The Pulpit Commentary — Joshua — Section 129

has heen before remarked, a marked feature eh. v. 10, will bear close analysis, aml refutes of enrl)· Hebrew composition was i-cpeti- the clumsy compiler theory. There was tion: repetition "ith additional details to just time between the tenth and fomteenth add to t-hc completeness of the narmti\·e, day of the mouth for the events described in but designed principfllly to emphflsise the the meantime. And the scrupulous obe- principfll facts. Thus we are now told dience to the Jaw, the provisions of which, that it was at the command of Joshua, on we are expressly tol,l, had been of necessity God's express intimfltion, that the priests neglected hitherto, is a fact closely ia keep- left t.heir post. And to mark more clearly ing with the character of Joshua, and the the historian's sense of the importance of whole spirit of the narrative. Gllga.l. 1'he the miracle, it is added that, as soon as the Gilgal, according to the Masorites, no doubt priests' feet had left the channel in which from its being a circular enc11mpment. Not the waters had flowed up to the moment as yet, however, called by this no.me (see thflt t,heY entered the waters of Jordan on eh. ~ 9). It was "about five miles" (50 the othei· side, the waters which had been stadia, according to Josephus), "from the cut off returned, and flowed exactly where river banks" (Stanley, 'Sinai and Palestine,' the)· had done before. This additional fact, p. 307). We gather from eh. v. 3 that it supplementing as it does the briefer detail was a rising ground, but it is impossible to in eh. iii. 17 and eh. i,. 11, must be there- identify the spot, since there never existed fore regarded as a record of the solemn any town or village there. A spot is shown conYiction of the historian that in the events by the inhabitants about two miles from be is nBJ.Tating be recognised a special inter-' Jericho, which is held by them in great position of the hand of God (see vers. 23, 24), reverence, but this is further from Jericho in which in like manner we find a repetition than Josephus imagines it to be, for he in fuller detail of the command concerning places it about a mile and a quarter from the stones, designed to mark more clearly Jericho. Tristram (' Land of Israel,' p. 216) the sense the historian wishes his readers identifies Riha (see note on eh. ii. 1) with to have of the direct interference of God in Gilgal, but Bartlett (p. 452) places it "a what he has recorded. mile east of Riha," " some three miles or Yer. 16.-The testimony. The word TH'1V. more from the fords." It is hardly probable, though derived from the same root as ,p however, that the Israelites, in their then unprepared condition (see next chapter, and witness, would seem rather to have the cf. Gen. xxxiv. 25), encamped so near the sense of precept, from the idea of repetition city, even though they were conscious of contained in the root. Compare the well- Divine protection, as Josephus would have known Hebrew particle ,1v again. It must us suppose. It has been denied by some refer to the two tables of the law which that the Gilgal mentioned in eh. ix. 6, x. 6 (Heb. x. 4) were placed in the ark (see Deut. is the same as this one (see notes there, as x. 5, and comp. Exod. xxv. 16, 21, 40, well as the Masoretic translation above). Num. xru. 10, where this is said to be the The reverence for sacred places, such as testimony). Other things were placed in Gilgal, degenerated in the course of time, ibe ark, such as the manna, Aaron's rod, according to a well-known Jaw of humanity, and these, no doubt, were for a witness to the into superstition-a superstition severely facts of the Mosaic record. The LXX., how- rebuked by the prophets (Hosea iv. 15; ix. ever, consistently render this word by µap- 15; Amos iv. 4; v. 5). We may compare ,,-i,p,a, µaprupwv. The Vulgate here has the idolatl"Ous worship of the brazen serpent arcam frederis. (2 Kings xviii. 4). It is sometimes contended Ver. 18.-When the priests ... were by Roman Catholic commentators that no come up. There is a difference of reading approval of the conduct of Hezekiah is hei-e here. The Masorites read as our version. expressed ; but a co_mpari~on of thi~ pass~ge Tbe Hebrew text implies that the waters with thoRe o.bove cited will show m which began to flow from the very moment that direction the minds of inspired men tended. the priests' feet left the channel of the Jordan. Other places seem to ho.ve been simi111rly Were lifted up. The original is more vivid, regarded with superstitious reverence. Not and marks the authentic sources from which only do we find Bethel mentioned o.mong th.is history is derived. IV ere plucked up, i.e., such placeR 118 we might well expect from out of the soft adhesive mud in the channel Jeroboam•s idolo.trouR worship there, but of the river. The construction of the Beersheba also seems to have become a seat original is a constructio pr<Egnans. They of this misdirected devotion (see Amos v. 6 , dragged their feet out of the mud, and viii. 14) planted them on dry ground. Ver. 19.-on the tenth day of the llrst Ver. 21.-When. Heb. if~. The relative month. This statement, compared with -pr•;moun here is sometimes equiv11lent t() err. ff. 1--24.] THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. 615