Chapter Three

1. The departure from Shittim to the Jordan. 3. Preparation of the people for this. 7. Divine revelation to Joshua. 8. A new arrangement with the priests and explanation to the people of the future event. 14. The dividing of the waters of the Jordan.

Chapters 3–4. They contain a depiction of one event, marked by a miraculous manifestation of divine omnipotence. In accordance with the significance of the event, the biblical narrator presents it with particular circumstantiality and according to a special plan. After indicating preliminary arrangements concerning the entire people and especially the priests (Josh 3:2-6), the sacred writer successively portrays three special phenomena by which the crossing of the Israelites over the Jordan was marked. The first relates to the beginning of the event (Josh 3:7-17), the second was accomplished after the crossing of the Jordan by the people (Josh 4:1-4), and the third marked the end of the event (Josh 4:15-24). The depiction of each of these momentous phenomena begins with the exposition of a divine command (Josh 3:7-8), which is followed by its transmission to the people (Josh 3:9-13) and its fulfillment (Josh 3:14-17), which at the same time serves as the narrative of how the event itself took place. The conclusion of the entire narrative is provided by an explanation given by Joshua himself of the purpose for which this event is perpetuated as having high importance both for the people of Israel and for all peoples of the earth (Josh 4:21-24). As a result of such a separate exposition of the phenomena by which the crossing of the Jordan was marked, the biblical narrative of this event as having occurred through the action of divine omnipotence is distinguished by special fullness, expressiveness, and completeness both as a whole and in its parts. But at the same time in it are found certain repetitions, which arose, one may suppose, from the fact that, in depicting the phenomena of one event, the biblical writer, because of the close connection of one phenomenon with another, in presenting the preceding one, partly addresses what properly belongs to the subsequent one (cf. Josh 3:6 with Josh 3:14, Josh 3:12 with Josh 4:2, Josh 4:11 with Josh 4:18).

On the next day after the return of the spies, the Israelites moved from Shittim in the direction of the Jordan and stopped on its bank. At this time the three days ended which had been designated for the people’s preparation for crossing the Jordan. At this time new arrangements were made concerning the order of the procession and the sanctification of the people.

Joshua 3:1. And Joshua rose early in the morning and they departed from Shittim and came to the Jordan, he and all the children of Israel, and they lodged there before crossing it. Joshua 3:2. At the end of three days the officers went through the camp. “And lodged there” is in agreement with the first meaning of the Hebrew verb “lin,” which was used also in the sense of “to remain,” “to stay”; in this second sense it is translated here in the LXX (κατέλυσαν) and in blessed Jerome (morati sunt), and accordingly in the Slavonic Bible: “they stopped.” There is no particular reason to depart from this translation accepted among us. For an explanation of “at the end of three days” see the end of the chapter.

Joshua 3:3. and commanded the people, saying: When you see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God and the priests [our] Levites bearing it, then you also shall set out from your place and follow it; Joshua 3:4. yet there shall be a distance between you and it of about two thousand cubits; do not come near it, so that you know the way you are to go; for you have not passed this way before, either yesterday or the day before. When the Israelite camp was arranged on the bank of the Jordan, a new series of arrangements followed concerning the crossing of the Jordan itself. Through the officers it was announced to the people that they were to move on the path following the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, borne by “the Levitical priests,” at a distance of at least 2000 cubits. The words “of the Lord your God” constitute a rendering of the Hebrew text and some Greek manuscripts; the Slavonic translation: “of the Lord our God” agrees with the majority of Greek manuscripts. (“Your God” according to the Hebrew text – Elohekem, “our God” – Eloheinu). As in this place, so in other places, the Greek translation renders this Hebrew biblical expression with the peculiarity that the pronoun “your” according to the Hebrew text is replaced by the pronoun “our” (Josh 8:7 and elsewhere). In judging which of these pronouns was original in the biblical text, one must keep in mind that in the Book of Joshua the divine name “God your” is used in a large number of places equally according to the Hebrew text and the Greco-Slavonic translation (Josh 1:11), while the name “God our” (Josh 22:19) occurs less frequently. The predominant use of the former expression and its accurate rendering in most places according to the Greco-Slavonic translation give some grounds to regard the few places in the Greco-Slavonic translation where a departure from the Hebrew text is made in this respect as exceptions to the general rule, probably dependent on an unclear writing of the pronominal ending. The particular fact that in Josh 3:9, where Joshua’s words addressed to the people are given, the name “God your” is used according to the Hebrew text and Slavonic translation in agreement with some Greek manuscripts and the Aldine Bible, inclines one to think that this same divine name was read in Josh 3:3, where the words of the officers addressed to the people are set forth. The words “our” Levites are read in the most ancient and very many later manuscripts of the LXX translation with rare exceptions, and in agreement with this in the Slavonic Bible, but not in the Hebrew text, the translation of blessed Jerome, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. The inclusion or exclusion of the word “our” from the text does not change its meaning, since under the priests (“hakoganim” – with the definite article) the priests of Israel from the house of Aaron are understood in any case; but the conjunction “and” introduced here has important significance for understanding this passage. According to the Hebrew text: “when you see the Ark and the Levitical priests (“hakoganim haleviyyim”) bearing it” (Josh 3:3). The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, during the crossing of the Jordan, was borne by priests from the sons of Levi (Deut 31:9) or of the tribe of Levi (Deut 10:8). According to the Greco-Slavonic translation, the Ark was borne by “our priests and Levites” who did not have the rank of priests. Which of these translations presents an accurate rendering of the original biblical text is sufficiently clarified by other passages in the Book of Joshua. Thus, in Josh 3:6, according to both the Hebrew text and the Greco-Slavonic translation alike, Joshua says to “the priests” without mentioning Levites, commanding them to lift the Ark of the Covenant. In Josh 4:9, it is said of the place in the midst of the Jordan on which stood the feet of “the priests” bearing the Ark of the Covenant, without mention of Levites. According to Josh 4:16-17, Joshua transmits the divine command to “the priests bearing the Ark of the Testimony” to come up out of the Jordan. The complete non-mention in these passages, depicting the actual carrying out of the crossing of the Jordan, of Levites as participants together with the priests in bearing the Ark of the Lord, shows that in Josh 3:3 also, according to the original biblical text, there is mention only of “Levitical priests,” not of priests and Levites. The correctness of this explanation is evident also from the fact that in Deut 17:18 the same Hebrew expression “Levitical priests” is translated by the LXX with the words (οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ Λευῖται) – “the Levitical priests,” without the conjunction “and.” In view of this, the Greco-Slavonic rendering of this expression in Josh 3:3, where the conjunction “and” is likewise introduced into this designation of the Old Testament priests, must be regarded as an exceptional phenomenon peculiar to the Greek translator of this book.26 Following the Ark of the Covenant, which was the holiest place of divine presence (Exod 25:22) and during the wandering from Sinai through the wilderness “went” before the people (Num 10:33), when crossing the Jordan, the Israelites were not to approach it closely, but to go at a considerable distance from it, in order that the Ark of the Covenant, which parted the waters of the Jordan and opened a path for them, would constantly be before their eyes, and through this the accomplishment of the miracle would be made evident to them; thus the unusual and never-before-seen path through the dried-up riverbed of a river that had just been in flood would be impressed more strongly and indelibly upon them. The distance between the Ark and the people was fixed at “about two thousand cubits in measure.”27

Joshua 3:5. And Joshua said to the people: Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you. Just as Moses prepared the people for the theophany on Sinai for two days through sanctification, which consisted in washing their garments and keeping themselves from bodily uncleanness (Exod 19:10), so Joshua, on the eve of the day on which the miraculous drying of the Jordan was to take place, commanded the people to sanctify themselves, or to cleanse themselves (the Hebrew verb “kadash” – “to be separated, holy” is used here in the reflexive form and means to cleanse, to sanctify oneself) through the performance of those rites of purification which were in use at that time and which it was possible to carry out in the remaining short time until the morning of the next day, such as washing the body and changing clothes (Gen 35:2). The performance of rites of external cleansing, in accordance with their general symbolic meaning, must of course have served to remind the Israelites of internal cleansing from all that is contrary to the will of God, and of turning to God in faith and obedience to His commandments. Both this and the other cleansing were to elevate the minds and hearts of the Israelites above the everyday reality and make them more capable of understanding and feeling the wonder-working power of God. The words “by the morning” are read in almost all manuscripts of the LXX translation (except № 58), but are absent in the Hebrew text and the Latin translation of blessed Jerome; the testimony of the latter is particularly important here because according to them the indication of time in two adjacent sentences is made once (“tomorrow will do”), while according to the Greco-Slavonic translation it is twice (“by the morning... tomorrow”), which is not usual in correct speech.

Joshua 3:6. And Joshua said to the priests: Take up the Ark of the Covenant [of the Lord] and pass on before the people. [And the priests] took up the Ark of the Covenant [of the Lord] and went before the people. “Take up the Ark” or “lift up” is in accordance with the meaning of the Hebrew verb (“seu”) and the Greek (ἄρατε) used here. The word “[of the Lord]” in the first and second half of the verse is added by the LXX translation for the completeness of the designation of the Ark of the Covenant and is absent in very few Greek manuscripts. In the words “[and the priests] took up the Ark” is set forth what was accomplished on the next day at the crossing of the Jordan. This is communicated here, as is said, by way of anticipation, that is, before it was accomplished, in order to complete the discourse on this subject and not return to it in the further narrative regarding who and in what order bore the Ark of the Covenant. The word “[priests],” which is implied in the Hebrew text in the verb “took up,” is added by the LXX translation and is read in almost all its manuscripts.

Joshua 3:7. Then the Lord said to Joshua: This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, so that they may know that as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; In the revelation set forth here is explained the significance of the miraculous event about to occur for Joshua. It will begin the elevation of him in the eyes of all the people as one chosen by God as a leader like Moses, close to the Lord and using His all-mighty help. Just as for Moses the power of performing miracles given to him by the Lord (Exod 4:1-8), especially manifested at the Red Sea (Exod 14:21), served as a testimony to his divine mission, so also for Joshua the drying of the bed of the Jordan would have the significance of such a testimony.

Joshua 3:8. and you shall command the priests who bear the Ark of the Covenant, saying: When you come to the edge of the waters of the Jordan, you shall stand still in the Jordan. The command to the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant to stand still when they approach the edge of the Jordan is given with the purpose that from the extraordinary action upon the water of the Jordan which will follow this standing still, the wonder-working power of God issuing from the Ark of the Covenant will be revealed with complete clarity. In Moses’ time the symbol of God’s wonder-working power was the staff given to him. In Joshua’s time the place of the staff is taken by the Ark of the Covenant, which served as the throne of the Lord (Exod 25:22). “When there are established means of grace, then the Lord unites with them gracious actions, for He is a God of order, not acting arbitrarily in the choice of His means.”28 “When you come to the edge of the waters of the Jordan”; in the Slavonic Bible: “when you come out into a part of the water of the Jordan,” which represents a rendering of the reading of the majority of the Greek translation manuscripts: ἐπὶ μέρους τοῦ ὕδατος (in the Vatican and some others instead of μέρους is read μέσου – “into the middle”). The expression “into a part of the water” is a translation of the Hebrew words “ad ketzeh meh,” which literally means “to the end or edge of the water,” that is, when the priests enter the water at the edge or bank of the Jordan, which representation is expressed with greater clarity further in Josh 3:13.

Joshua 3:9. And Joshua said to the children of Israel: Come here and hear the words of the Lord, your God. Joshua 3:10. And Joshua said: By this you shall know that the living God is in your midst and that He will surely drive out from before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, and Jebusites: Joshua 3:11. Behold, the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of all the earth is about to pass before you into the Jordan; Joshua 3:12. Now therefore choose twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one man from each tribe; Joshua 3:13. and as soon as the priests bearing the Ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, set the soles of their feet in the water of the Jordan, the water of the Jordan shall be cut off, that is, it shall stand up in a heap. In order for the extraordinary deed of divine omnipotence to produce its full effect on the Israelite people, Joshua announced it publicly to all the people and explained its significance. The latter for the Israelite people consists in being assured that the “living God,” that is, God manifesting His being in divine deeds to which nothing in the world can offer resistance (Jer 10:10), is in their midst, and that He will therefore completely drive out from the Israelites the peoples dwelling in Canaan. The people themselves will be convinced of the truth of this when they, following the Ark of the Covenant, “the Lord of all the earth,” will see how at the entrance of the priests bearing it into the water of the Jordan, the bed of the latter will dry up and the water flowing from above will stand like a wall. The thought of the driving out of the Canaanite peoples is expressed in Josh 3:10 according to the Hebrew text and Greco-Slavonic translation in an intensified form, consisting in the twofold use here of the verb “to drive out” in two different forms, in accordance with which the Slavonic Bible says: “will consume by consuming.” The divine name “Lord of all the earth,” read in the words to the people (Josh 3:11) in the designation of the Ark of the Covenant, is used with the purpose of recalling by this reminder of this lordship of the God of Israel to arouse and strengthen the faith of the people in what is foretold to it. Josh 3:12. At the same time Joshua commanded the people to choose or select one man from each of the 12 tribes, without indicating at this point the actual work which they were to do. Although the latter was related to the completion of the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 4:1-5), the order concerning it was given before its beginning, for at this time it was most convenient for the people to make the selection, and the selected men themselves, remaining near the Israeli leader, could without delay carry out what would be indicated to them.

Joshua 3:14. So when the people set out from their tents to cross the Jordan, and the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant [of the Lord] went before the people, Joshua 3:15. and as soon as those bearing the Ark [of the Covenant of the Lord] came to the Jordan, and the feet of the priests bearing the Ark dipped in the edge of the water – now the Jordan overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest – The account in Josh 3:14-17 presents the actual crossing of the Jordan, which was accomplished in accordance with the orders given. Apart from the fulfillment of these orders, the biblical writer introduces into the account of this event certain details concerning it that are very important. Such is the information he gives that “the Jordan... overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest.” The brackets in which these words are enclosed do not mean that they are borrowed from the Slavonic or Greek translation. The stated words are found in the Hebrew text, as in all translations, and constitute a very important part of the biblical text, pointing precisely to the supernatural character of this event. Since at the time when it occurred, “the Jordan was full to all its banks” (literally from the Hebrew) or “was overflowing in all its reaches” (Slavonic Bible), the Israelite people, crossing in their full complement, could not cross the river during its flood stage by means of one of the fords found near Jericho; and if this crossing was accomplished, it was solely because the bed of the Jordan was dried by the almighty power of the Lord of all the earth. The overflow of the Jordan occurs in spring, during the harvest season, in April and early May, when the period of rains ends and the melting of snows on Mount Hermon begins. The increase of water in the Jordan and in the nearest period to the present time is so significant that it fills the deep depression that serves as the riverbed up to the very edges and floods the lower bank, covered with dense vegetation. Besides this lower bank, the Jordan has another, more elevated, bank line, and in some places – a third one, which at the present time do not reach the flood, but which were formed, of course, as a result of stronger floods in ancient times. The biblical writer speaks of such a strong flood, using the expression “the Jordan overflowed all its banks,” that is, it filled not only its ordinary riverbed, but also the higher banks. And at the present time the depth of water reaches during the flood about one and a half fathoms (from 10 to 12 feet) with a strong current.30 With such a rise of water, the use of fords was absolutely impossible, and if the spies and some others in the following time occasionally, of course, swam across the Jordan “in the first month, when it overflows its banks,” this was so remarkable that the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 12:15) mentions this in depicting the courage of David’s companions. “Throughout the time of harvest” is in agreement with the Greco-Slavonic translation: ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι θερισμοῦ πυρῶν. In the Hebrew text the last two words correspond to a single word: “katzir,” meaning “harvest,” without specification of the type of grain crop, as in other places it is translated by the LXX, for example in Gen 8:22, Lev 19:9 and others. When the harvest of wheat specifically is meant, the word “katzir” is given the addition “khittim” – “wheat,” for example in Gen 30:14, Ruth 2:23. In this passage of the Book of Joshua, there is no such addition, and there is therefore no basis to see here a reference to the wheat harvest specifically. The idea of the latter is all the less appropriate here, in that the crossing of the Jordan took place on the 10th day of the first month (Josh 4:19), corresponding generally to April, while the wheat harvest in Palestine generally begins later than this – in May,31 which fully corresponds to the biblical indications (see above, commentaries to Josh 2:6), according to which this harvest followed after the barley harvest (for example, Ruth 2:23: “until the barley harvest and wheat harvest are finished”), and the barley harvest was generally the beginning of harvest: “in the early days of harvest, at the beginning of the barley harvest” (2 Sam 21:9). On the basis of this, by all the days of harvest must be understood all the time of harvest in general.

Joshua 3:16. the water flowing from above stood and rose up in a heap very far away, at Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan; and the water flowing down toward the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, was completely cut off. “The water flowing from above stood and rose up in a heap a great distance, at the city of Adam, which is beside Zarethan.” The exact location in the Jordan valley of the city of Adam, or Adom, according to Symmachus’ and blessed Jerome’s translation, clearly distinct from the city of the same name in the tribe of Naphtali (Josh 19:36), is not known with certainty. From the biblical indications concerning Zarethan, near which the city of Adam was located, it is evident that the first was not far from the well-known Bethshan: “and in all Bethshan, which is near Zarethan” (1 Kgs 4:12), which lay on the western side of the Jordan valley, one and a half hours’ journey from the Jordan. It is further evident that it was in the vicinity of the Jordan, where between Succoth and Zarethan a foundry of King Solomon was established (1 Kgs 7:46; 2 Chr 4:17). On the basis of these indications and the peculiarities of the locality, the supposition arose that Zarethan corresponds to the mountain of Kurn Sartabeh (Sartabeh), which rises on the Western-Jordan side at a distance of about 20 versts from Jericho, extends almost to Zarethan itself and apparently continues in the opposite mountains on the eastern side of the Jordan. The city of Adam, or Adom, is placed at this point near Sartabeh, upstream along the Jordan on its eastern side, near Damia.32 The basis for this supposition is partly a certain similarity of names: Zarethan and Sartabeh, partly the character of the locality: Sartabeh, like Zarethan, is in the same general locality in which Bethshan lies; Sartabeh is distant from Jericho by 20 versts, which generally corresponds to the biblical indication “a great distance” or “very far”; the position of the Jordan’s riverbed near Sartabeh, surrounded on both sides by mountains, was most suited to the stoppage of the Jordan’s flow at this place. Although this stoppage occurred through the supernatural action of divine will, this action does not exclude the use of natural means in accomplishing it. Just as for the drying of the Red Sea the Lord used a strong east wind, so in stopping the flow of the Jordan, there could have been chosen such a place, the peculiarities of which could have served as a means for fulfilling divine will. In the Greco-Slavonic translation, instead of Zarethan, “Kariathiareim” is read: “from the city of Adam to the land of Kariathiareim” (Slavonic Bible), which represents a rendering of the reading of the Complutensian Polyglot: ἀπὸ Ἀδαμὶ τῆς πόλεως ἕως μέρους Καριαθιαρίμ.33 The city named in these words of the Greco-Slavonic translation, Kariathiareim, being supposedly near the Jordan according to their sense, remains completely unknown; while the known Kirjath-Jearim was located far from this valley to the northwest of Jerusalem (see Josh 9:17). Therefore, perhaps in some Greek manuscripts this city name was changed under the influence of the Hebrew text into Sarphan (Σαρθαν according to ms. № 58). In any case, the reading of this passage according to the Hebrew text, despite the conjectural character of the geographical determination (of the city of Adam and Zarethan), gives a more intelligible understanding of the location of the stoppage of the Jordan’s flow than the Greek translation in the majority of its manuscripts and the Slavonic agreeing with it.

Joshua 3:17. And the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord stood on the dry ground in the midst of the Jordan while all Israel passed over on dry ground, until the whole nation had finished crossing the Jordan. Over the dried Jordan riverbed, which had been dried for a great distance, many could cross at the same time, choosing the best places for this. The main body of the people crossed opposite Jericho. “And the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord stood on the dry ground in the midst of the Jordan.” “In the midst of the Jordan” (in Hebrew “betokh hayarden”) does not necessarily mean that the place on which the priests stood was in the middle of the dried riverbed of the river. The Hebrew preposition “betokh” was also used in the sense of “in,” for example, in Gen 9:21: “in [betokh] the house” or “tent”; Gen 18:24: “in the city” and elsewhere.34 That this preposition is used in precisely this sense in this passage of the Book of Joshua, as well as in Josh 4:3, is clearly seen from the fact that, according to Josh 3:8, the priests were to stand still with the Ark of the Covenant and indeed did stand still as soon as they entered the water of the Jordan, that is, they stood at the edge of the swollen Jordan. And since in the biblical text there is no indication that when the bed of the Jordan was subsequently dried, the priests with the Ark of the Covenant moved further toward the middle of the river, therefore it must be understood that they remained all the time of the crossing of the Israelites over the Jordan in the same place where they stood when entering the water of the Jordan, that is, at the edge of the swollen river, not in the middle of it, and therefore the stated Hebrew expression should be translated “in the Jordan.”35 That they remained without movement in this place until the completion of the crossing of the entire people over the Jordan is indicated, it must be thought, also by the phrase “stood firmly,” in Hebrew “haken,” which modern Hebraists translate as “firmly,” “without wavering.” In the Slavonic Bible this Hebrew word is left without translation, as also in the most ancient manuscripts of the LXX translation, except the Ambrosian, in which it is translated through ἕτοιμη or ἐτοίμως (Swete) – “in readiness”; in other manuscripts, including the Lucian recension, also through ἐτοιμως; in Aquila and Symmachus – through ἔτοιμοι – “ready,” in blessed Jerome – accincti – “girded” or “ready.” The general sense expressed by these ancient translations consists in the fact that the priests stood on the dried bed of the Jordan, ready to carry out what was indicated to them, that is, they stood calmly, and according to the present translation from Hebrew – they stood “firmly,” without wavering, with confidence in their safety. “Concerning three days” in Josh 3:2. Which three days are meant here – those that were appointed by the people’s officers in Josh 1:11, or others, as some interpreters suppose, remains unclear. The ancient and most widespread understanding consisted in the opinion that this refers to the completion of the three days indicated by the officers. In this view, however, there is a difficulty regarding how to reconcile the three days within which the spies were absent from the camp – besides the time they spent on the journey to and from Jericho and their stay there, they remained on the mountain for three days. The difficulty is usually removed by the supposition that in counting the three days spent by the spies on the mountain, incomplete days must be reckoned as full ones: that is, the remaining part of the day on which the spies came from Shittim to Jericho is reckoned as the first day on the basis of the supposition that they left, presumably, from Jericho before the beginning of night; then they spent the 2nd whole day on the mountain, and on the 3rd only the first part, in the second part they returned to Shittim. (In Russian literature this is stated by Fr. M. Kheraskov in “A Survey of the Historical Books of the Old Testament.”) Such a reckoning of time appears improbable because of its inconsistency with the biblical text, which with sufficient clarity indicates that the spies left Rahab’s house at night: the messengers sent from the king of Jericho in Josh 2:2 speak of them as having come “in this night”; Rahab similarly speaks of them as having left the city in the dusk before the closing of the city gates (Josh 3:5); and since in fact they departed from Rahab’s house already after dusk, that is, at the onset of night, the first day spent by the spies outside the Israelite camp in Shittim cannot, obviously, be included in the count of the 3 days they spent in the mountains. Then, if we admit that on the last of the days they left the mountain and returned in the evening to Shittim, the absence of the spies from the camp would have lasted about 4 days. Thus, indeed, some Protestant biblical scholars determine the amount of this time, and in doing so, explain the discrepancy with the three days in Josh 1:11 by the supposition that Joshua’s hope for quicker fulfillment by the spies of the task assigned to them was not fulfilled because of unforeseen difficulties which they encountered in Jericho. As for the 3 days indicated in Josh 3:2, they understand them to be different from the 3 days named in Josh 1:11, namely – days spent by the Israelites on the bank of the Jordan, during which various preparations were made for the crossing.36 And this explanation cannot be considered satisfactory because of the weakness of its foundations. While the reckoning of the time spent by the spies outside the Israelite camp as 4 days appears fairly probable, this cannot be said regarding the supposed hope of Joshua for a quick return of those sent. If such a hope really existed and under its influence a three-day period was designated for the people’s preparation for crossing the Jordan, and then this hope was not fulfilled, the writer of the book would have said that the Israelites delayed in Shittim more than 3 days, rather than narrating the circumstances of the spies’ return and the departure of the people from Shittim as depicted here, as events proceeding in their normal course without unexpected delays. To point to the error of the Israeli leader’s supposition in this case would have been for the writer no more difficult than for the writer of the Pentateuch, who did not remain silent about the sin of Moses (Num 20:12; Deut 1:37 and elsewhere). The understanding of the words “after three days” in the sense of an indication of special three days spent by the Israelites on the bank of the Jordan is improbable because of such an inadequacy of foundations. It is motivated by the need for new preparations for crossing the Jordan as it had swollen at that time. But preparations for this had already been made in Shittim, where the flooding of the Jordan could not have been unknown to the Israelites. Besides, a new delay of the Israelites for three days appears inconsistent with the divine command to cross the Jordan, requiring quick execution: “arise and cross this Jordan” (Josh 1:2). If, despite all this, the Israelites had delayed for three days on the bank of the Jordan, the biblical writer would have clearly indicated this, rather than using such an expression (“after three days”), which presupposes the reader knows what three days are being referred to. Undoubtedly, the most simple and natural sense these words have if by the three days referred to here is meant precisely the days indicated in Josh 1:11. Such understanding is also clearly favored by the particular feature of the biblical narrative that just as at the beginning of the three-day period according to Josh 1:11 the people’s officers announce the arrangement of the Israeli leader, so also here (Josh 3:2) after the completion of the 3 days do they likewise come forward with the announcement of a new arrangement. But if, thus, the opinion that Josh 3:2 refers to special three days turns out to be improbable, and if such must also be considered the opinion about three – no more – days of the spies’ absence from the camp in Shittim, then how could the biblical writer, without contradicting himself, speak in Josh 1:11 of three days during which occurred the event that meanwhile had lasted more than three days? The possibility of this lies in the supposition that the spies were not sent simultaneously with the arrangement about three days for preparation for crossing the Jordan, but earlier. The basis for such a supposition is that the mission of the spies was not a result of the divine command to cross the Jordan, but was inspired by other considerations. This command, joined with the promise of divine help, ought to have given Joshua complete confidence in the conquest of the land of Canaan, regardless of the opposition of the enemy. The secret mission of the spies, meanwhile, reveals a different disposition. In it is seen a certain lack of confidence in the occupation of the land, anxieties about the success of further movement. If the promise of divine help in conquering Canaan did not exclude efforts on the part of the leader and people to achieve the goal, it certainly excluded doubt of success of the enterprise, which prompted recourse to a secret mission of spies without the knowledge of the people so that in case of unfavorable reports the people would not be disheartened. Such an unsure, anxious disposition could be in Joshua only before receiving the divine command and the promise connected with it, and not after. In view of this, it seems probable that the fairly ancient 37 opinion that the spies were sent earlier than the receipt of the divine command (Josh 1:1-9), and along with this – earlier than the appointment of three days for the preparation of food. If the biblical narrator expounded the information about the mission of the spies after this divine command and the connected appointment of the three-day period, it is because in doing so he was guided not by the sequence of events in time alone, but by their importance and significance for a connected, sequential exposition of events. At the head of them he placed the divine command, then – the two arrangements flowing from it, and finally, information about the mission of the spies, the return of whom served as the beginning of further events, which are set forth following the information about this mission.38 And if the latter was sent out earlier than the promulgation of the arrangement for three days of preparation for crossing the Jordan, then the four days spent by the spies on the journey to Jericho and remaining in the mountains are not in disagreement with the three-day period indicated in Josh 1:11. Similarly, there is no reason to abandon the ancient understanding that in Josh 3:2 is meant the completion of this same three-day period, and not new three days spent by the Israelites on the bank of the Jordan. * * * Notes It is known that the Greek translation LXX in various books of the Old Testament has its own peculiarities, explained by the fact that it was done by different persons. See Corsunsky’s translation of the LXX, p. 56. The Book of Joshua does not belong to those sacred books whose Greek translation is distinguished by accuracy and fidelity (ibid., p. 88). The Hebrew cubit is approximately determined to be 483.9 millimeters (see for example Schenkel Bibel-lexicon. Vatican Codex 4:129), which almost corresponds to 11 vershoks; when this 2000 cubits equal 150 fathoms. Keil. Iosua, 27. According to the Hebrew text, in both verses the same word is used: “adon” – “lord,” as is rendered in Russian in Josh 3:13; instead of this in Josh 3:11 it is translated by the word “Lord,” in accordance with the Greco-Slavonic translation. This information is borrowed from Cook, Commentary 11, 24 and Keil – Iosua, 29–30. Tristram. The Natural history of the Bible. 1880, p. 488: “The wheat harvest,” it is said here, “begins about a month after the barley harvest, usually in May, though it can begin somewhat earlier in the Jordan valley” – thanks to the tropical climate of the latter. The time of wheat harvest is likewise determined by other researchers. See, for example, Biehm. Handworterbuch des Biblischen Altertums, 1:21. Keil. Iosua. 30. Cook. Commentary 11, 24. Riehim. Handworterbuch, pp. 25, 1786. This Greek translation is not the original LXX translation: in the most ancient Greek manuscripts instead of the stated words is read ἕως μέρους Καθιαριν, according to the Vatican manuscript – “to the part of Cathiarin,” or ἕως μέρους Καριαθιαρίμ, according to the Alexandrian manuscript; in others, later ones: ἀπὸ Ἀδαμὶ (or Δαμιν, Δαμμιμ) τῆς πόλεως ή ἔστιν ἕως μέρους Καριαθιαρίμ (Field). These variant readings in the Greek manuscripts show how in later times they corrected the original Greek translation with the help of the Hebrew text, under the influence of which appeared the words “Ἀδάμ” or Δαμιν in accordance with the Hebrew “to the city of Adam.” See the Hebrew dictionaries “Gesenius” or “Fuerst.” Further confirmation of the correctness of this understanding see in the explanation to 4:9. C. F. Keil. Iosua, pp. 17, 25. It was stated even by Budde in his “Historia Ecclesiastica”, 1719, vol. I, p. 810. In Russian literature, the stated understanding of the sequence of events expounded in chapters I–II is briefly expressed by Fr. M. Kheraskov in “A Survey of the Historical Books of the Old Testament”, 1879, p. 9.