I own a paper copy of this commentary, and I don't find it very helpful. He doesn't interact with the actual text very well-- there is a gap, and he focuses more on other scholars than the text, and his explanation of the Hebrew is inadequate. The example that jumps out is the wayyiqtol in Joshua 2:4 (NRSV much better than NIV here). He's embarrassed by the conquest and kherem, and the way he explains the tensions in the book between completed/peoples still everywhere isn't great. Personally, I found Dale Davis much better, as far as reading the text in a hermeneutically sensitive manner, while taking the book seriously as literature. You read Davis, and you're lifted up, ready to praise God and teach others. And Hess is a good secondary option--a great little commentary for its size (I find him more helpful than Butler or Woudstra). Combine those two with Michael Heiser's understanding of the purposes of the conquest (take the land, kill the descendants of the Nephilim), and you'll be well on your way to teaching/understanding. Matties's commentary left me feeling gross, with the way he engaged the text. And, the commentary series as a whole is designed to not give "the" reading of a book, but instead throw lots of different possibilities at you. I find that unhelpful-- deliberately muddying the waters to avoid giving what you think is an authoritative interpretation. If I want two perspectives, I'd rather read two commentaries. But that's just me maybe.