ACHAN ā kăn (עָכָ֣ן, עָכָר׃֙, in 1 Chron 2:7, troubler). The descendant of Judah through Zerah, one of the twins born to Judah and Tamar, who was also Judah’s daughter-in-law. He was stoned to death for violating the “ban” (hērem) during the conquest of Jericho (Josh 7:1-26). Achan stole 200 shekels of silver, a Babylonian garment, and a wedge of gold weighing 50 shekels and hid them in the earthen floor of his tent (7:21).

The effect of this violation of the hērem (6:17) was immediately felt upon all Israel as they attempted to take the city of Ai. Jericho had been offered to God as a sort of first fruits, wholly given to God and utterly withdrawn from human use forever; Achan thought he knew better!

Joshua soon learned upon asking of God the reason for the military failure at Ai; that one man’s sin had affected the whole group (7:7-13). The response of God was that “Israel has sinned and they have transgressed.” With this evidence for “corporate personality” or solidarity of the community one may also note Achan’s personal confession (7:20, 21).

Not all scholars accept this narrative as evidence for corporate solidarity of the group with the actions of individuals in that group. More recently J. R. Porter has denied this explanation of collective responsibility and argued for an infectious holiness which spreads to all who touch it, which in turn earns the death penalty. Per contra, Haggai 2:12 would seem to negate this explanation by J. R. Porter.

When Achan was exposed after the lot fell upon him, all his family and their possessions were brought to the Valley of Achor for punishment. Whether the sons and daughters also were stoned depended on two things: (a) whether the pl. “them” (Josh 7:25) refers to his possessions only or includes his sons and daughters, and (b) whether the children were knowingly involved in the crime, for the law of Moses (Deut 24:16) prohibited children from being put to death for the sins of the fathers. Joshua 22:20 cannot be appealed to as settling the case, for while it does say “that man perished not alone in his iniquity,” the question remains whether this is not a reference to the thirty-six men who also lost their lives in the unsuccessful attack on Ai along with the life of Achan.

The valley of Achor (“trouble”) symbolized for the prophets (Isa 65:10; Hos 2:15) the opposite of the eschatological “door of hope” and thus became a byword.

Bibliography R. P. Shedd, Man In Community (1958), 3-41; J. R. Porter, “Legal Aspects of the Concept of Corporate Personality in the OT,” VT, XV (1965); 361-380, esp. 367-373.