent; and, there it was, hidden in the tent, and the silver underneath it.
MAL'ACHIM: Messengers now, not spies, deinitely not "angels", tough we have seen it used for both. The correct word for spies is actually MERAGLIM (cf Genesis 42:49). And here they aren't eally messengers either: junior constables perhaps; gofors of some description anyway.
VA YARUTSU: Why the need to run?
And the gold? No mention of the gold. I hope they didn't pocket it!
7:23 VA YIKACHUM MI TOCH HA OHEL VA YEVI'UM EL YEHOSHU'A VE EL KOL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YATSIKUM LIPHNEY YHVH
וַיִּקָּחוּם מִתֹּוךְ הָאֹהֶל וַיְבִאוּם אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְאֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּצִּקֻם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה
KJ: And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.
BN: And they gathered up everything that was inside the tent, and brought them out to Yehoshu'a, and presented them before all the Beney Yisra-El, and laid them out before YHVH.
The booty belongs to YHVH, for his treasure-chest. So apparently it's okay to steal for god, but not for self! (just wanting to put all this moral righteousness into perspective).
And apparently, to the Merciful, Compassionate YHVH, burning a man to death for stealing for himself makes manifest the bounty of the Saviour, whereas a man who steals for YHVH is named a saint.
And you haven't read the next verse yet!
7:24 VA YIKACH YEHOSHU'A ET ACHAN BEN ZERACH VE ET HA KESEPH VE ET HA ADERET VE ET LESHON HA ZAHAV VE ET BANAV VE ET BENOTAV VE ET SORO VE ET CHAMORO VE ET TSONO VE ET AHALO VE ET KOL ASHER LO VE CHOL YISRA'EL IMO VA YA'ALU OTAM EMEK ACHOR
וַיִּקַּח יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת עָכָן בֶּן זֶרַח וְאֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת הָאַדֶּרֶת וְאֶת לְשֹׁון הַזָּהָב וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֹתָיו וְאֶת שֹׁורֹו וְאֶת חֲמֹרֹו וְאֶת צֹאנֹו וְאֶת אָהֳלֹו וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לֹו וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו וַיַּעֲלוּ אֹתָם עֵמֶק עָכֹור
KJ: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
BN: And Yehoshu'a, and all Yisra-El with him, took Achan ben Zerach, and the silver, and the robe, and the gold bullion, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them into the valley of Oswiecim.
ACHAN BEN ZERACH: What happened to Karmi and Zavdi? This renders him a good guy after all, based on the scale of moral descent that we recognised earlier. Lazy scribe again, I suspect, who didn't understand the text that he was writing down.
Oswiecim: I have received several emails from readers, who insist that I have an error of translation here. But we have agreed that all these names are ultimately metaphorical, and so, no, I don't think I have. But first we need to determine where and what is Achor? Oddly connected to the name Achan as well. No, wait a moment - it is the name Achan. Go back to verse 1, where I have Gesenius' explanation, and then look at Isaiah 65:10, where the Vale of Achor is a rather splendidly fertile place "for cattle to graze in", as it is in Hosea 2:17: a perfect Biblical synonym for "Oshpitsin"(see the link below). And yet this rather idyllic piece of pastoral is about to become "the Vale of Sorrows", because an entire family is going to be burned to death here. I think I have an absolutely accurate translation - click here.
The text really is not clear who gets stoned and who gets burned and who gets both - see the following verse as well. There it appears to be just Achan, but here even his donkey gets dragged to the event, as if a donkey is going to be cognitively improved by the sight of Achan getting stoned and burned. The only reason to take it too, and the oxen, is to burn them, in which case this must also include his children. But it is left unstated. Or does the word "them" in the next verse answer the question?
And again, because the point can't be made too often: the judges in this case just destroyed an entire city, killed all its inhabitants, and plundered it to the last goodly Babylonish garment for the divine treasury. The kangaroo trial of a petty war profiteer by rather more heinous war criminals. Maybe we should translate MAL'ACHIM on this occasion as Sonderkommando.
7:25 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A MEH ACHARTANU YA'KARCHA YHVH BA YOM HA ZEH VA YIRGEMU OTO CHOL YISRA-EL EVEN VA YISREPHU OTAM BA ESH VA YISKELU OTAM BA AVANIM
The text really is not clear who gets stoned and who gets burned and who gets both - see the following verse as well. There it appears to be just Achan, but here even his donkey gets dragged to the event, as if a donkey is going to be cognitively improved by the sight of Achan getting stoned and burned. The only reason to take it too, and the oxen, is to burn them, in which case this must also include his children. But it is left unstated. Or does the word "them" in the next verse answer the question?
And again, because the point can't be made too often: the judges in this case just destroyed an entire city, killed all its inhabitants, and plundered it to the last goodly Babylonish garment for the divine treasury. The kangaroo trial of a petty war profiteer by rather more heinous war criminals. Maybe we should translate MAL'ACHIM on this occasion as Sonderkommando.
7:25 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A MEH ACHARTANU YA'KARCHA YHVH BA YOM HA ZEH VA YIRGEMU OTO CHOL YISRA-EL EVEN VA YISREPHU OTAM BA ESH VA YISKELU OTAM BA AVANIM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ יַעְכֳּרְךָ יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַזֶּה וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתֹו כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶבֶן וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָם בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּסְקְלוּ אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים
BN: And Yehoshua said: "Why have you caused us trouble? YHVH shall trouble you today." And all Yisra-El stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
Him or them? Did the text get changed at some point, perhaps to weaken it (take them out), perhaps to strengthen it (put them in), but the scribe failed to erase the alternate? No, eventually it is clear (I think my close scrutiny has been, in part, out of a hope that I might find proof of a different outcome): the whole bally lot of them are stoned, and then burned, down to the baby in the crib and the great great grand-donkey.
ACHARTANU: is there another pun here, this time between ACHARTANU and ACHOR? The next verse seems to infer that there is, and all this is indeed just another made-up tale to give another aetiological explanation - we are mapping the heavens in their earthly parallels, not reporting actual history. The next verse explicitly confirms this.
7:26 VA YAKIYMU ALAV GAL AVANIM GADOL AD HAYOM HA ZEH VA YASHAV YHVH ME CHARON APHO AL KEN KARA SHEM HA MAKOM HA HU EMEK ACHOR AD HAYOM HA ZEH
וַיָּקִימוּ עָלָיו גַּל אֲבָנִים גָּדֹול עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה וַיָּשָׁב יְהוָה מֵחֲרֹון אַפֹּו עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקֹום הַהוּא עֵמֶק עָכֹור עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
BN: And they buried him in a large cairn, which can still be seen to this day. So YHVH turned from the fierceness of his anger. And this is why the place was named the Valley of Achor, and it is still called by that name to this day.
Which is a very long and unpleasant tale to explain the existence of an ancient burial place. Throughout this book we are being given such aetiologies. Gil-Gal first, Yericho too in part, now Achor. Not a very good explanation though, if they did indeed burn him, because there would have been no bones to bury (and the silver and gold would probably have survived for the treasury).
GAL AVANIM: Like Gil-Gal, some form of megalithic allignment.
ALAV: Just "him" again; if they stoned and burned his children too, where are their ashes buried?
pey break
GAL AVANIM: Like Gil-Gal, some form of megalithic allignment.
ALAV: Just "him" again; if they stoned and burned his children too, where are their ashes buried?
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment