Flying Carpets
then you shall inform your children, saying, ‘Israel crossed this Jordan on dry ground.’ Joshua 4:22 NASB
On dry ground – Are you having fun yet? You’re probably asking yourself, “How many times are we going to look at this incident? È già abbastanza (It’s enough already).” But, you know, I’m just fascinated by the oddities of paradigmatic interpretation, so, if you’ll indulge me, we’ll take one more look.
We’ve seen that the crossing of the Jordan involves some interesting qere ketiv problems (June 12), some linguistic clues about priority and leadership (April 11), and some issues with chronology (April 10), but now, after it seems that everything is finished, Joshua’s instruction about this event creates another interesting anomaly. Joshua instructs the people that in the future the children are to say, “Israel crossed this Jordan on dry ground.” But that’s not exactly what the Hebrew means. The Hebrew word is yabbāšâ from yābēš. Note the explanation in TWOT:
yābēš I, dry up; be in ruins; lay waste; make desolate. The primary meaning of this root is “to be or become dry without moisture from necessary or normal fluids.” The synonym ḥārab is almost equivalent to yābēš though ḥārab is employed more frequently to indicate bodies of water becoming dry, whereas yābēš is employed more often to portray dryness of vegetation.[1]
This word suggests that Israel crossed on land that was dried up. That makes prefect sense, since Israel crossed on a dried up river bed, i.e., they crossed on ground that was miraculously dried out. But this doesn’t fit the narrative about the ark and the priests crossing. That part of the story says they came up on ḥărābâ (vv. 17-18, i.e., land that did not require a miraculous drying. This is offered as proof that the priests returned to the East side of the Jordan. The argument is that they went up on to “dry” land, not land that was once wet and became dry (therefore muddy), but rather on land that was not subject to the miracle of drying. That dry land was only on the East side, a land that had never experienced miraculous intervention. To the West was the river bed which was once wet and then dry and then wet again. To the East was the ordinary land; land that was subject to natural causes. The difference in these two Hebrew terms is the basis for the rabbinic explanation that the ark and the priests had to fly over the now-running Jordan to resume their position at the head of the column because they came up on the East side. The greater miracle is justified (Cf. April 10, 2022).
By the way, some translations seem to be aware of this potential problem, so they just eliminate it in the English. Notice the explanation in the NIV, an addition that removes the ambiguity.
“and as soon as all of them had crossed, the ark of the Lord and the priests came to the other side while the people watched.” NIV
The NASB is more accurate: “and when all the people had finished crossing, then the ark of the Lord and the priests crossed in front of the people,” leaving the potential ambiguity alone by not adding “to the other side.” Of course, if you read it in Hebrew, it would stick out like a sore thumb. If the priests and the ark crossed in the same manner as the people, why does the text use two different Hebrew words? Adesso basta! Now, it’s enough!
Topical Index: yābēš, ḥārab, dry land, flying, Joshua 4:11, Joshua 4:18, Joshua 4:22
[1] Alexander, R. H. (1999). 837 יָבֵשׁ. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 360). Chicago: Moody Press.
