The Israelite's flight from Egyptian bondage was, arguably, the event that united them as a people. Not only did their account of escape from being enslaved by a more powerful people have mythological qualities, but the trek that followed as they journeyed to the Promised Land was also discouraging and difficult. It is not surprising, then, that from the stories surrounding their escape and final entrance into the Promised Land contain events that defy modern scientific explanation. Moses' parting of the Red Sea is one of the most famous accounts from the Old Testament. Additionally, while it is less well known, Joshua's similar feat at the border of the Promised Land on the banks of the river Jordan is equally amazing. The accounts of these two events are strikingly similar, and the similarities only serve to enforce the feeling of wonder at the power of God. Further, the differences between the two accounts indicate an evolution into a more empowered and majestic representation of the Israelite's favor with God.

In comparing the two similar phenomena, it is important to consider the effect that their occurrence had on other people and cultures. Very obviously, the Egyptians were affected by Moses' parting of the Red Sea. However, beyond the obvious fact that their warriors and Pharaoh were killed, it was also a way by which God made His power known even to those who were not His chosen people and did not believe in His sovereignty. His intentions in commanding Moses to lead the people through the sea was more than mere convenience, it was also showmanship. ""˜...so that I may win glory for myself at the expense of Pharaoh and all his army; and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.'"(Exodus 14:4) Similarly, Joshua's parting of the Jordan River convinced local peoples of God's power and his investment in the Israelite's well being.

... the Amorite kings ...and all the Caananite kings ... heard how the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the advance of the Israelites ..., their courage failed them; there was no more spirit left in them because of the Israelites. (Joshua 5:1)

The large correlation not only in the affect that these events had on surrounding cultures, but also the similar motivations attributed to God serves to evince even further basis for comparison.

Moses and Joshua are strikingly similar leaders charged with virtually identical tasks: provide for, protect and guide the chosen people physically as well as spiritually. Both are personally acquainted with the God that they spend their lives serving. As opposed to the somewhat removed relationships between God and His servants later in the Old Testament, both have a relationship bordering on camaraderie with the Lord. Moses speaks with Him personally, like a friend. When Joshua assumes his position, he also has an intensely personal and direct connection to God. These connections separate both Moses and Joshua from even the most devout among the Israelites. Maintaining such a rapport with God allows both Moses and Joshua to be given the power to part water at God's command.

Details from the events themselves are also very similar. In comparing the actual appearances of the parted waters, it seems that the Israelites both in Moses' time as well as those following Joshua saw very similar things. Moses' crossing is described as, ""¦ the Israelites had passed along the dry ground through the sea, with the water forming a wall to right and to left." (Exodus 14:29) While the parting itself is different for Joshua's people, the river ends up very much like the Red Sea. ""¦it piled up like a bank"¦The water coming down to the sea ... was completely cut ..." (Joshua 3:16).

It is important to draw the distinction between the actual methods by which the two bodies of water are parted. In Moses' case, it his power given to him by God that allows the miracle to occur. The account reads, "Moses held out his hand over the sea...and turned the seabed into dry land" (Exodus 14:21). However, Joshua could not single-handedly part the river himself. Instead, the twelve tribes and the power of the ark of the covenant parted it, "as soon as the priests reached the Jordan and their feet touched the water at the edge, the water flowing down from upstream was brought to a standstill..." (Joshua 3:15). This variance in the story is indicative of an evolution from an investment of power in one chosen individual to the entire chosen people holding sway over God's influence. While originally, Moses alone possessed the power to cause such a great event to happen, it was the people as a whole, under Joshua's direction that performed a similar feat.

The final appearance of both bodies of water is also significant when considering the differences between the two events. While end result in both cases was the same, the transitions from an impassable body of water to one with a path through which the Israelites could walk varied significantly. While Moses had but to stretch out his hand over the Red Sea for it to begin to part, it still took an entire night of a strong Eastern wind to blow a path through the waters. Although Joseph wasn't endowed with as much brute force spiritually, the mere act of the priests stepping into the river made the waters recede.

These differences are significant, in that they indicate and evolution of some similar story. The doublet has enough similarities for it to be plausible that they have a common source, but were written either by different people or at different times in the culture's history. While some original even may have spawned both stories, the differences inherent in their individual recounts have significance unto themselves.

Another notable difference between the two accounts is the amount of detail both dedicate to the event itself. The parting of the river Jordan pays much more attention to detail than that of Moses' experience. That more of a story is developed around the crossing of the river is interesting. Intuitively, one would think that escaping an army by parting an entire sea would receive more scriptural attention than the later crossing of a much smaller river, under much less significant circumstances. However, much more is made of the river crossing. It is commemorated for all time with the twelve stones that the tribe members take from the riverbed, "These stones are to stand as a memorial among you..." (Joshua 4:6). Crossing the entire Red Sea, on the other hand, is celebrated less extravagantly, "... Miriam...took up her tambourine, and all the women followed her, dancing to the sound of tambourines..." (Exodus 15:20).

In considering a possible evolution of the Red Sea crossing into the later story of Joshua at the river Jordan, a pertinent detail is the fact that when crossing the Red sea the Israelites were the pursued, but after crossing the Jordan, they were the pursuers. " "˜See I am delivering Jericho, its king, and his warriors into your hands.'" (Joshua 6:2). This adds to the overall tone of Joshua's crossing to be one of triumph and testament. While Moses' parting of the Red Sea was impressive and commanding, it was an act of God, and not an event unto itself as the story is told.

It only makes sense, then, that if the original account were to evolve to be portrayed later in the Old Testament it would have transformed into an event much like Joshua's crossing of the river Jordan. The later crossing is more detailed, involves the entire culture and their heads of state rather than just a powerful, but removed God, takes place in a spirit of triumph and victory and is celebrated more extravagantly. All of these details serve to enforce a more cohesive account of a very similar event.

Both events enforce God's power and love for his chosen people. However, the latter half of the doublet is embellished such that the story appears to have evolved either from its original state in Exodus or the two accounts may have diverged after the original event which motivated their creation. Whichever the case may be, the similarities indicate that they do, in fact, share a common source. Their differences only serve to indicate a further evolution of the original account into something that represents a more empowered and majestic representation of the Israelites as a whole.