The Hebrew Stutter

then you shall say to them, ‘That the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord; when it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off.’ So, these stones shall become a memorial to the sons of Israel forever.” Joshua 4:7 NASB

Were cut off – Remember “messy”?  Yesterday’s paragogic nun?  We’ve just recovered from the fact that extra nuns are thrown into the text now and then, when we arrive at the phrase “were cut off waters,” only to discover even more messiness.  Here’s the verse in Hebrew:

וַאֲמַרְתֶּם לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר נִכְרְתוּ מֵימֵי הַיַּרְדֵּן מִפְּנֵי אֲרוֹן בְּרִית-יְהוָה–בְּעָבְרוֹ בַּיַּרְדֵּן נִכְרְתוּ  מֵי הַיַּרְדֵּן; וְהָיוּ הָאֲבָנִים הָאֵלֶּה לְזִכָּרוֹן, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל–עַד-עוֹלָם

I highlighted the first occurrence of the phrase “were cut off waters” (literal) in red.  If you look really hard, you’ll discover that the second occurrence of the phrase “were cut off waters” has only one מֵי, not two like the first occurrence (מֵימֵי).  Both, by the way, are translated “waters” (plural).  In fact, the lexicon notes: “Found only in the plural form, it occurs some 580 times.”^[1]

But the plural form is מַיִם (mayim) waters, not mimi or mi.  More messiness.  Maybe the writer just had a linguistic stutter.

And while you’re contemplating this oddity, consider the actual verb connected to “waters.”  It’s karat, “to cut off, to kill, to eliminate” and “to make (cut) a covenant.”  Here it’s a third person, plural, Nif’al.  We’re reminded that: “nif’al is the passive binyan of the active pa’al-verbs and the passive conjugation which is most in use in Hebrew.  nif’al is the only passive-binyan, which appears in all tenses, in imperative, and also in infinitive (e.g., to be pursued). nif’al means he was put into action or he is put into action.”  In other words, the “waters” were the recipient of the action.  They didn’t separate by themselves.  They were caused to separate by something or someone else.  That doesn’t seem too surprising, does it?  After all, we think God is the active agent here.  But that’s not what the rabbis thought.  If you read the entire story, you will discover that it is the ark that does the causing.  When the ark enters the waters, the waters are caused to separate.  When the ark stays in the middle of the Jordan, all the people can pass by the ark in safety.  And when they have finished passing, the ark moves again, and the waters come back together.  It’s like magic, isn’t it?  More messiness.

How do you feel?  Exhilarated?  Scared?  Suddenly the text doesn’t feel quite so secure.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Your answer might reveal a lot more about your paradigm than you wished.

Topical Index: waters, mayim, karat, cut off, Jordan, Joshua 4:7

^[1] Kaiser, W. C. (1999). 1188 מַי. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 501). Chicago: Moody Press.