Judges: A Critical and Rhetorical Commentary 9780567673091, 9780567673114, 9780567673107

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title
Title
Copyright
Contents
Abbreviations
Introduction
Judges 1
Judges 2
Judges 3
Judges 4
Judges 5
Judges 6
Judges 7
Judges 8
Judges 9
Judges 10
Judges 11
Judges 12
Judges 13
Judges 14
Judges 15
Judges 16
Judges 17
Judges 18
Judges 19
Judges 20
Judges 21
Judges 17–21 as Epilogue
Index of References

Citation preview

JUDGES

A Critical and Rhetorical Commentary

JUDGES

A Critical and Rhetorical Commentary

Richard D. Nelson

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Richard D. Nelson, 2017 Richard D. Nelson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. Cover design: Irene Martinez Costa All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7309-1 PB: 978-0-5676-8386-1 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7310-7 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Abbreviations vii Introduction Judges 1 Judges 2 Judges 3 Judges 4 Judges 5 Judges 6 Judges 7 Judges 8 Judges 9 Judges 10 Judges 11 Judges 12 Judges 13 Judges 14 Judges 15 Judges 16 Judges 17 Judges 18 Judges 19 Judges 20 Judges 21 Judges 17–21 as Epilogue

1 5 30 47 70 92 117 141 156 172 194 206 224 231 242 253 261 276 285 297 312 329 344

Index of References

349

A b b r ev i at i ons Ag. Ap. Josephus, Against Apion ANET Ancient Near Eastern texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969 Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews b. Babylonian Talmud BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia CEB Common English Bible COS Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2002 DH Deuteronomistic History/Historian ESV English Standard Version ET English (where verse numbers differ from Hebrew) HALOT L. Koehler et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden, 1994–2000 IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, 1990 J.W. Josephus, Jewish War LAB Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum LXX Septuagint (the Greek tradition as a whole) Codex Alexandrinus LXXA LXXB Codex Vaticanus LXXL Lucianic recension m. Mishnah MSS Manuscripts MT Masoretic Text NABRE New American Bible Revised Edition NIV New International Version NJB New Jerusalem Bible NJPS New Jewish Publication Society Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version OG Old Greek (earliest recoverable Greek version) OL Old Latin version REB Revised English Bible Syr Syriac Version T Targum TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Botterweck et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– Thompson, Motif Index Stith Thompson, Motif Index of Folk Literature, rev. ed. 6 vols. Indianapolis, 1955–58 V Vulgate

I n t rod uct i on

What makes for a good commentary? This depends on the needs of the person who acquires and uses it. A commentary is a tool wielded by its user in order to accomplish the task of interpretation. It should honor the interpreter’s own agency to make decisions. It should be more descriptive of the actual realities of the biblical text and less prescriptive about how one should interpret. A commentary should offer a fair presentation of main-stream opinion and show openness to various alternative probabilities. It should help the end user negotiate between different approaches and possibilities. To be helpful it cannot be a showcase for idiosyncratic or radical approaches. It must balance probabilities rather than dictate solutions. A useful commentary cannot be wedded to a given set of methods or theories but must be eclectic in service of users’ needs. A map is a good image for what this commentary is attempting to furnish. Like a map, it intends to be a guide through the interpretive process, highlighting problems and realistic potential solutions. It seeks to facilitate the interpretive journey. Of course, reading a commentary can never be substitute for taking the journey on one’s own. I certainly hope that the scholarly academy will find this commentary useful. However, it is also directed at those who work with biblical texts on a professional basis (rabbis, ministers, teachers, artists, curriculum designers, students). For this reason I have taken the (painful) decision to eliminate bibliographic references. My scholarly peers can track down any sources they want to pursue. To benefit from what it seeks to offer, the user of this volume will find facility in Hebrew valuable, but not necessary. Following standard practice, place name identifications are located by coordinates of the Palestine Grid. The commentary translation is the author’s own. It is intended to highlight issues of structure and rhetoric without being overly unnatural or stilted. As a rhetorical commentary, this volume pays attention to the factors in the text that are being marshalled to influence the reader. To study a text’s rhetoric is to analyze interactions between the reader and the words on

2 Judges

the page, with the assumption that there is a degree of authorial purpose somewhere in the equation. Rhetorical interpretation is interested in what the text does, that is to say how it works when it is read closely by a competent and cooperative reader. Rhetorical matters consist of lexical and grammatical issues, organizing arrangements and patterns, the intentions of various literary genres, along with narrative plot and structure. The scribal culture that produced the Hebrew Bible developed a rich tradition of chiasms, cross-references, flashbacks, repetitions, and allusions to help audiences follow written texts that were read aloud to them. This is also a critical commentary. It deals with the history of the text’s formation and transmission. It seeks to establish the earliest recoverable text of Judges as a way of getting as close as possible to the producers of the text and its early audiences. It tries to provide a well-argued description of how Judges was brought together as a coherent document from earlier oral and written sources and how it was later modified and supplemented. Form criticism, that is, the history and sociology of oral and written literary types, is an important part of this critical analysis. My twin aspirations to provide both rhetorical guidance and critical exploration are in service of a desire to provide some level of generally acceptable control over the interpretation of Judges. In recent years, Judges may have suffered from more “over-reading” than any other biblical book. Just as historical and compositional interests have (inevitably) led to ever more detailed and ever less convincing atomization of the text, so the application of synchronic and audience-centered interpretive methodologies have generated a host of incompatible versions of what Judges has to say. There have been many valuable—but nevertheless irreconcilable—post-colonial, feminist, literary, and synchronic expositions of Judges in recent decades. This is hardly surprising, when one considers the prominence the book gives to violence and ethnic animosity and the conspicuous role women play in its patriarchal context. The importance of apostasy, doing evil, and God’s wrath in Judges has also engendered numerous monographs and commentaries with a distinctly moralistic tone. In contrast, an analysis of rhetorical structures and entities affords some moderate degree of objectivity and interpretive control. Those rhetorical features are either empirically present or not. The words on the page are objectively in front of us (acknowledging subjectivity in the text critic’s work) and provide all interpreters with a common ground. All readings must be tested against the details of the text. Critical appreciation of the history that led to the form of the text we read today is also important for controlling interpretation. Even though our understanding of that history

 Introduction

3

is not “objective” (any more than any history can be), if nothing else it reminds us that Judges in not a twenty-first century text. Modern concerns cannot simply be read off the surface of the text without consideration of pre-modern cultural, linguistic, and historical realities. Objectivity is unattainable, and striving after it may indeed be a hegemonic attempt to claim privilege on the part of elite and socially dominant interpreters. However, an honest attempt to elucidate less-than-completely subjective actualities about texts still seems a worthy goal. This commentary is intended to guide, encourage, and prompt all sorts of readers. Judges may be appreciated as an example of ancient literary art with a religious theme like the Iliad or Bhagavad-Gita. From a history-of-religions standpoint, it provides a snapshot of one example of religion at one point in history among one people. Judges is part of the world’s literary or cultural canon, and as such it provides insights about political leadership, gender relationships, power disparities, personal strengths and weakness, as well as social and political ethics. In addition, for many Jewish and Christian users of this commentary Judges is a canonical, scriptural text. For those readers, Judges will be chiefly about God (and not just an idea about God) and God’s interrelationships with humanity. Readers in faith communities will bring to the text an underlying assumption that God and the impact of God on the world are subjects of existential import. Judges subdivides by theme and structure into 1:1–2:5 (incomplete conquest), 2:6–16:31 (reports of deliverers in a cyclical pattern), and 17:1–21:25 (non-monarchic anarchy). A report of Joshua’s death introduces a tribe-by-tribe catalog of conquest endeavors that begins with reports of success by Judah and Joseph and continues with less effective efforts by other tribes. A second mention of Joshua’s death (2:6) introduces the core of the book, in which reports of saviors are set into a repetitive framework that emphasizes apostasy, divine anger, oppression, the emergence of a judge who delivers Israel, and then a return to disobedience. This recurring pattern does not repeat itself mechanically but is marked by omissions and variations. The leadership qualities of the judges deteriorate over time until finally Samson fails to achieve deliverance from the Philistine oppressors, and the cyclical storyline stalls. A preexisting source list of six so-called minor judges is situated in two locations within the core narrative (10:1–5; 12:7–15). These figures are quite different from the savior judges. They appear within a register of officials who succeed each other directly with varied terms of service. The author(s) of the main portion of Judges took over from this document

4 Judges

the notion that the savior heroes, long celebrated individually in tribal and clan folktales, “judged Israel” in succession. Local champions were transformed into national rulers; timeless tales were fixed into a chronology of several hundred years. The third and concluding section (chs. 17–21) presents two story cycles (chs. 17–18 and 19–21) featuring a theme of self-centered chaos associated with the absence of royal authority. The refrain of 17:6; 18:1; 19:1, and 21:25 structures this self-contained section and hammers home its theme. The oldest portion of the book is 2:6–10 and 3:7–16:31. Judges 2:11–3:6 represents a somewhat later restatement of the cyclical pattern. Given the presence of distinctively Deuteronomistic language and theology, the primary core of Judges must be associated with the compositional process that resulted in the Deuteronomistic History (DH). An opening section, consisting of 1:1–2:5, was created to serve as an introduction to Judges after it was split off from Joshua and became an independent book. This segment was brought together from a variety of sources, including information from the last half of Joshua. The concluding five chapters of Judges are the latest material in the book. Verbal and literary connections with 1:1–2:5 show that chs. 17–21 were added to the end of the Samson story in order to provide a bracketing frame around the primary core of the book.

J u d g es 1

Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin After the death of Joshua the Israelites asked Yahweh, “Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites to fight against them?” 2 Yahweh said, “Judah is the one who shall go up. I hereby grant the land into his hand.” 3 Then Judah said to Simeon his brother, “Come up with me into my allotted territory so that we may fight against the Canaanites. I also will go with you into your allotted territory.” So Simeon went with him. 4 Then Judah went up and Yahweh gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand. They struck them down at Bezek, 10,000 men. 5  They found Adoni-bezek at Bezek and fought against him and struck down the Canaanites and the Perizzites. 6 Adoni-bezek fled, but they pursued him and seized him and chopped off his thumbs and his big toes. 7 Then Adonibezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and their big toes chopped off used to gather up scraps under my table. Just as I have done, so God has paid me back.” Then they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there. 8 The Judahites fought against Jerusalem and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword and set fire to the city. 9 Afterward the Judahites went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, the Negev, and the lowland. 10 Then Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (now the name of Hebron was formerly Kiriath-arba), and they struck down Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai. 11 From there they went against the inhabitants of Debir. (Now the name of Debir was formerly Kiriath-sepher). 12 Then Caleb said, “As for him who strikes Kiriath-sepher and captures it, I will give him Achsah my daughter as wife.” 13 Othniel, son of Kenaz and Caleb’s younger brother, captured it. So he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife. 14 When she came, she urged him to ask her father for a field. She dismounted from her donkey, and Caleb said to her, “What can I do for you?” 15 She said to him, “Give me a blessing because you have treated me like the land of Negev. So give me a bowl of water.” Then Caleb gave her the upper pool and the lower pool. 16 The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palms with the Judahites into the wasteland of Judah that is in the Negev of Arad and went and settled with the people. 17 Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they struck down the Canaanites who lived in Zephath and devoted it to destruction. So the name of the city was called 1

6 Judges Hormah. 18 Then Judah captured Gaza and its territory, Ashkelon and its territory, and Ekron and its territory. 19 Yahweh was with Judah, and it took over the hill country, but it was not possible to dispossess the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots made with iron. 20 They gave Hebron to Caleb, just as Moses had said. He dispossessed from there the three sons of Anak. 21 But the Benjaminites did not dispossess the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem, so the Jebusites have lived with the Benjaminites in Jerusalem to this day.

The Other Tribes The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel, and Yahweh was with them. 23 The house of Joseph arranged to have Bethel scouted out. (Now the name of the city was formerly Luz.) 24 The men on watch saw a man coming out of the city and said to him, “Show us how to enter the city, and we will deal loyally with you.” 25 So he showed them how to enter the city. They struck the city with the edge of the sword, but they let the man and all his family go. 26 The man went to the land of the Hittites and built a city and called its name Luz. That is its name to this day. 27 Manasseh did not dispossess Beth-shean and its daughter towns, or Taanach and its daughter towns, or the inhabitants of Dor and its daughter towns, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its daughter towns, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its daughter towns. Canaanites persisted in living in this land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact dispossess them. 29 Ephraim did not dispossess the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, so Canaanites lived among them in Gezer. 30 Zebulun did not dispossess the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol, so Canaanites lived among them but were put to forced labor. 31 Asher did not dispossess the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon or of Ahlab or of Achzib or of Helbah or of Aphik or of Rehob, 32 so the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not dispossess them. 33 Naphtali did not dispossess the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, so they lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. But the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were put to forced labor for them. 34 The Amorites pressed the Danites into the hill country, for they did not allow them to come down to the plain. 35 The Amorites persisted in living in Har-Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, and yet the hand of the house of Joseph grew heavy and they were put to forced labor. 36 The border of the Amorites: from the Scorpion Ascent, from the Rock and on upward. 22

 Judges 1

7

Notes 1 asked Yahweh] Through oracular consultation (Ezek 21:26; 1 Sam 23:4). The preposition in byhwh may be instrumental (through) or locative (at, before). for us] “For our benefit” (Gen 42:2; Exod 2:19; Isa 6:8). Alternative translation: “which of us will be first to go up?” first] The verbal root of the noun teḥillâ here means “start” in the sense of be first in order, rather than “at the start.” It signals the beginning of an extended process (as in 10:18; 13:5; 1 Sam 17:9). Judah is the one] Subject first emphasis on Judah as the one designated. I hereby grant] Performative speech (Gen 1:29; 1 Kgs 3:12; Jer 1:9). 3 Then] Interpreters who understand Judah as disobeying the divine command to go first (and thus alone) translate this as an adversative waw: “but.” Simeon] Simeon was entirely surrounded by Judah (Josh 19:9). The two tribes are also personified as individuals as in Genesis 34, which also mentions Canaanites and Perizzites (v. 30). 4 Bezek] Either Khirbet Ibziq (1878 1971) or nearby Khirbet Salhab (1853 1957). These locations fit generally with other passages in which Canaanites and Perizzites are associated (Gen 13:7; 34:30), although they are far north of Jerusalem. Bezek was Saul’s assembly point in 1 Sam 11:7–11. 5 found] Judah encountered him unexpectedly without specifically seeking him (Josh 10:17; 1 Sam 30:11). 7 with their thumbs…chopped off] Pual participle of qṣṣ with an adverbial accusative (IBHS 25.3c). scraps] The object noun is unstated. The verb lqṭ means “collect item by item” (HALOT 2:535), as arrows in 1 Sam 20:38. they brought] Impersonal subject, either his own people or the Judahites. Was he brought home to die or was he captured and carried off by the victors? 8 with the edge of the sword] Conventional translation of “according to the sword’s mouth,” a stock expression communicating the violence of slaughter. 10 Hebron] Follows MT V Syr T. LXXB, which may represent OG here, adds “and Hebron went out against him.” This is a doublet translation based on a corrupt version of “the name of Hebron was formerly” that misread wšm as wyṣ and misunderstood “formerly” (lpnym) as “against them.” LXXL lost part of OG by haplography (en chebrōn [kai exēlthen chebrōn] ex enantias), and LXXA lost this string plus two words (en chebrōn) before it. Ancient Hebron is Tell er-Rumeideh (1598 1035). Kiriath-arba] “Town of four,” perhaps referring to the clan cluster of Aner, Eshcol, Mamre, and Hebron (see Gen 14:13). According to a folk etymology in Josh 15:13–14, Arba was father of Anak who sired Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai. According to Judg 1:20 and Josh 15:14, it was Caleb who defeated these three.

8 Judges 11 went] Follows MT wylk. OG instead reads wylw “they went up,” the subject being intended as Judah. This is a harmonization to Josh 15:15, where the subject is Caleb. The OG reading would disturb the “went up/went down” structural contrast between Judg 1:4–8 and 9–17. Verses 11–15 are nearly identical to Josh 15:13–19. Debir] The best candidate is Khirbet Rabud (1514 0934). 12 As for him who strikes] See IBHS 32.2e. 13 and Caleb’s younger brother] Follows implications of masoretic punctuation and rabbinic interpretation, taking brother as qualifying Othniel. If brother qualifies Kenaz, then Othniel would be Caleb’s nephew. It is more natural to read the designation brother as referring to the more important person in the preceding phrase, which is to say Othniel. The following “younger than him” (hqṭn mmnw) surely refers to Othniel. This supports the assumption that Othniel was Caleb’s brother. Caleb’s nephew would almost automatically be younger than him and there would be no reason to highlight this fact in that case. “Younger than him” explains how Othniel was of an age to have married his (older) brother Caleb’s daughter. See the note on Judg 3:9. The LXXB translator understood both Judg 1:13 and 3:9 to mean that Othniel was Caleb’s nephew. This may have seemed more natural because it would make Othniel a member of the next generation after the contemporaries of Joshua (see Judg 2:10). 14 she urged him to ask] Follows MT. The verb sometimes has a negative connotation: “incite,” even “entice” (HALOT 2:749). Translations (REB NJB NIV) and commentators seek to ease narrative difficulties by reading “he urged her to ask” on the basis of the Vulgate and certain Greek witnesses. The situation is complex, but the main point is that MT is the more difficult reading. It is hard to see how it could have arisen from an easier “he urged her.” In any case, the reading “he urged her” is really an inner Greek development rather than a witness to a genuine Hebrew variant. Using a translation strategy reflecting good Greek usage, OG (preserved as a doublet in LXXL) suppressed the direct object pronoun, used a verbal form (hupesteilato, thinking of the root śwr turn aside rather than the rare śwt) that does not specify the gender of the grammatical subject, and followed this with an articular infinitive. Later Greek revisers added the object pronoun “her,” which seemed an easier fit to the narrative context and safeguarded Othniel’s dignity as a husband. The transition from v. 14a to vv. 14b–15 is abrupt. One could translate MT as “she plotted with him [Othniel] to ask her father,” the idea being that the execution of the plan she has initiated naturally falls on her. Or the infinite construct for the verb “ask” could be construed with Achsah to translate “she persuaded him [referring to Caleb] by asking from her father” (compare 1 Chr 2:1 and 2 Chr 18:2). This would indicate that Achsah has come to her father, not to her new husband. a field] Reading without the definite article as OG Syr T in agreement with Josh 15:18 as preferred by BHQ. MT hsdh “the field” resulted from dittography of the last letter of the previous word.

 Judges 1

9

dismounted] HALOT 4:1038. This translation is based on context and Syr and T. Compare the use of this verb for Jael’s tent peg that “goes down” in 4:21. Greek versions reflect “make a verbal noise” (OG witnesses egonguzen), probably thinking of ṣwḥ or ṣrḥ, both meaning “cry out.” The suggestion “she clapped” is based on a metathesized Arabic cognate and would have Jael audibly smacking the peg in 4:21. What can I do for you?] Lamed of interest. IBHS 18.3b, examples 10–12. 15 treated me like the land of Negev] Interpreting Negev as a metaphor for dryness or worthlessness and assuming a double direct object (Deut 1:15: “appointed them heads”; 1 Kgs 14:7 “made you leader”). Other translations are possible. (1) “You have given me away as though Negev land.” This construes me as the direct object and Negev as an adverbial accusative or accusative of state (IBHS 10.2.2d; JPSV). (2) “You have put me in the land of the Negev.” This understands Negev as a reference to actual territory and construes land of Negev as an accusative of place (IBHS 10.2.2b; LXX, NRSV). (3) “You have given to me Negev land,” that is, “arid land.” This understands land of Negev as a direct object and the suffix as a datival object (IBHS 10.2.3b; NJB). a bowl] Construing as a singular common noun, which is the preference of BHQ. MT vocalizes the three occurrences of the ambiguous glt as plurals (bowls, pools). This requires understanding the expressions with singular adjectives in v. 15b as constructs: “pools of the upper [country] and pools of the lower [country].” In contrast, Josh 15:19 MT has a plene plural spelling of “upper” and “lower” that requires “upper pools and lower pools.” The ancient versions uniformly treat glt as a singular noun in both Joshua and Judges. In Judges, the singular is witnessed by OG as lutrōsin “ransom” via geullâ “right of redemption,” by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Hexapla transcription (golath), and the OG transliteration golathmaim at Josh 15:19. Elsewhere, glt always means “bowl” or “basin” either literally (Zech 4:3; Qoh 12:6) or as an architectural term (1 Kgs 7:41–42; 2 Chr 4:12–13). The conversation may involve wordplay between the common noun bowl and Gulath, an unknown toponym presumably near Debir (compare the suffixes for Zephath, Zerephath, Baalath). upper pool…lower pool] Bir el-Alaqa el-Foqani (1508 0965) and Bir el-Alaqa et-Tahtani (1504 0958), about 3 km from Khirbet Rabud. Caleb] Follows MT. The Greek tradition adds a dittography (or doublet translation) of Caleb’s name: klbh “according to her heart.” Caleb means “dog,” possibly indicating loyalty or aggressiveness. 16] This verse is corrupt and cannot be restored with confidence. Kenite lacks a needed definite article. The wasteland of Judah did not extend this far south. The verbs went and settled are singular in number. The words Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law have some sort of connection with 4:11, which has the definite article and explicitly names “Hobab” as Moses’ father-in-law. Moses’ father-in-law in 1:16 is probably an early gloss. Greek tradition witnesses the definite article with Kenite and specifies a proper name (LXXL “Hobab,” compare Num 10:29; LXXB “Jethro,” compare Exod 4:18; 18:1). NRSV and NJB follow LXXL and specify Hobab. The Kenites were a foreign group associated with Israel (5:24; 1 Sam 15:6), perhaps employed as itinerant metalworkers.

10 Judges city of palms] This is likely not Jericho but the crossroads site Ain Husb (1732 0244) about 32 km southwest of the Dead Sea. wasteland of Judah] Follows MT Syr T, even though the wilderness of Judah is not to the south. OG omits the second mention of “Judah” in order to avoid geographical problems: “into the wilderness that is in the Negev of Arad” (part of a doublet in LXXA and present in revised form in LXXB). The other element of this doublet translation witnesses “in the wilderness of Arad” (misreading bəmidbar as though bəmôrad [katabaseōs “descent”] in place of “in the Negev of Arad.” This probably represents a misguided explanatory gloss. settled with the people] Follows MT, which leaves the identity of the people unexplained. Certain Greek witness related to LXXB read “with the people Amalek,” combining two alternative readings, “Amalek” and “the people.” OL (representing OG?) reads “with him Amalek,” preferred by BHQ. It is possible that MT hm “the people” originated as a haplography of an original “with him Amalek and he went” (th m[lqy] wylk resulting in t hm wylk). NRSV takes “Amalek” as a more difficult and thus preferable reading. If this is correct, later scribes shortened the original text to “the people” in order to “efface the memory of Amalek” (Deut 25:19). LXXAL clearly does this at Judg 5:14 and 12:15. Most likely, however, “Amalek” is an explanatory expansion in the Greek tradition intended to specify who “the people” in question were (perhaps a reflex of 1 Sam 15:6; compare 1 Sam 27:8, 10; Num 24:20–21). 17 Hormah] From ḥrm I (“put to the ban”) as the narrative suggests, or of ḥrm II, meaning “rock crevasse.” Khirbet el-Meshash (1467 0690) or Tell el-Khuweilifeh (1373 0879) suggest themselves. 18 Judah captured] Follows MT Syr T. This follows the data of Josh 15:45–47 that counted Philistia as part of Judah. OG “Judah did not dispossess” harmonizes with the negative verb of Judg 1:19 (compare 3:3 and Josh 13:3). There is really no contradiction between Judg 1:18 and v. 19, however. Judges 1 makes a well-defined distinction between “capture” and “dispossess.” The first act does not automatically lead to the second (compare v. 8 and v. 21). 19 it took over] Yahweh could be the grammatical subject (“he took over”), but context favors the commentary translation. This verse illustrates the difference in meaning between the verb yrš hiphil with a direct object that is inanimate (take possession) or human (dispossess). it was not possible to dispossess] This translation is required by the sense of the sentence and is communicated by an unusual “modal” infinitive construct syntax lō ləhôrîš “not to capture” (IBHS 36.2.3f). The anomalous preposition in MT could be a dittography: lō [lə]hôrîš. BHQ suggests that the versions (OG, OL, V, T) provide evidence that MT lost ykl and prefers l [ykl] lhwryš “could not dispossess.” However, Judges 1 consistently lacks ykl where it is present in Joshua (compare Judg 1:21 and Josh 15:63; Judg 1:27 and Josh 17:12) and would be unlikely to use it. The sense of

 Judges 1

11

MT is clear: Judah obediently took over the hill country but it was not possible to dispossess the inhabitants of the plains. The grammatical situation of Judg 1:27a is different. chariots made with iron] Although chariots were constructed of wood and leather, fittings and fastenings were sometimes made of iron, as this construct expression communicates. OG evidences a corruption of brzl (iron) into the hiphil of bdl (separate), translating chariots as a proper name: “Rechab prevented them.” Josephus, Ant. 5.128 follows MT. 20] Follows MT and Josh 15:14. Untangled and evaluated as a group, Greek witnesses (LXXAL) offer two conflated translations: “and he dispossessed from there the three cities [of the sons of Anak]” (which is LXXB) and “he dispossessed (using a different Greek verb) from there the three sons of Anak” (which is MT). “Three cities” in the first option represents an addition that harmonizes with Josh 11:21–22 and 14:12. 21 Benjamin] This verse and Josh 15:63 (where the grammatical subject is “Judah”) are each appropriate for their respective contexts. Judges 1:8 reports that Jerusalem was captured and burned by Judah. The author of v. 21 knows Jerusalem was assigned to Benjamin’s territory (as in Josh 18:16, 28) and wants to clarify that Benjamin did not capture it. The context of Josh 15:63 is a listing of the towns of Judah, and the point is that Jerusalem was not inhabited solely by Judahites. 22 Bethel] Beitin (1727 1482). Luz] “Almond tree.” Luz was a place different from, but close to, Bethel according to Josh 16:2; 18:13. 23 arranged to have…scouted out] Taking into account the hiphil stem; HALOT 4:1709. 27 daughter towns] Satellite agricultural villages enjoying the protection of a fortified mother city. inhabitants of Dor] The plural follows qere and the versions. Beth-shean is Beisan (1975 2117), and more narrowly Tell el-Husn (1975 2123). Taanach is Tell Tiinik (1708 2142). Megiddo is Tell el-Mutesellim (1676 2212). Dor is Khirbet el-Burj (1424 2247). Ibleam is Khirbet Belameh (1777 2058). The information in vv. 27–29 is duplicated from Josh 16:10; 17:11–13, but uncertainties about cross-text harmonizations create a complex situation. Judges lacks various expansions present in Joshua. persisted in living] They resisted expulsion. The verb yl hiphil ranges in meaning from “decide” to “be content” to “persist.” 28 in fact] The emphatic expression strengthens the reality of the negation (IBHS 35.3 and example 35.3.h. #34). A less likely alternative is to take this as a strengthening of the verbal root: “not drive out completely.” 29 Gezer] Tell Jezer (1422 1404).

12 Judges 30 Kitron…Nahalol] These two places occur in this order to begin the city list in Josh 19:15, where Kitron is given as Kattah (compare LXXA of Judg 1:30). Kitron is possibly Tell el-Far (1601 2419) and Nahalol quite likely Malul (1730 2334). 31] Judges expands five items taken from the city list of Josh 19:29–30 into seven towns. Judges moves Acco to the beginning (this is Ummah in Josh 19:29, a mem for kaph error), adds Sidon (from Josh 19:28), and has two towns reflecting the Mahalab of Joshua (MT Mehebel): Achlab and Helbah. Acco] Tell el-Fukhkhar (1586 2586). Ahlab…Helbah] Two corrupt variants of the single toponym Mahalab (Khirbet el-Mahalib; 172 301) known from an Assyrian source. Mahalab is also to be read at Josh 19:29–30. Achzib…Aphik…Rehob] Achzib is ez-Zib (1598 2725). Common suggestions for Aphik are Tell Kabri (1644 2690) or Tell Kurdaneh (1605 2500). Rehob is probably Tell Bir el-Gharbi (1662 2563). 33 Beth-shemesh…Beth-anath] These two towns in Naphtali are listed in reverse order in Josh 19:38. The former is probably Khirbet Tell er-Ruweisi (1815 2718). Numerous sites have been suggested for Beth-anath, but Bineh (1758 2596; it shares the consonant string bn) or Safed el-Battikh (1908 2895) are the best candidates. Perhaps the Judges author selected the two most Canaanite-sounding towns from the list in Joshua 19. 34 they…them] MT uses singular for both subject and object. 35 Har-heres…Aijalon…Shaalbim] Joshua 19:41–42 presents a partial parallel in a different order: “Ir-shemesh [equivalent to Beth-shemesh], Aijalon, Shaalbim.” The last two are Yalo (1523 1388) and Salbit (1488 1418). A correspondence between Har-heres (“mountain of the sun”) with Ir-Shemesh (“city of the sun”) is suggestive, but not certain. Perhaps the expression actually refers to the mountain range on the east and southeast side of the Valley of Aijalon. yet] See IBHS 33.2.1d. 36 Amorites] Follows MT. OG (LXXAL) reads “the Amorites, the Edomites,” apparently signifying “the border of the Amorites consisted of the Edomites.” Although haplography in MT is conceivable (hmr[y hdm]y), “Edomites” (preferred by BHQ) has every appearance of being a textual dittography or an interpolated gloss explaining that the southeastern border of the Amorites faced Edomite territory. Scorpion Ascent is possibly the pass Naqb es-Safa (163 036). The Rock (or Sela) is es-Sila (2049 0214). It is mentioned in 2 Kgs 14:7 and Isa 16:1.

 Judges 1

13

Structure and Rhetoric After the death of Joshua signals to readers that a new book is beginning. The formula relates Judges to the previous book of Joshua, just as Josh 1:1 (“after the death of Moses”) relates Joshua to Deuteronomy. The expression marks a significant turn of events (2 Sam 1:1; 2 Kgs 1:1), but at the same time indicates that the sequence of events is continued in some way. Something new is about to happen, and the reader is to consider how it relates to the career of Joshua. The overall structure of Judges 1 is a description of the successes and failures of the tribes of Israel, one after the other. It tells a story of an attempted conquest with varied outcomes. Incorporated into this framework are three narratives that provide perspectives on the successful aspects of the conquest. Three interlocking patterns organize and unify Judges 1. The first is a thematic pattern that starts with success (Judah and Joseph) and ends with partial and then near total failure (in the case of Dan). The second is a geographic sequence that starts with the south (Judah, Simeon, Benjamin) and then moves north (Joseph and the Galilee tribes, and in a preliminary way, Dan). The third is a verbal parallel that hinges at v. 22 and coordinates with the second pattern. These patterns intermesh in a complex way and are supplemented by various other parallels and bracket formulas. The thematic pattern of success and failure begins with actions taken in harmony with Yahweh’s will as revealed in an oracle (v. 2) followed by examples of success that culminate in Joseph’s capture of Bethel (vv. 4–26). In the positive first part of the chapter, Israel consistently struck down an army and cities (vv. 4, 5, 8, 10, 17, 25). Judah is excused for its underperformance because it was not possible to dispossess (v. 19). Caleb’s success in v. 20 is offset and balanced by Benjamin, who did not dispossess in v. 21. But in vv. 27–35 things turn sour. This failure section is enclosed by a bracketing repetition of persisted in living in vv. 27 and 35. Deterioration is repeatedly stressed by a failure to drive out/dispossess local populations (compare 2:3). The positive story about Joseph (vv. 22–26) is counterbalanced by negative notices about the Joseph tribes Manasseh and Ephraim (vv. 27–29). Relationships shift so that Israel now lives side by side with local inhabitants. The text emphasizes that five tribes did not dispossess (vv. 27–33). Failures are ameliorated by an eventual imposition of forced labor in the cases of Manasseh, Zebulun, and Naphtali (see Josh 16:10; 17:13). The situation of who lived among whom also reflects worsening circumstances. Jebusites lived with Benjamin (v. 21), Canaanites lived among Ephraim and Zebulun (vv. 29 and 30), but then in vv. 32 and 33 predominance is reversed so that Asher and Naphtali lived among Canaanites. With Dan the theme of failure

14 Judges

reaches its nadir. Dan is pressed back into the hill country by Amorites (rather than the Canaanites of previous verses). Dan’s situation reflects its special history. The Amorites persisted in living, but migrating Dan does not even “live among” them. Forced labor is imposed on the Amorites, not by weakened or absent Dan, but by Joseph. Disapproval focuses on the northern tribes, who tolerate Canaanites. Forced labor compromises the law of Deut 20:11b, which proposes it only for far off groups and not for those in the land, who are supposed to be eliminated (see 1 Kgs 9:20–21). Censure is only implicit, however. There is no unambiguous negative moral assessment or hint that an improper covenant has been made until one reaches Judg 2:1–5. Reports that certain tribes did not dispossess remain neutral statements devoid of explicit disapproval. The geographic pattern moves from south to north. This configuration is analogous to Assyrian summary or display inscriptions touting royal triumphs, which are characterized by limited space and often arranged geographically. The northern part of the geographic pattern is framed by a twofold reference to house of Joseph in vv. 22 and 35. The entire geography of the chapter, however, is implicitly enclosed by Judah in that it is rounded off with a final notice about a border on the south that lies alongside Judah (v. 1 and v. 36). The geographic pattern is connected to the thematic pattern in that the further north one goes, the less successful Israel becomes. Overall, the order of tribes follows the “Judah first, Dan last” arrangement of both the land distribution in Joshua 13–19 and the judges (Othniel first, Samson last). Simeon and Benjamin, however, have been moved forward from their positions in Joshua 13–19 (where they follow Joseph) in order to give more weight to Judah and to create the south-to-north tribal sequence. The sequence Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, Dan (without Issachar) tracks Joshua 19. The entire book of Judges reflects a similar south to north arrangement along with a generally downward trajectory of success to failure (compare Judg 2:19 as well). A third, verbal pattern structures the chapter with the verb lh (went up). Judges 1 is divided neatly into two portions, hinged between v. 21 and v. 22, by means of the repeated verbal pattern Judah went up (v. 4) and the house of Joseph also went up (v. 22). Also (gam hēm) in v. 22 alerts readers to this parallel. The structural importance of the verb lh is highlighted by its repeated occurrence in vv. 1, 2, 3, and 16, in the contexts of question, oracle, invitation, and accompaniment. This correspondence between Judah and Joseph is further strengthened by the notice that Yahweh was with each group (vv. 19 and 22). This two-fold verbal

 Judges 1

15

pattern points to the historical situation of the two kingdoms. In the first half, Simeon and Benjamin are associated with Judah, and in the second, Judah is contrasted to Israel. Although ch. 1 introduces Judges, it also serves as a reinterpretive look back to Joshua. It shifts the balance of success and failure characteristic of the final form of Joshua into a more negative direction. The first chapter of Judges presupposes the plot of Joshua, particularly its notion of tribal territories and their distribution by lot (v. 3; Josh 15:1). Moreover, the concept of a cooperative campaign (Judg 1:1; for us) reflects Joshua’s paradigm of a unified conquest, while Joshua’s expectation of a totally successful conquest provides a contrasting background for the limitations and failures reported in Judges 1. Nevertheless, the information Judges 1 takes from Joshua is not presented as a summary of Joshua’s career, but rather as a description of what happened after his death. Joshua’s successful campaigns of a unified “all Israel” are replaced by the ambiguous effects of disunity. Judges 1 describes partial success followed by much failure and modest initial cooperation replaced by tribal autonomy. Thus, the backdrop for the rest of Judges emerges. Israel’s control of the land is threatened and uncertain, and future efforts will be required to maintain it. No one who has read Joshua 23–24 would be surprised that there are still Canaanites to be conquered. What one might call macrostructures shape Joshua and Judges 1 in similar ways: parallel leading roles for Judah and Joseph (Judg 1:2–21 and Josh 14–15; Judg 1:22–35 and Josh 16–17), a pattern of deterioration from overall initial success to failure requiring relocation on Dan’s part (Judg 1:34–35 and Josh 19:47), and geographic movement from south to north (Josh 14–19). As an introduction, Judges 1 focuses the whole of Judges in terms of the land allocations described in Joshua 13–19. The chapter describes how Israel got to the point represented by Judg 2:6–3:6 by telling what happened during the after the death of Joshua period summarized in 2:7, 10. It sets a geographic stage, populating Canaan with autonomous tribes experiencing various degrees of trouble. It makes readers aware that the upcoming judge Othniel should be considered under the tribal rubric “Judah,” and points out that, whereas Judah succeeded, other tribes did not. It introduces the theme of tribal autonomy and the conundrum of why hostile nations were left in the land (compare 3:1–6). The chapter’s increasingly negative movement from success to failure reflects the pattern of snowballing disintegration found in the rest of the book, something that hits rock bottom with Samson and then chs. 17–21. The south (Judah,

16 Judges

Benjamin) to north to Dan arrangement mirrors the impending geographic configuration of 3:7–16:31: Othniel and Ehud; then Deborah, Gideon, and Jephthah; then Samson. Dan’s difficulties in 1:34–35 set the stage for chs. 13–16 and 17–18. Perhaps the eight did not dispossess statements within ch. 1 could be seen as an argument for kingly power, in support of what many see as the theme of chs. 17–21. The theme of a quest for effective leadership is introduced by after the death of Joshua. This topic will be carried forward as each judge emerges and the overall quantity of leadership declines. More narrowly, ch. 1 prepares readers for the initial breakdown in leadership and obedience described in ch. 2. Chapter 1 confuses the temporal arrangement of Judges in that its narrative action (the sequential verbs up until the end of v. 26) takes place after the death of Joshua. However, Joshua will still be alive in 2:6 and his death is reported again in 2:8. This places all of 1:1–2:5 into a peculiar temporal position, standing outside the connected sequence formed by Joshua 23–24 and Judg 2:6. The reader may choose to treat 2:6–8 as a flashback or consider the events of ch. 1 as a prolepsis. On a positive note, the chapter establishes Yahweh’s interest in and involvement with Israel (1:1–2). Yahweh is with Judah and Joseph (vv. 19 and 22). Yet even Judah’s success is restricted (v. 19b), and the component tribes of Joseph achieve hardly any more success than the other northern tribes (vv. 27–29). As the rest of Judges will make plain, Yahweh cannot be counted on inevitably to overcome every foe. Even minor details point to elements in subsequent chapters: chariots made with iron (1:19 points to 4:3, 13), Othniel’s pedigree (1:13 to 3:9), Kenites (1:16 to 4:11, 17), and the city of palms (1:16 to 3:13 perhaps). Positively, Judg 1:2, 4 introduce the expression “give into the hand,” variations of which appear throughout the book (2:23; 3:28; 4:7; 7:2, 7; 11:30; 20:28). Negatively, 1:34 presents the ominous verb lḥṣ describing enemy oppression (2:18; 4:3; 6:9; 10:12). The introduction is pro-Judah. It foregrounds Judah, adding it to a core book of Judges from which Judah was largely absent. This Judah is an expansive “greater Judah” incorporating Simeon along with Calebites, Kenazites and Kenites, and even Philistine cities. Joseph has some success, but only Judah makes a positive contribution to the national conquest project, going up first for the sake of all and helping Simeon. Judah’s lack of progress in the lowlands is rationalized (v. 19) and the continued presence of Jebusites in Jerusalem is blamed on Benjamin (v. 21). In contrast to this high regard for Judah, Judges 1 engages in a restrained polemic against the north. Apart from Joseph’s success at Bethel, each of

 Judges 1

17

the northern tribes goes it alone and thus become implicitly responsible for continuing Canaanite enclaves. These pro-Judah thematic elements point forward to tension involving Ephraim in 8:1–2 and 12:4–6, to Micah the thief and idolater from Ephraim (17:1–5), and to the polemic against Benjamin in chs. 20–21. The relationship of the introduction to chs. 19–21 is particularly close: oracular inquiry about tribal leadership with the answer “Judah” (1:1 and 20:18, 23, 28; compare 18:5–6), sacral lot (bgwrl; 1:3 and 20:9), set fire (1:8 and 20:48), ḥērem (1:17 and 21:11), Jebusite Jerusalem (1:21 and 19:10, 12), and spies (1:24 and 18:2). Collective weeping is a feature of 2:4 and 20:23, 26; 21:2. The reader must interpret Judges 1 in light of 2:1–5, which construes the non-removal of the nations as the equivalent of making a covenant with them and tolerating their pagan altars. Yahweh’s angel accuses Israel of violating the covenant God has made with them (see also 2:20–21). When 2:1–5 is considered, the moderately disapproving tone of 1:1–36 takes on a more ominous tenor. Foreigners who live side-by-side with Israel turn out to be menacing fifth-column enemies, and their gods become dangerous temptations. [1–21] The exploits of Judah (vv. 4–21) are subdivided by reference to Judah going up (vv. 4–8; Bezek and Jerusalem) and then Judah going down (v. 9). The Judah went up portion climaxes with the tribe’s success against Jerusalem in v. 8. The following Judah went down section finishes with the long-term situation of Jerusalem in v. 21. One may also trace a chiastic pattern in toponyms: Jerusalem (v. 8), Hebron (v. 10), Hebron (v. 20), Jerusalem (v. 21). The termination of this chiasm indicates that a new topic commences in v. 22. Other rhetorical features create unity and generate reader interest. The partnership of Judah and Simeon is framed by repeated language: Judah said to Simeon his brother…Simeon went with him (v. 3) and Judah went with Simeon his brother (v. 17). Cooperation between Judah as the dominant partner and Simeon is further underscored by the reiteration in vv. 10 and 17 of Judah went…and they struck down. Benjamin and Dan each appear in final positions in this two-fold division (v. 21 and vv. 34–35) and each interact with peoples whose names are inconsistent with the standard designation of Canaanites, that is, Jebusites and Amorites. Catchwords hold the successive sentences of vv. 2–16 together and move action forward:

18 Judges

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

 give into his/their hand – vv. 2 and 4  at Bezek – vv. 4 and 5  Jerusalem – vv. 7 and 8  Judah went and from there they went – vv. 10 and 11  captures it…give Achsah my daughter as wife and captured it… gave Achsah his daughter as wife – vv. 12 and 13 6.  Negev – vv. 15 and 16 Who shall go up…first? (v. 1). This same question and its answer, Judah, will be repeated in 20:18 with reference to intertribal warfare. This signposts the bracketing function of chs. 1 and 17–21. Both question and answer fit the situation in ch. 1 better than that of ch. 20, so that the former must have been its initial location. Go up is a technical term for a military expedition, irrespective of the geography involved. The question about first points toward the whole of ch. 1, indicating that the other tribes will follow in the campaign. For us takes a pan-Israel viewpoint. The first to attack will benefit the rest. Yet first also signals that the campaign is being based on individual tribal efforts in contrast to the unified struggle described in Joshua. Still, these individual efforts are under the umbrella of a shared identity (Israel; for us). The wording is similar to 2 Sam 1:1 and then 2:1: “after the death of Saul.… David inquired of Yahweh, ‘Shall I go up…?’ ” Reception of divine revelation in 1:1 and 2:1–5 creates a thematic frame around ch. 1. In v. 3, the foregrounded position of Simeon supports the overall south versus north organization. The language is one of reciprocity: come up with me…my allotted territory.… I also will go with you…your allotted territory. They are indeed brother tribes, traditionally both sons of Leah. This reciprocal arrangement is similar to that of 2 Sam 10:11. As a plot element, reciprocity reaches its goal in Judg 1:17. From an etiological perspective, these reports answer the question of how Simeon ended up encompassed by Judah (compare Josh 15:13). There is some ambiguity in how to interpret Simeon’s actions. Is Simeon to be understood as disobeying the divine directive, or does Simeon rather show a proper attitude by joining its brother tribes, in contrast to the others who seek to go it alone and mostly fail? A concentric pattern wraps vv. 4–5 into a single event: the Canaanites and the Perizzites… they struck them down at Bezek… at Bezek… struck down the Canaanites and the Perizzites

 Judges 1

19

The combination of Canaanites and Perizzites indicates dangerous and worthy opposition. Canaanites and Perizzites (Gen 13:7; 34:30) serves as an expression of totality: dwellers in unwalled settlements (Esth 9:19; Ezek 38:11; Zech 2:8) versus urbanites. The two social lifestyle groupings of ancient Palestine form a merismus. Catchwords connect verses: into… hand holds together Judg 1:2 and 4 and Bezek links vv. 4 and 5. Jerusalem links v. 8 to vv. 5–7. The Adoni-bezek account incorporates the important topic of Jerusalem into the narrative. The probable location of Bezek is far to the north of Jerusalem. Apparently is was thought important to get Jerusalem into the picture near the beginning, even if the narrative fabric had to be stretched a bit. One should note that v. 8 is at odds with 19:10–12. Adoni-bezek launches the theme of enemy kings like Cushan-rishathaim, Eglon, and Jabin. God’s retribution for these seventy royal victims finds a parallel in 9:56–57 when God (the same divine designation) repays Abimelech for his seventy murders. Seventy is a standardized number (2 Kgs 10:1) and is connected to the theme of requital (Gen 4:24). Balanced “poetic justice” also foreshadows Samson’s retribution for the mutilation imposed on him (Judg 16:28). Mutilation purposefully humiliated the captive kings. In a society based on honor and shame, this would be a fundamental insult. Other examples are the post mortem violation in 2 Sam 4:12 (where the same verb is used as in Judg 1:6–7) and the beards of the envoys in 2 Sam 10:4–5. The kings are humiliated like dogs (compare COS 1.97:303, Matt 5:27, and Odyssey 17.309). Loss of their fingers, which most clearly distinguish humans from animals, reduces them to subhuman status. Cutting off big toes makes it difficult for captives to escape. Furthermore, these kings could no longer be warriors. The practices of priestly ordination indicates that thumbs and big toes symbolically encompass the total body (Lev 8:24). The end of his rule is signaled when Adoni-bezek is carried off as a captive by the victorious Judahites (see note on v. 7), like Agag or Zedekiah. The Adoni-bezek story provides an edifying warning (compare Prov 16:18). What goes around comes around. Sovereignty comes and goes. The mighty fall, and the power of tyrants is ephemeral. Adoni-bezek provides an outside voice commenting on divine purpose and causation (compare Josh 2:9–11) that introduces God’s role in the relationship between act and consequence basic to the cyclical pattern of Judges. Judges 1:9 is a generalized description of Judah’s sphere of control (compare Josh 10:40, for example). The Achsah story is the second of three narratives integrated into ch. 1. Verses 10–13 serve as exposition, introducing circumstances and characters. The custom of a father giving a daughter as a motivational gift in a military context is also described in 1 Sam 17:25; 18:17–27.

20 Judges

Judges 1:14a establishes Achsah’s desire for territory, but the expected follow-up is abruptly broken off. Instead the narrative action is carried forward by a direct encounter between Achsah and Caleb precipitated by the conclusion of her donkey journey (v. 14b). She makes a request and supports it with argument (v. 15a). So Caleb grants her two water sources (v. 15b). The narrative is nicely structured by a pattern involving the act of giving (the verb ntn except in the first part of v. 15a): I will give him Achsah my daughter as wife He gave him Achsah his daughter as wife Give (imperative hab) me a blessing Because as Negev land you gave me (literal translation) So give me a bowl of water Caleb gave her the upper pool and the lower pool

Action alternates with direct discourse: action (Judah) in v. 11 speech (Caleb) in v. 12; action (Othniel, Caleb, Achsah) in vv. 13–14a speech (Caleb, Achsah) in vv. 14b–15a action (Caleb) in v. 15b

As the narrative unfolds, Achsah moves from a passive to an active role. In vv. 12–13 she is the direct object of actions proposed and carried out by her father. She is an object of her father’s patriarchal privilege and male patterns of land ownership. Her first words reveal wifely deference. But then in vv. 14–15 Achsah emerges as an assertive actor and clever speaker. She takes the initiative and becomes the grammatical subject: she urged him…she dismounted…she said to him. She pushes the envelope of patriarchy to get what she needs. Achsah is a forceful character. Yet interpreters have not always appreciated this. Perhaps they have been led astray by the common translation of urged in v. 14 as “enticed” and the presumed derivation of her name from anklet jewelry (Isa 3:16, 18; Prov 7:22; HALOT 2:824). Achsah employs skillful and persuasive rhetoric. Give me a blessing, involves a subtle and implicit wordplay in that blessing (bərākâ) sounds much like a word for “pool” (bərēkâ), though that word is not actually used here. Then she asks ambiguously for a bowl of water (see note on v. 15). Bowl of water contrasts rhetorically with the arid implications of Negev. But her reference to land lets readers (and Caleb) know that she

 Judges 1

21

is not requesting a vessel from which to drink, but is really seeking real estate. Achsah supports her petition by reference to Negev, but this too is not to be taken at face value, because Debir is located in the Judean hill country (Josh 11:21; 15:49) and not in the Negev. She could mean that her dowry is “arid terrain” requiring water, but more likely her contention is that she has been treated poorly by her father (see note on v. 15). You have treated me (or “given me away”) as a motivational incentive as though I were a worthless piece of Negev land. Her strategy works. She asked for one bowl of water and ended up with two pools, reflecting a rhetorical step up. The compact Achsah story requires readers to fill in gaps in the action, especially the narrative break between she urged him to ask her father for a field (v. 14a) and she dismounted from her donkey (v. 14b). Achsah urges her new husband when she came. Does this mean when she first came to him as his wife? This would be an appropriate occasion to persuade him and to raise the issue of real estate in the context of bride price (which was the capture of Debir) and dowry. She presses Othniel to ask Caleb for a field, perhaps as a dowry, revealing her interest in territorial acquisition. However, in the break between v. 14a and v. 14b, she abruptly bypasses her husband and directly requests from her father, not a field, but a water source. This can be understood if one realizes that a dowry was part of a husband’s property, but nevertheless something over which a wife retained certain potential rights. So, first Achsah persuades her husband to ask for a field (which he presumably did acquire). She then goes on to ask her father for even more as a supplement to her dowry in the form of springs that would increase the value of the field. But why is she getting off an unexpected donkey in the presence of her father immediately after speaking to her husband? Has she been on her donkey all along with Caleb standing nearby? Or has she mounted her donkey to visit her father? There are several ways for the reader to bridge this narrative gap. Perhaps Othniel does go on to ask Caleb, but Achsah simply wants even more real estate and so rides off to re-negotiate. Perhaps Othniel fails to ask in spite of her urging, and so she elects to make the request herself. Presumably the original readers understood something unstated about Achsah’s dismount from her donkey without needing to be told. The key is 1 Sam 25:18–35. There another resolute woman rides a donkey to make her case and deliver a request. In a moment of crisis, Abigail, wife of a member of the Calebite ethnic group (v. 3), rides off on her donkey to meet David (v. 20). When she sees him, she hurries to dismount (yrd, v. 23). She falls on her face to make a speech of rationale and appeal and David grants her request. Later, Abigail hurries to ride off

22 Judges

again on her donkey to become David’s bride (v. 42). This latter event resembles Rebekah who gets down (npl) from her camel when she sees Isaac (Gen 24:64; compare 1 Sam 25:23). The reader who recognizes this traditional “type scene” would understand that when Achsah dismounts from her donkey, she has reached the end of a determined, resolute, goaldirected journey. Getting off her animal shows proper respect for Caleb as she begins to speak and negotiate with one who is her social superior. Caleb for his part can read the cultural context. Recognizing that she has come on a resolute mission with a determined request, he reacts to her dismount with, What can I do for you? The Achsah story introduces elements found in the remainder of Judges. First, Othniel as both Caleb’s younger brother and first judge provides a generational link between the period after Joshua’s death and the following time of the judges. Second, the actions and character of Achsah prefigure certain aspects of Judges. Her father gives her away as a reward for services rendered, foreshadowing the patriarchal treatment of Jephthah’s daughter, Samson’s wife, the Levite’s concubine, and the women of Jabesh-gilead and Shiloh. On the other hand, her decisive initiative prepares readers for Deborah, Jael, the woman who slays Abimelech, and even Delilah. Like Achsah, Jephthah’s daughter refuses to bear her fate passively but negotiates with her father to get what she wants (Judg 11:37). As someone proficient in persuasive speech, Achsah mirrors the talents of Ehud (3:19–20), Jael (4:18), and Jephthah (11:5–11; 12–28). Delilah as well beguiles Samson with persuasive words (16:6, 10, 13, 15–16). Samson and the Philistines engage in a contest of artful speech (14:14, 18). Samson uses cunning language to get into position for his final revenge (16:26). Other examples of convincing speech appear in Jotham’s fable, the Danite campaign (18:9–10, 19), and the Levite’s selfserving reinterpretation of his experience in Gibeah (20:4–7). The individual elements of the vv. 16–21 section are disconnected and focus more on place names than continuing narrative action. Verse 16 is an abrupt restart of Judah’s campaign, introducing a completely new grammatical subject. Verse 17 finally picks up the topic of Simeon from v. 3 with a parallel phrase: Simeon went with him.… Judah went with Simeon. The geography of v. 16 is puzzling. City of palms could be intended as Jericho, but this would be geographically odd. Probably Tamar south of the Dead Sea is meant (see m. Yebamot 16.7; 1 Kgs 9:18 ketiv; Ezek 47:19; and the note on v. 16). A “Negev of the Kenites” is mentioned by 1 Sam 27:10. The wasteland of Judah is east of the central ridge, not in

 Judges 1

23

the south part of Judah’s territory. However, this phrase is actually the fourth district title from Josh 15:61, the one not picked up by Judg 1:9 (see Genre and Composition below). In this way, references to Judah’s allotment (Judg 1:9, 16) bracket the Achsah story. Although 1:16 is not quite extensive enough to be a narrative (went up with…and settled with), it too reveals a world of social instability, with consequences that will later unfold in the lives of Heber and Jael (4:11, 17). Verse 19 nuances the positive outlook of v. 18 and is based on Josh 17:16–18, which is to say that Joseph’s situation in Joshua is here applied to Judah. No negative judgment is intended (see note on v. 19). The stock phrase chariots made with iron signals Israel’s military inferiority (Josh 17:16, 18–19). Judges 1:20 seems to be intended to correct the impression left by v. 10 in light of Josh 15:13–14. Its reference back to Moses points to Josh 14:9. The chapter’s only mention of Benjamin (Judg 1:21) is appropriately sandwiched between Judah and Joseph. The comment is a variation on Josh 15:63 that erases Judah’s failure in regard to Jerusalem stated in that verse. The reader is subtly reminded that the city was technically part of Benjamin (see Josh 16:16; 18:22). Judah’s success at Jerusalem has already been mentioned in Judg 1:8, but since no actual settlement is mentioned there, v. 21 is not really a contradiction. The change from “could not” in Josh 15:63 to did not in Judg 1:21 is consistent with the more negative attitude of Judges 1 to the northern tribe reflected in vv. 27–33. Judges 1 uniformly uses did not except for Judah in v. 19. This language of did not in contrast to “could not” opens the way to a disapproving interpretation of the failure of these tribes, especially when read in the light of 2:1–5. To this day in v. 21 and v. 26 ties together Jerusalem and Bethel (as does the verbal parallel between v. 8 and v. 25). [22–36] A third incorporated narrative describes the capture of Bethel as the only success reported for a northern group. The expression house of Joseph forms a bracket with v. 35, enclosing the entire northern segment with reports of moderate success on the part of Joseph. The achievement of Joseph at Bethel contrasts with the failures of its constituent tribes described in vv. 27–29. Two rhetorical features set up parallels between Joseph and Judah/Simeon and between Bethel and Jerusalem. First, the house of Joseph also went up of v. 22 ties back to vv. 3–4 and invites reader comparison with the successes of Judah/Simeon. Second, it is said only of Judah and Joseph that Yahweh was with the group (vv. 19 and 22).

24 Judges

The Bethel story is bookended by a resumptive repetition of the to this day formula in vv. 21 and 26. This bracketing coordinates Bethel with Jerusalem, as does the verbal parallel struck [the city] with the edge of the sword (vv. 8 and 25) and the verb šalaḥ (“set fire” in v. 8 and “let go” in v. 25). The narrative highlights Bethel, a city not conquered in Joshua. This prepares readers for the interest in Bethel found in Judg 4:5; 20:18, 26; 21:2. Like the narratives about Adoni-bezek and Achsah, the Bethel conquest story is a tale about how power shifts. However, it is also a story about survival and new beginnings in the shape of a newly founded city. Read in light of 2:1–5, this example of ḥesed (v. 24; “covenant loyalty”; commentary translation deal loyally) might sound like an example of a disobedient covenant with the inhabitants of the land. However, this citizen of Bethel safely removes himself to some distant land of the Hittites, probably in north Syria. In vv. 27–29, the sequence of first Manasseh, then Ephraim reverses that of Josh 16:5–10 and 17:1, 7–13, but follows that of Josh 16:4. The order of the tribes after Manasseh and Ephraim follows the sequence in Joshua 19, except that Issachar is strangely absent in Judges. Issachar may be missing because it does not appear in a major way in Judges (only in Judg 5:15 and 10:1). Gad does not appear in Judges either, and Reuben is only mentioned as a no-show (5:15–16). The geographic horizon of Judges as a whole is completely west of Jordan. Dan proves to be the least successful tribe, so that as the one dealt with last, it provides a sharp contrast to the successful first tribe Judah, even though paradoxically both tribes were limited to the highlands (compare 1:11 and v. 34). The remainder of the Dan story is put off until near the end of Judges. Thus, 1:34–35 may be said to form a sort of grand bracket with Dan’s settlement in the north recounted in chs. 17–18. This bracket is nested inside an even larger inclusio created by the question and answer of 1:1 and 20:18. The established structure of vv. 27–33 changes in vv. 34–36. The south to north pattern is broken. Focus shifts to the Amorites, who become the grammatical subject of the action. Forced labor is imposed on the Amorites in the Danite area, but on account of the power of the house of Joseph, not Dan. Verse 36 is vague and hard to understand, but sets a limit to the extent of the conquest. The language relates to Num 34:4 and Josh 15:3. In the latter setting this description specifies the south border of Judah. So in this way, a final reference to Judahite territory creates a subtle inclusio around the whole of Judges 1.

 Judges 1

25

Genre and Composition Today there is general, but not universal, consensus that Judg 1:1–2:5 was added to an earlier form of Judges that began with 2:6–10 (a parallel of Josh 24:28–31 in a verse sequence appropriate to Judges). When Judges 1 was composed as a new introduction, Judges had been separated from Joshua. A need must have been felt for a more extensive introduction in order to provide situational background and to lead into Judg 2:6–10. As will be seen, the addition of ch. 1 to the beginning of the core of Judges was connected in some way to the addition of chs. 17–21 to its close. From the perspective of form criticism, Judges 1 consists of a list presented in the guise of a narrative, into which three traditional narratives have been inserted. Adoni-bezek illustrates the relationship between acts and consequences in terms of divine reckoning. In terms of genre, the Achsah story is a land grant narrative and the Bethel tale is a conquest narrative. The three stories embedded into the larger tribal list genre are in some ways similar to the little conquest vignettes inserted in the Chronicles genealogy (compare 1 Chr 4:39–43; 5:18–26). Adoni-bezek is unconvincing as a theophoric name and sounds more like a title, “lord of the town Bezek.” Presumably the personal name was created on the basis of the underlying toponym of the traditional story. The common suggestion that it should be read as Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem in Josh 10:1, goes too far, but there was probably some oblique connection between the two personages in the tradition pool. The Achsah story is a land grant narrative, similar to Josh 14:6–15; 17:3–6; 17:14–18, and 21:1–3. Such stories assert territorial claims, often as the result of a request granted (Josh 14:12; 21:2) or the resolution of a problem or dispute (17:3, 14–18). The Achsah clan must have told this story in order to assert its claim to two springs associated with Debir. That Achsah was the name of a clan associated with Caleb is suggested by 1 Chr 2:49, where Achsah is an element in Caleb’s clan structure. In the Bethel story, context-dependent elements are limited to Judg 1:22, so vv. 23–26 appear to stem from an earlier oral or written source. As a conquest narrative, it displays several typical motifs. It features a “helpful turncoat” character similar to Rahab, and indeed the two stories share the phrase deal loyally (v. 24; Josh 2:12–14). Both of these foreigners save the lives of their kinfolk. The man of Bethel rescues his entire extended family (mišpaḥâ), allowing him to establish a city. The etiological formula of Judg 1:25 is unusual for a place outside Palestine (another example is 2 Kgs 14:7). First Samuel 30:11–15 also reflects the narrative motif of information provided by a compromised enemy.

26 Judges

Sending spies to gather information before an attack is a characteristic feature of conquest stories (in Judges: Jericho, Ai, and Laish; Num 13; 21:32). In this case, the hiphil verb in v. 23 denotes “arrange for a reconnaissance,” and the Josephites are “watchers” or “guards,” sent to observe activities near Bethel. When they see (qal of rh) the man, they induce him to show the way in and he showed the way in (both verbs are hiphil of rh; vv. 24–25). The narrative motif of a betrayed and unguarded access point is common in literature, and one may compare David’s entry into Jerusalem through an unexpected route (2 Sam 5:8). The entry point could refer to a secondary gate for access to water, a postern gate, or a spot on the wall that was easy to scale. An alternate tradition credits Jacob with renaming Luz (almond tree) as Bethel (Gen 28:19). Joshua 16:2 indicates that the two toponyms were used contemporaneously and could be considered neighboring localities. It is possible that the syntax of v. 22 (lacking a preposition where the commentary translation supplies against) hints at a pilgrimage to a shrine as well as an attack on a city (compare Gen 35:1, 3; Judg 20:18, 26). The capture of Bethel highlights the fruitful employment of spies and stratagems. It anticipates the stratagems of Ehud, Jael, and the attack on Gibeah; the spies who investigate Laish; and changing the name of a defeated city (Luz to Bethel, Laish to Dan). Special interest in Bethel returns in 20:18, 26, and 31. At the end of ch. 1, two “lines of extent” compactly describe the border area associated with Dan. This topographic genre describes territory in a generalized manner using the formula “from…to,” as, for example, in Deut 11:24; Josh 13:3–4; Num 13:21; 2 Sam 24:2. The first line moves out from the Scorpion Ascent, while a second sets forth from the Rock upwards, probably eastward. A previous generation of scholars considered the tribal list framework of Judges 1 to be an older source document providing a more historically accurate version of an Israelite conquest than that of the book of Joshua. This view has largely been abandoned. The chapter was designated a negatives Besitzverzeichnis (negative settlement list), understood as a selfcontained, trustworthy document that was combined with other material to make up ch. 1. This genre description does recognize the undoubted list quality of Judges 1. However, there are persuasive indications that this chapter does not represent an earlier source, but was composed specifically to serve as a bridge between Joshua 23 (and perhaps ch. 24) and the book of Judges. It forms a theological reflection on the problem of the incomplete conquest as disclosed in Joshua 23 and a summary of the situation after the death of Joshua (v. 1; an imitation of Josh 1:1?) in order to introduce Judges. An over-all intensification in steadily declining

 Judges 1

27

fortunes makes the notion of a “negative settlement list” problematic. Judges 1 is clearly a composite text constructed out of disparate materials, much of which was gathered from various places in the last half of Joshua (see below). In genre, therefore, Judges 1 is a tribal catalog and is as a scribal composition based on earlier written material and traditions. In that sense it is a species of historiography. Conventions of scribal list composition are reflected in the reproduction of strings of toponyms (compare vv. 18, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35) that function to locate tradition on a sort of verbal map. This feature is reminiscent of the list of Levitical cities found in Joshua 21, which is also a scribal construct based on place name lists from elsewhere in Joshua. The logic of Judges 1 is not really narratival or chronological, but that of a list that generates meaning though juxtaposition, like a collage or a mosaic. Thus vv. 8 and 21 do not so much represent a contradiction or correction, but are juxtaposed in a paratactic way in order for the reader to derive meaning from this association. Of course, the initial question who will go up first, the two sequence markers (after in v. 9 and from there in v. 11), and discourse structured on the basis of waw consecutives, do make what is basically a list into a sort of sequential narrative, most clearly up through v. 26. However, from v. 27 on sequential consecutive action disappears. In these verses, the scope of time for each tribe in turn appears to take place concurrently and consists of an initial phase of did not drive out and lived in the midst, followed in several cases by an imposition of forced labor at a later period. Chronological progression dissolves into a list of paradigmatic cases. Especially in vv. 29, 30, 31, and 33, each of which begins with a tribal name, the list character of the unit comes to the fore. There is internal evidence of a compositional process that utilized earlier sources. A complicated history of composition is indicated by awkward shifts between singular and plural in vv. 4–5, 10–11, 16, 17, and 34. Striking differences in perspective emerge when one compares vv. 8 and 21 or vv. 10 and 20. Verse 4 is a functional parallel to v. 17, the latter verse picking up the topic of Simeon, which is absent from vv. 4–16. It seems that the author took the verb lh from v. 3a to begin v. 4 and then the verb hlk from v. 3b to start vv. 17. Verse 4 provides a compositional link to incorporate the Adoni-bezek narrative (vv. 5–7) by repeating some of the content of v. 5 (at Bezek…struck down…Canaanites and Perizzites) in reverse order. The content and some of the sequence of Judg 1:9–21 follows the lead of Joshua 15:

28 Judges

1. Judg 1:9 and Josh 15:21, 33, 48 (hill country, Negev, and lowland districts) 2. Judg 1:16 and Josh 15:61 (wilderness district) 3. Judg 1:18 and Josh 15: 45–47 4. Judg 1:21 and Josh 15:63 The generalized geographic description of Judg 1:9 is particularized in the verses that follow: hill country in vv. 10–15, Negev in vv. 16–17, lowland in vv. 18–19. These three designations were picked up from the district headings of Josh 15:21, 33, and 48. In addition, Judg 1:16 references the wilderness district of Josh 15:61. Joshua 15:15–19 is the source of the Achsah story. Verse 10 incorporates the narrative into the larger structure by supplementing the content of Josh 15:14 with material from Josh 14:15. The exploits of Caleb and Othniel fit the surrounding context in Joshua better than that of Judges 1. In Joshua, they are prepared for by Josh 14:6–15 and introduce the topic of territory granted to Judah. In contrast, the abrupt appearance of Caleb in Judg 1:12 is utterly unexpected because Judg 1:10 has just credited the actions of Caleb reported in Josh 15:13–14 to Judah. As a result, the grammatical subject of Judg 1:11 is Judah, whereas in Josh 15:15 the subject is Caleb. So with Judah as the actor in the conquest of Hebron and the advance on Debir, Caleb’s sudden, explained appearance is disconcerting. The reader of Judges must wonder who Caleb is and what he has to do with Debir. From this point on, verbal parallels between Joshua and Judges are pronounced. Judges 1:13 supplements the identification of Othniel as younger than him in parallel with Judg 3:9. Variations between Josh 15:19 and Judg 1:15 are inconsequential. Judges adds to him after she said, uses a different verb for give, and specifies Caleb as the explicit subject of the second half of the verse. The relationship between Judg 1:16–17 and Num 21:1–3 is more complex than a matter of simple dependence of one text on the other. Neither text is smoothly integrated into its context. They represent two variations on the same etiology narrative, explaining the name Hormah on the basis of an application of ḥērem. The city’s name (properly meaning “sacred area”) must have generated the story. Both versions share the locale of Arad and the Negev. “The Canaanite” of Numbers appears as the Kenite in Judges, and Atharim (htrym) in Numbers and city of palms (htmrym) in Judges mirror each other. Only Judges mentions the former name Zephath (a variation on the more common toponym Mizpah). Judges 1:20 was constructed on the basis of Josh 14:6b, 14b, and 15:14a.

 Judges 1

29

Judges 1:27–28 is dependent on Josh 17:12a plus 17:11 plus 17:12b–13, but cross-textual contamination and text-critical uncertainty makes it difficult to untangle details. The content of the verses fits perfectly with the context of Joshua, moving forward that book’s interest in cross-tribal claims (compare Josh 17:8–10), in this case on the north Manasseh margin. Joshua with its predominantly geographical interest uses yrš to denote “take possession of” with “cities” as the direct object in Josh 17:12. The parallel language in Judg 1:27 follows this usage at first (using city names as direct objects for Beth-shean and Taanach), but then shifts to using the same verb to mean dispossess (or “drive out”) with inhabitants as direct object. Contextually this makes sense, because Judges 1 is interested in peoples and uses this language elsewhere (vv. 11, 21, 29–33). Yet Joshua follows the “inhabitants” usage of Judges in 17:7, 11. The sequence switch between Taanach and Ibleam is to be expected in a textual situation where haplography is easy. In restructuring the notice concerning Manasseh, Judg 1:27 changed Josh 17:11–12 from Joshua’s morally neutral language of “could not dispossess” to the potentially blameworthy did not. Although Judges 1 uniformly uses did not in vv. 27–33, Joshua reads “could not” in 15:63 (changed in Judg 1:21 to did not) and 17:12. However Josh 16:10 and 17:13 (Ephraim and Manasseh) uses did not as Judges does. Reciprocal textual contamination cannot be excluded. Judges 1:29 parallels Josh 16:10, but without its characteristic mention of forced labor. In what follows, the city names for Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan (Judg 1:30, 31, 33, 35) are excerpted from the toponym lists of Joshua (Josh 19:15, 29–30, 38, 41–42). For the first three tribes, the names are supplemented with the inhabitants of to accommodate the interest in the topics of living together and forced labor. It is sometimes suggested that Judg 1:34–35 was composed on the basis of the longer Greek text of Josh 19:47–48 rather than MT. Actually the Greek of Joshua represents a harmonistic text substantially supplemented by material from Judg 1:34–35.

J u d g es 2

Yahweh’s Angel Condemns Israel The angel of Yahweh went up from Gilgal to Bochim. He said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I had promised on oath to your ancestors. I said, “I will never break my covenant with you. 2 You must not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land. You must break down their altars.” But you have not obeyed me. What is this thing you have done? 3 And further I now say, “I will not drive them out before you. They shall be [thorns] in your sides. Their gods shall be a snare for you.” 4 As soon as the angel of Yahweh spoke these words to all the Israelites, the people wept out loud. 5 So they named that place Bochim. They sacrificed there to Yahweh. 1

Joshua and His Generation Die Joshua sent the people away. Each of the Israelites went to his inherited property to take possession of the land. 7 The people served Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the older people who outlived Joshua, who had seen every great work that Yahweh had done for Israel. 8 Joshua son of Nun, Yahweh’s servant, died at the age of one hundred and ten. 9 They buried him within the boundary of his own hereditary property, in Timnathheres in the hill country of Ephraim north of Mount Gaash. 10 That whole generation was also gathered to their ancestors. Then another generation arose after them who had not experienced Yahweh or the work he had done for Israel. 6

Apostasy, Punishment, Rescue Then the Israelites did evil in Yahweh’s judgment and served the Baals. They abandoned Yahweh the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods from among the gods of the peoples who surrounded them. They bowed down to them. So they provoked Yahweh. 13 They abandoned Yahweh and gave service to the Baals and Astartes. 14 So Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel. He gave them into the hand of plunderers who plundered them. He sold them into the hand 11

12

 Judges 2

31

of their enemies, so that they no longer could stand up to their enemies.  Whenever they went out, Yahweh’s hand was against them for harm, just as Yahweh had spoken and just as Yahweh has sworn to them. They were in great distress. 16 Then Yahweh raised up judges. They delivered them from the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they did not listen even to their judges, in that they prostituted themselves after other gods and bowed down to them. They quickly turned aside from the way that their ancestors had walked, obeying the commandments of Yahweh. They did not act like that. 18 Whenever Yahweh raised up judges for them, Yahweh would be with the judge and would deliver them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. This was because Yahweh would be moved to pity by their groaning on account of those who oppressed and crushed them. 19 But whenever the judge died, again they would act more corruptly than their ancestors, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways. 20 So Yahweh’s anger against Israel was ignited. He said, “Because this people have violated my covenant that I commanded their ancestors and have not obeyed my voice, 21 I for my part will no longer dispossess before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died.” 22 This was in order to test Israel by them, whether they would observe the way of Yahweh to walk in them, just as their ancestors had done—or not. 23 Yahweh had allowed those nations to stay, not dispossessing them at once, and had not given them into the hand of Joshua. 15

Notes 1 to Bochim] Follows MT, supported by V T Syr. Bochim is presented as a plural active participle, but should more properly be taken as “place of weeping,” featuring the toponym suffix ym vocalized as ayim). The Greek tradition translates Bochim as “the Weeper” and supplements MT with two conflated variants: “to Bethel” and “to the house of Israel.” “To the house of Israel” (omitted by OL) resulted either from the similarity between l btl and l bt yśrl or inner-Greek confusion arising from the practice of abbreviating Israel as iota-eta-lambda. The reading “to Bethel” is an explanatory gloss referencing the weeping of the people at Bethel in 20:23, 26; 21:2 as well as the Oak of Weeping (Allon-bacuth) near Bethel (Gen 35:8). Therefore, Bochim should not be identified with Bethel on the basis of the Greek plus. If the site is not identical with Allon-bacuth, another possibility is bkym (2 Sam 5:23 read as a toponym: Bekaim), north and west of Jerusalem. This is usually translated “balsam trees.” I brought you up…and brought you] The grammar of imperfect and consecutive imperfect in parallel is a puzzle. A past-tense translation for the initial imperfect verb is required (IBHS 31.1.1d) because it is immediately continued by a waw consecutive of the same verb. OG “and he said to them, ‘the Lord brought you up’ ” is intended

32 Judges to avoid too close an identification between the angel and Yahweh. LXXB and Syr engage in similar maneuvers. T construes the speaker as a prophet, and in rabbinic interpretation this messenger is Phinehas. 2 must break down] The paragogic nun may mark a contrast with normal practice or with the wishes of the audience (IBHS 31.7.1b). not obeyed me] Hebrew: “did not listen to my voice.” See v. 20 and Judg 6:10. The Greek tradition prefaces this with further admonitions echoing Exod 23:24; 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3. 3 And further I now say] The commentary translation assumes a causal connection to vv. 1b–2 and a contrast between the former state of affairs and the present situation (NRSV: “So now I say”; NJPS: “Therefore, I have resolved”; NJB: “Very well, I now say this”). It is possible to translate the waw plus perfect that begins v. 3 as “and I also said,” construing v. 3 as looking back in time along with vv. 1–2 rather than into the future. Understood in this way, the situation is that Yahweh has made two separate past pronouncements. First, “I will not break covenant with you and I expect you not to do so either.” Second, “I will not drive off your enemies so that they will become a snare. I have already warned you!” This way of construing the syntax communicates that total conquest had never been Yahweh’s plan. The role of the angel and the warning seems to look back to Exod 23:20–33 (especially vv. 29–30); 34:11–15, and Josh 23:13. [thorns] in your sides] Follows MT “for sides.” The general meaning of the expression is nearly assured but the text itself is questionable. MT ṣiddîm allows for several possible interpretations. It could be a genuine word meaning “trap, snare,” following Akkadian ṣaddu “rope, cord” thus “snare, trap.” Alternatively, it could be a daleth for resh copying error for ṣrym “opponents” (with support from an Arabic root; see NRSV). The ancient versions seem to support this latter possibility but may be trying to interpret a difficult text on the basis of Num 33:55 and Josh 23:13. The commentary translation retains MT and understands it either as a haplographic corruption of the expression “thorns in their sides” found in Num 33:55 and Josh 23:13 or as a shorthand reference to this metaphor. REB “they will entice you astray” is apparently from the same Akkadian word cited above, but taken as “sign, signal.” snares] The image relates to the capture of birds and conveys a loss of freedom and fullness of life. 4 out loud] Hebrew: “lifted up their voice and wept.” See 21:2. 7 older people] Not “elders” in the administrative sense. NJPS: “the lifetime of the older people who lived on after Joshua.” 9 Timnath-heres] Meaning “portion of the sun.” This religiously offensive reference was mitigated by a transposition of letters in Syr and V into a more orthodox Timnathserah, “portion of excess.” Timnath-serah, however, is the earliest recoverable text of Josh 19:50 and 24:30.

 Judges 2

33

13 gave service to] Using this verb with the preposition l is rare (1 Sam 4:9; Jer 44:3): “worked for.” Baals and Astartes] The divine names are made plural in order to disparage them as inherently polytheistic and to generalize Israel’s apostasy. 15 great distress] Follows the impersonal construction of MT: “it was greatly constricted for them.” OG reads as though hiphil: “[Yahweh] distressed them greatly.” Compare 10:9. 16 they delivered] Follows MT. OG (LXXAL) “he delivered,” harmonizes with v. 18 and the Greek interpretation of v. 15. LXXB specifies “Yahweh.” 17 like that] Taking ken as “thusly, in the same manner,” referring to the way of the ancestors. NJPS “they did not do right” construes ken instead as “correct, right.” 18 would be with…would deliver] Waw consecutive perfect expresses ongoing repetition of the cycle and makes it likely that Yahweh is the grammatical subject throughout. crushed] Follows MT. OG (LXXL) translated this rare word as kakountōn (mistreated). This was dropped from LXXA by haplography and corrected in LXXB to ekthlibontōn (afflicted). 19 again] Hebrew: “they would turn back and…” any of] Translating the two occurrences of partitive min. their stubborn ways] Before this second direct object, OG (LXXL, OL) includes a second verb kai ouk apestēsan “and did not turn away [from].” This is more likely to be a translation strategy to provide an appropriate lead in for “ways” than an indication of haplography in MT: w[l swrw] mdrkm. 21 when he died] Follows the awkward MT, which is literally, “and he died.” OG (represented by OL) omits “and he died,” perhaps as something it did not understand. BHQ prefers this shorter text. OG connects v. 22a to v. 21: “nations that Joshua left to test Israel.” In place of he died LXXABL preserves a doublet translation of the verb left: katelipen and aphēken (compare v. 23). 22 way…in them] Follows the awkward mismatch of plural and singular in MT. The ancient versions (LXX, V, Syr) solved this by reading “in it.” T translated “way” as “ways,” so that haplography in MT is possible: drk[y] yhwh, preferred by BHQ.

Structure and Rhetoric Israel’s failures constitute the overall theme of the otherwise disconnected ch. 2: the Bochim accusation, the inexperienced new generation (vv. 7–11), the judges cycle described in a way that emphasizes repeated disloyalty (vv. 11–18), and Yahweh’s frustrated reaction to continued disloyalty (vv. 19–23).

34 Judges

When the reader seeks to follow the final form of ch. 2, confusion surfaces in regard to narrative chronology. The chronological marker of Joshua’s death, reported in 2:8–9, provides some stability, although the Bochim incident with its waw consecutive connection to ch. 1 causes perplexity. The basic plot line is that Israel remained faithful as long as Joshua and his contemporaries who outlived him were still alive, but then a new generation emerged without first-hand experience of Yahweh’s saving deeds (2:7, 10). This situation leads directly into a summary in 2:11–19 of the cycle that structures 3:7–16:31. Also occurring after the death of Joshua (1:1) are the events of 1:1–36, but these are not coordinated with anything that takes place in ch. 2, except by the waw consecutive verb of 2:1. The reader thus has to assume that what is reported in ch. 1 and in 2:1–5 happened at the same time as the other events that took place after Joshua died. These other events are what is reported in 2:7b and 10 and the apostasy that takes place at the start of the Othniel cycle in 3:7. This pre-Othniel apostasy is previewed and editorialized about in 2:11–19 and 20–23. The reader also has to conclude that the story of Achsah (1:11–15) took place before 3:8 and that the relocation of Moses’ Kenite father-in-law (1:16) happened before Jael’s exploit (4:11). So far, so good. However, chronological uncertainty arises concerning Yahweh’s decision no longer to drive out the nations. Clearly their continued existence is a plot necessity for the cyclically structured hero tales that begin with 3:7, but the timing of Yahweh’s change of policy remains indeterminate. Incomplete conquest was a feature both of the era of Joshua (2:21 and 23) and the era after Joshua’s death (1:1–36). But pinning down Yahweh’s pivotal change of heart that converted a temporary situation into a permanent one is awkward. The problem is caused by the waw consecutive sequencing of 2:1 and 6 and then of vv. 11–23. Taken by itself, the unit 1:1–36 describes both successes and failures in the land-acquisition project, but does not explicitly raise the issue of disobedience. These notices simply state that the tribes did not (vv. 21, 27, 28–29, 30, 31–32, 33) dispossess various indigenous inhabitants. Context makes it clear, moreover, that Judah and Dan were unable to do so in vv. 19b and 34. The chapter also portrays the resultant situation of forced labor and intermixed population distribution (vv. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35), but does not disapprove or refer to disobedience on Israel’s part in any way. But the evaluative tone changes sharply with 2:1–5 and its diatribe against Israel’s failure to obey the command of Deut 7:2, 5, which in turn leads to the punishment that was threatened in Josh 23:13.

 Judges 2

35

If Judg 2:1 is the next event (waw consecutive) after what is reported in ch. 1, then Israel’s disobedience took place during the events of ch. 1 and Yahweh’s change of heart took place sometime after Joshua’s death reported in 1:1. However, the Bochim incident is not really firmly located in the sequence of events. If the angel’s visit took place after the death of Joshua, then the waw consecutive grammar that portrays Joshua’s act of dismissal in 2:6 causes a problem. This syntax might be construed to indicate that the Bochim incident and the disobedience that caused it took place before Joshua died and that Joshua is dismissing the people from an assembly at Bochim and not from Shechem (as in the parallel verse Josh 24:28). Yet this interpretation contradicts everything else in 1:1–3:6. The realities of the text force the reader to construe 2:6–10 as a flashback to a time before 1:1–2:5. An initial reading of 2:6 might cause the reader to think that Joshua dismissed the assembled people from Bochim, but a review of 1:1; 2:7, 21–23 shows that this is impossible because the decision announced by the angel had not yet been taken until after Joshua’s death. From a rhetorical standpoint, then, Judg 2:6–7 must be read as a flashback circling back to the dismissal reported in Josh 24:28. So, the apostasy that leads eventually to Yahweh’s second thoughts happens sometime in the generations after Joshua’s death. Joshua 2:10 leads into the waw consecutive of v. 11 (then the Israelites did evil), which in turn leads into v. 20 (so Yahweh’s anger…was ignited). However, if the description of the apostasy/deliverance/apostasy cycle in vv. 11–19 is a general preview of the stories from Othniel to Samson, then where does Yahweh’s decision to stop dispossessing the nations described in vv. 20–23 fit chronologically? Apparently this was not a concern for the writer of vv. 20–23, and the reader will construe this, not as a new event, but as a restatement of Yahweh’s decision proclaimed in 2:1–5, one that took place after the death of Joshua. The story timeline (fabula) presents Judg 2:6–10 as happening first. Joshua and his generation dies. Then what is described in 1:1–36 and 2:11–23 unfolds over time in an undefined parallel way until the corresponding divine pronouncements of 2:3 and 21 are reached. [1–5] The narrative structure of the Bochim incident falls into two parts: the angel’s arrival and speech (vv. 1–3) followed by audience reaction (vv. 4–5). The unit boundaries are set by movement on the part of the angel in v. 1 and by Israel in the following narrative (v. 6). A new grammatical subject arrives abruptly in v. 1. The narrative sequence is straightforward: he said (v. 1); Israel wept, named, and sacrificed (vv. 4–5). However,

36 Judges

the reported speech in vv. 1b–3 is confusing, especially in regard to the intended relationship between vv. 1b–2 and v. 3. In vv. 1b–2 the contrast is between what I (Yahweh) did and said in the past and what you (Israel) did. Verse 3 then introduces a confusing second contrast (and further; Hebrew: wəgam) between what Yahweh had said in the past in v. 1b and what Yahweh is now saying. The former, annulled discourse of v. 1b (I said) is embedded in the overall self-referential discourse (I brought… I now say, “I will not”). For the difficult temporal syntax of the angel’s speech, see the note on v. 3. The upshot is that the disobedience described in v. 2b causes Yahweh’s change of heart and the coming danger of alien peoples and their entangling gods. Yahweh’s past actions (I brought) have now been replaced by a policy of inaction (I will not drive them out). The people’s reaction communicates the catastrophic seriousness of this reversal of fortune (as soon as). Lamentation and sacrifice are the last act in the drama. There is no divine response. The Bochim unit gives an impression of being isolated, but the angel’s movement in 2:1 in fact reflects the go up/went up of 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 16, and 22. The language of 2:1–3 will reappear in the speech of an angry Yahweh in 2:20–21: covenant, not obeyed, before you/them. Moreover, the narrative situation, content, and language of 2:1–3 are similar to that of 6:8–10, where an anonymous prophet is sent, and 10:10–16, where Yahweh himself speaks severely but in the end relents. The Israelites wept at Bochim, as they would again at Bethel on the eve of the solution to the crisis with Benjamin (21:20). There are also connections to other places in the larger complex of Joshua–2 Kings. Gilgal, Israel’s base camp in Joshua (4:19–20; 5:9–10; 9:6), resurfaces, albeit abruptly. The angel seems to be a reappearance of the heavenly being encountered near there by Joshua (Josh 5:13–15). The same accusation of disobedience (Hebrew: “not listen to my voice”) with reference to the covenant reappears in 2 Kgs 18:12. The angel’s perspective looks back over the book of Exodus through the lens of Joshua, and then forward to life in the land. How Israel relates to the nations described in Judges 1 is the critical issue, but actually Yahweh has already decided the matter of Israel’s future. Because Israel has failed to keep separate from the inhabitants of this land (compare Exod 34:12–13; Deut 7:2, 5), they must suffer the consequences threatened in Josh 23:13. On the other hand, the angel’s message sharply contrasts to the treatment of the themes of foreign gods, obedience, and covenant found in Josh 24:24–25.

 Judges 2

37

I will never break my covenant Yahweh had said (2:1), and Israel for its part was not to make covenants with the inhabitants of the land of promise. Beginning with the eighth-century prophet Hosea and propagated by Deuteronomy and literature stemming from it, the concept of covenant became a core theological locus. Alerted by the Bochim angel and Judg 2:20, the reader will remember that Israel had already covenanted with the Gibeonites (Josh 9), Rahab’s family (Josh 2:12, 14), and the betrayer of Bethel (Judg 1:34; ḥesed language in the last two examples). Moreover, the forced-labor situations of Judges 1 would obviously have involved some sort of reciprocity agreements. The angel emphasizes that Yahweh did not break his covenant; it was Israel who did. The painful consequences will be illustrated in Judges, but the relationship of the people to its God is not terminated. The Israelites wept and sacrificed, an appropriate response certainly, but obedience would have been better. [6–10] The waw consecutive syntax of vv. 6–10 might make the reader think at first that Joshua dismissed the people from Bochim, but as mentioned above this would create an intolerable contradiction with 1:1 and 2:1. In the present form of the text, the storyline has moved backward in time to the assembly reported in Joshua 23 (or 24) and the death of Joshua that follows it. In this flashback section, Israel still needs to take possession (yrš) of the land. The narrative sequence continues until v. 10a when a new grammatical subject is highlighted by a subject first-word order that emphasizes completeness (whole generation). The death of this generation contemporary with and then outliving Joshua is connected to his death by also (wəgam), thus completing the topic introduced by v. 7 and setting up the contrast with v. 10b (another generation). The narrative continues with the waw consecutive of v. 10b (then…arose), to which the sequence of cyclic disobedience is attached by the waw consecutive of v. 11. The title Yahweh’s servant (v. 8) was first borne by Moses (Josh 1:1), and then by Joshua (Josh 24:29; Judg 2:8), who left no designated successor. Samson applies the title to himself in Judg 15:18. 11–23] The summary schema set forth in vv. 11–19 reviews elements of the book’s cyclical pattern, but deviates from it in order to emphasize Israel’s disobedience. The review extracts the formula did evil in Yahweh’s judgment (2:11) that is used for all the hero judges, along with particulars of this evil (2:11–13) taken from Othniel and Jephthah (3:7; 10:6). Then follows in 2:14 formulaic language about Yahweh’s burning anger (3:8, 12) and its consequence, namely that Israel was sold (or sometimes “delivered”) into enemy hands (2:14; 4:2; 6:1; 10:7; 13:1). This summary

38 Judges

schema also reflects the plot of Judges in a general way by reporting Yahweh’s compassion (2:18; on the basis of 10:16?). The stories of the judges unquestionably testify that the people prostituted themselves after other gods (2:17; compare 8:33) and abandoned Yahweh (2:12, 13; compare 10:10, 13). Yahweh was undeniably with (2:18) Gideon at least, according to 8:12–13. The summary review begins in v. 11 with a change in grammatical subject to the more general Israelites in place of the narrower single generation of v. 10. Verse 14 presents another change in subject to Yahweh and Yahweh’s anger. The rest of v. 14 and v. 15 then give illustrations of negative consequences. Verse 15 explains and illustrates v. 14 with prepositional expressions: whenever, just as, just as, and a grammatically impersonal description of Israel’s distress. Verse 16 is positive, creating a contrast in tone and topic by changing the grammatical subject back to Yahweh. Verses 17, 18, and 19 cover the same material as vv. 11–16 and provide three comments on v. 16 in a negative, positive, negative pattern. Verse 17 immediately turns back to the negative with a contrasting yet (wəgam), foregrounding their judges by word order. After indictments, the verse stresses a contrast with the obedience of past generations. Verse 18 begins with a temporal clause echoing v. 15 and explains that Yahweh’s willingness to raise up a judge as described in v. 16 was motivated by divine pity, not by Israel’s non-existent obedience. Beginning with a disjunctive impersonal expression of time referring to the death of each judge, v. 19 points out that the cycle inexorably returned to the mode of disobedience described in vv. 11–13. It is striking that there is no reference to crying out to Yahweh or repentance on Israel’s part anywhere in vv. 11–23. There is only groaning as a phenomenon that incites divine pity, but this groaning is not addressed to Yahweh (compare Exod 2:24). Overall, the perspective of vv. 11–19 focuses entirely on the damaged relationship between Israel and Yahweh. This contrasts with the perspective of the cyclical framing structure of the rest of the book, which focuses on the fate of Israel’s enemies and allows Israel periods of repentance. No doubt the chronological complexity introduced by vv. 20–23 resulted from successive, inattentive scribal additions. Yahweh’s decisive verdict (the one announced by the angel in v. 3) permits the nations whom Joshua left behind at his death to remain. But the temporal relationship of this divine decision to the cycle outlined in vv. 11–16 and the comments on the cycle in vv. 17–19 is not nailed down. It appears that the divine judgment speech in vv. 20–21b is the result of Israel’s disobedience within the cycles (waw consecutives in the first part of v. 20). This means that the events of 1:1–36 and Yahweh’s decision in v. 23 are parallel to and

 Judges 2

39

contemporary with the cycles of 2:11–19 and Yahweh’s decision reported in 2:20b–21. Because the cycles of 2:11–19 summarize the following judges stories, the reader is likely to assume that Yahweh’s critical change of heart to convert a temporary situation into a permanent one took place after more than one of those judges had arisen. Yahweh’s burning anger (v. 20), then, is one occurrence of the cycle stage described in v. 14, but one so serious that it led to a reversal in Yahweh’s attitude and actions. This divine about-face is never explicitly mentioned in the body of the book, although there is a somewhat similar occurrence in 10:11–14. Yahweh’s angry internal thoughts (he said) in v. 20 are continued in v. 21 by means of gam ănî (I for my part). The emphatic explicit first person singular pronoun sets up a causal relationship between the actions of this people (an expression of relational distance) in v. 20 and no longer disposes in v. 21. In order to (ləmaan) at the start of v. 22 can be read in two ways. Many translations (for example, ESV NIV) take it as a continuation of Yahweh’s speech, looking backward to give reasons for the decision of v. 21. The alternative is to construe v. 22 as a comment by the narrator stating the motivation for the situation of v. 23, the persistence of enemy nations during Joshua’s career. This is the approach taken by the commentary translation, NRSV, and NJPS. The latter translates, “For it was in order to test Israel by them…that the LORD had left those nations.” The logic behind this translation is that Israel would have already completely failed such a test of obedience after the events of vv. 11–20. Verse 23 causes no problems when read as a retrospective summary of the situation during Joshua’s lifetime, when Yahweh tolerated the nations on a temporary basis (not…at once). Thus, the commentary translation uses the past perfect: Yahweh had allowed…had not given them up. The chapter division is based on understanding the disjunctive “now these are” list introduction of 3:1 as marking a sense unit boundary. However the topic of the nations continues into ch. 3, so that overall three reasons are given for the survival of the nations: as punishment (2:20–21), as a test of obedience (2:22; 3:1, 4), and to train Israel in war (3:2). Elsewhere in the Bible yet another explanation is offered: wild beasts would multiply (Exod 23:29; Deut 7:22). Genre and Composition Syntactical and topical irregularities evidence a complex history of composition. The transition between vv. 1–5 and 6–10 is harsh, indicating that the former verses relate more directly to ch. 1 than to the rest of ch. 2. Further irregularities resulted when the core text of vv. 6–10 was written forward to preview the upcoming cycles of disobedience through the lens

40 Judges

of Yahweh’s judgment and to provide explanations for the persistence of foreign populations in Canaan. As already mentioned, this complicated compositional history tangles up the chronology of chs. 1 and 2. [1–5] The foundational genre of vv. 1–5 is a sanctuary-foundation legend in which theophany leads to the establishment of an authorized place of sacrifice that is named to reflect the circumstances of its inception. Presumably such a story about Bochim existed in a more complete form. In the present text, however, only fragments remain (angel/divinity, oracle, lamentation, name, sacrifice), and these have been mostly overlaid by the author’s compositional and theological purposes. A more intact example of a sanctuary foundation legend underlies 6:11–24. The genre of the angel’s speech is similar to accusatory formats like a prophetic judgment speech or the lawsuit genre (rîb). It features a historical retrospect (2:1b–2a), an accusation in the form of a rhetorical question (v. 2b), and an announcement of judgment (v. 3). Similar examples are 1 Sam 2:27–36; 2 Sam 12:7–14, and 2 Kgs 14:7–12. This is a literary utilization of an indictment genre belonging to prophetic speech (see Jer 25:3–11, for example). Judges 2:1–5 is closely related in topic, vocabulary, and genre to the equally isolated 6:7–10, and both units probably originated with a later reviser of DH. If Bochim was indeed near Bethel, it may have been associated with Jacob in a patriarchal election tradition. This is suggested by the obscure Hos 12:5 [ET 4], which associates pleading and weeping on the part of Jacob with his struggle with an angel and being found by (or finding) the angel (or God) at Bethel. “Find” is an election verb in Hosea (9:10). The transition from sanctuary saga (Judg 2:1a) to indictment speech (v. 1b) is syntactically harsh (see note on v. 1). The anomalous imperfect (which must be translated I brought you up) appears to be the result of a careless quotation from Exod 3:17. The angel’s speech is a pastiche, relying largely on Deuteronomy and Exod 23:20–33; 34:11–15 to create the angel’s speech. Yahweh’s oath to the ancestors reflects Deut 6:10. The angel summarizes and generalizes earlier commandments about loyalty to the covenant (compare Deut 7:1–5; 12:1–3; Exod 23:20–22; 34:11–17; perhaps Josh 23:3–8). Judges 2:2aα (You must not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land) evidences strong similarities with Exod 23:32 and Exod 34:12, 15. You must break down their altars (Judg 2:aβ) reflects Exod 34:13. You have not obeyed me (Hebrew: “listened to my voice”) (v. 2bα) is a negation of Exod 23:22. The expressions I will not drive them out and snare in Judg 2:3 rely on the announcement of Exod 23:30 and 34:12. The defective [thorns] in your sides of Judg 2:3 can only be

 Judges 2

41

understood on the basis of Num 33:55 and Josh 23:13. Foreign gods as snares is a concept ultimately based in Deut 7:16. Finally, the Bochim angel continues the theme of the angel that Yahweh promised would lead the people to the land of promise (Exod 23:20; 33:2). [6–10] Judges 2:6–9 parallels Josh 24:28–31, but in the sequence Josh 24:28, 31, 29, 30, and then continues with Judg 2:10 to advance the story. Here the obedient Joshua generation is not the end of the story as it is in Josh 24:31. Judges 2:10 goes a step beyond in order to introduce the subsequent disobedient generation. The sequence of each presentation is appropriate to its location, either at the end of Joshua’s (mostly) successful career or at the beginning of the crises of the judges period. The horizon of the Joshua version is Joshua’s generation and not the future, so it is appropriate that the positive evaluation of Josh 24:31 is the concluding verse there. In the Judges presentation, there is a sharp contrast between the first generation that had seen Yahweh’s actions (Judg 2:7; contrast Josh 24:31 “knew”) and the next generation that did not “know” (Judg 2:10; commentary translation: experienced) them. Is there a hint of blame directed at the Joshua generation for not communicating what they had seen to their children? The evocation in Judg 2:6–10 of the situation at the end of Joshua’s career strongly indicates that the DH version of Judges began with Judg 2:6 and that Judg 1:1–2:5 was subsequently added as a supplement to the secondary introduction to Judges represented by ch. 1. The Judges version is most likely the source of the Joshua version. The topic of the obedience of Joshua’s generation (Josh 24:31//Judg 2:7) is unneeded and thematically out of place in the Joshua context. In Joshua the obedience issue plays no role, but in Judges it prepares for the disobedience of Judg 2:10, something not mentioned in the Joshua parallel. Therefore, Judg 1:6–9 plus 10 is the earlier text and Josh 24:29–31 is literarily dependent on it. Joshua 24:28–31 reutilized Judg 2:6–9 to help round off Joshua when it became a separate book. Nevertheless, the Judges text does incorporate items missing from Josh 24:28–31 that look like later expansions: the Israelites went (v. 6) and great (v. 8). [11–23] Although vv. 11–19 supposedly summarize the cyclical pattern of Judges, it is striking that the entirety of v. 15 and much else in this section is simply not present as formulaic language in the narratives that follow. In chs. 3–16 there is no “going after” or “bowing down to” to other gods (2:12, 17, 19), no “provoking Yahweh” (2:12). Plunderers (2:14) never reappear. We never read after this that Israel failed to listen to their

42 Judges

judges or even that the judges ever tried to guide them religiously (2:17), nor that Israel quickly turned aside from the commandments even while the judge was alive (again v. 17). Would the reader of Judges necessarily conclude that following a judge’s death, Israel acted even worse than their ancestors had (2:19)? That Yahweh raised up judges who delivered them (2:16; compare 3:9, 15) is important in both the core book of Judges and this summary schema, but within the schema itself Yahweh’s acts actually function as a prelude to further and even worse disobedience (2:17–19). In fact, the colorless Othniel story provides a better summary of the cyclical pattern of Judges. The deviant form of the summary schema in ch. 2 can only been explained as a later, more negative review of the book, composed as an introductory supplement. Presumably the initial form of Judges skipped from its beginning in 2:6–10 directly to 3:7. Judges 2:11–19 evidences a close linguistic and thematic relationship to the evaluative judgments of 2 Kings 17 and 21, especially to 2 Kgs 17:7–23: 1. doing evil in Yahweh’s judgment (Judg 2:11): 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6, 15–16 2. serving Baal(s) (Judg 2:11, 13): 2 Kgs 17:16 3. going after and bowing down to other gods (Judg 2:12, 17, 19): 2 Kgs 17:16, 35; 21:3 4. provoking Yahweh (Judg 2:12): 2 Kgs 17:11; 21:6, 15 5. abandoning Yahweh or his commandments (Judg 2:12, 13): 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:22 6. plunderers (Judg 2:14): 2 Kgs 17:20 7. did not listen Judg 2:17 (compare 2:1 and 20): 2 Kgs 17:14; 21:9 These texts all appear to stem from a later, negative revision of DH. It is impossible to unravel the order in which individual elements were added to the original core of the Judges, that is, to 3:7–15:20[–16:31]. It is unlikely that Judges could have begun abruptly with Judg 3:7 without any provision of a transition from the career of Joshua or any exposition about the change in Israel’s fidelity—that is, without something similar to Judg 2:6–10. So Judges as an independent book originally probably began with 2:6–10, followed immediately by 3:7 and the following Othniel story. Those scribes who later wrote forward the base text of 2:6–10 were concerned to detail the incomplete nature of the conquest both during Joshua’s career (2:21, 23) and after his death (1:1–36), preview the cyclical pattern of the stories to follow with an emphasis on Israel’s

 Judges 2

43

obdurate iniquity (2:11–16, 17–19), and explain the reversal of Yahweh’s intentions in regard to enemy peoples (2:1–5, 20–23; 3:1–6). Probably 2:11–16 and 17–19 represent the earliest of these supplements. The fragmentary narrative of 2:1–5 (with its references to Gilgal and Joshua 23) comments on ch. 1 and links it to the story of the judges. Finally, first Judg 2:20–23 and then 3:1–6 were added to explain the continued presence of the nations (2:21, 23; 3:1, 3) in the land as a test (2:22; 3:1, 4). The Cyclical Framework The most characteristic structure in the book of Judges, of course, is the cyclical pattern reiterated in chs. 3–16. Othniel is the first and paradigmatic example of this. The reader is prepared for this by a summary in ch. 2 that reflects cyclic structural elements of the story of Othniel: 2:11–13 = 3:7; 2:14 = 3:8; 2:16 = 3:9; 2:18 = 3:10; 2:18–19 = 3:11. The preview in ch. 2 abstracts from the various hero stories a negative theory of history, doing so in a somewhat diffuse and repetitive form. It calls the reader’s attention to the framework template that structures the stories. It also delineates the figure of the judge as one who fulfills a lifelong mission to save Israel (2:16–19). Indeed, the preview of ch. 2 does this so effectively that the substantive šōpēṭ indelibly branded the period (already in Ruth 1:1; 2 Sam 7:11; 2 Kgs 23:22), even though the participle form never again appears in Judges to label a human deliverer. Instead, the finite verb to judge characterizes the vocation of several of the book’s cast of characters: Othniel, the minor judges and Jephthah, and Samson. Actually, it is the Othniel narrative and not the summary of ch. 2 that sets up the structural pattern of chs. 3–16. The schema summary presented in 2:11–19 does not contain the critical element of the people’s cry to Yahweh (3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6; 10:10). Nor does it include the chronologically significant periods of Israel serving the enemy for a term of years (3:8; 14), the land’s rest (3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28), or the intervals defined by the he judged Israel formula indicating the tenure of judging. The he judged Israel formula appears in 3:10 [without chronology], with all the minor judges, and in 12:7; 15:20; and 16:31. Moreover, the spirit of Yahweh (3:10; 6:34; Samson) is not mentioned in ch. 2. Although the ch. 2 schema undeniably reviews elements of the book’s cyclical pattern, it is concerned primarily with emphasizing the nation’s disobedience. The frame elements appearing in the introductions and conclusions of the six hero judges may exhibit somewhat different wording, but quite clearly have the function of emphasizing that Israel repeatedly passed

44 Judges

though these recurring stages in its relationship with Yahweh. Scholars have counted anywhere between four and seven items as constitutive of the frames. Six items, however, encompass all or most of the six judge narratives. Every one of the six important plot elements to the pattern are present in the Othniel paragraph: 1.  The Israelites did evil in Yahweh’s judgment. This sets in motion all six hero narratives (3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; also 2:11). 2.  Yahweh sold/gave them into the hand of the enemy (3:8 [3:12 as a variant]; 4:2; 6:1; 10:7; 13:1; compare 1 Sam 12:9). This appears twice (once with each verb) in 2:14. 3.  Years of oppression. This item is closely associated with the one just mentioned, but does not always directly follow it (see Ehud and Deborah). Israel served the enemy for a stated number of years before Othniel and Ehud were raised up (3:8, 14). The foe oppressed Israel for a specific period of years prior to Deborah and Jephthah (4:3; 10:8). The introductions to Gideon and Samson merge this with the element mentioned directly above, stating that Yahweh gave them into the hand of the foe for a stated period of years (6:1; 13:1). As in the case of the periods of rest (below), specific chronology has the effect of creating a sense of “the period of the judges” and helps form disconnected tales about local heroes, along with the list judges, into an unbroken sequence from the death of Joshua (2:6) to the death of Samson. A 480-year chronological structure that reaches as far as 1 Kgs 6:1 begins in v. 8 and continues in v. 11. 4.  Israel cried out to Yahweh (3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6; 10:10). This is not in ch. 2, although groaning is present in 2:18, without this being directed to Yahweh. 5.  Defeat of the foe. The Othniel unit uses the formula Yahweh gave…into his hand (3:10). This rhetorical function is performed by the formula was subdued for the hero judge narratives that follow, except for Samson (3:30; 4:23; 8:28; 11:33; compare 1 Sam 7:13). This is because Samson only began to deliver Israel from the Philistines (13:5). 6.  The land had rest x years (3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28). No rest is mention after the ineffective career of Samson. Other repeated supporting formulas supplement the rhetorical purposes of the frame elements or are embedded into the narratives themselves. Those that appear in the Othniel unit are:

 Judges 2

45

1.  Yahweh’s anger ignited. This is a turning point in the introduction (2:14) but is present elsewhere only for Othniel (3:8) and in the lead up to Jephthah (10:7). 2.  Particulars of religious apostasy. The expression used to introduce the situation before Othniel (v. 7) is present in similar form in the introduction (2:11, 13) and later appears in the prologue to Jephthah (10:6). Descriptions of apostasy are embedded within the Gideon narrative (6:25–32; 8:28, 33). 3.  Yahweh raised up a deliverer. The introduction states “Yahweh raised up a judge who delivered” (2:16, 18). Yahweh raises up Othniel and Ehud, each as a deliverer (môšia; 3:9, 15). The same verbal root (yš) is used for Shamgar (3:31). The minor judge Tola arose to deliver (10:1). The verb plays an important unifying role in the Gideon narrative (6:14, 15, 36, 37; 7:2, 7; 8:22). Samson only begins to “deliver” (13:5). Yahweh is the one who delivers in 10:12, 13, 14. Judges 2:16, 17, 18 are the only times in the book that the deliverers are identified as judges. 4.  Yahweh’s spirit comes upon Othniel and Jephthah, clothes Gideon, and rushes on or stirs up Samson (3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19; 15:14). Yahweh’s spirit adds to the intense drama of the Samson tales and was probably part of inherited tradition there. In the other occurrences, the spirit functions as a sign of divine approval. The spirit’s action asserts the election and empowerment of the hero. This formulaic element occurs embedded within the narratives themselves, not in the framing introductions and conclusions. 5.  Judged Israel. This phrase and the notion that a judge occupies a sort of office were derived from the minor judges list (10:2, 3; 12:7, 9, 11, 14). Othniel (3:10), Jephthah (as a list judge, 12:7), and Samson (15:20; 16:31) judged Israel. See also 1 Sam 4:18 (Eli) and 1 Sam 7:15–17 (Samuel). Deborah judges, but in a clearly forensic sense (4:4), rather than as a ruler. The substantive “judge” is used six times in 2:16–19. In light of this lexical barrage and the retrospective references in 2 Sam 7:7, 11 and 2 Kgs 23:22 (compare Ruth 1:1; Sir 44:11), it is no surprise that this book was labeled as “the Book of Judges.” The years of the judge’s term completes the formula judged Israel in the minor judges source, and the description of Samson’s judging follows the same pattern (15:20; 16:31). The notion of a chronology without gaps comes from the tenure in office of each minor judge being immediately followed by his successor “after him” (10:3,

46 Judges

etc.). Although this element does not occur in 2:11–19, the phrase “all the days of the judge” in 2:18 is in some sense its functional equivalent. 6.  Death and burial. The idea of the death of a judge as a turning point seems to have been taken up from the minor judges source (10:2, 5; 12:7 [Jephthah], 10, 12, 15). The deaths of Othniel, Ehud, Gideon, and in his own colorful way, Samson, are highlighted (3:11; 4:1; 8:32; 16:30). Mention of burial, another item taken from the list judges source (again including Jephthah), accompanies the death reports for Gideon and Samson (8:32; 16:31). The Othniel narrative thus introduces the reader to the book’s structure by gathering up and anticipating elements of the following stories/frames. The Ehud story most closely tracks the pattern set up by Othniel; Deborah and Samson deviate most significantly. Two of the items appear in an exact formulaic sense only for Othniel and Ehud. Israel serves the foe (3:8, 14) and Yahweh raised up a deliverer (3:9, 15). The rhetorical effect of this is to create a strong parallel between the first two judges. Once the point that the judges are parallel figures has been made, readers can then carry on the process of equation and differentiation with less obvious textual guidance. Thus, for all its reliance on formulaic language, Judges treats each of its heroes in a slightly different manner.

J u d g es 3

Nations Allowed to Stay Now these are the nations that Yahweh allowed to stay to test Israel by them—all who had not experienced any of the wars of Canaan. 2 It was simply for the sake of the generations of the Israelites, in order to teach them war, but only those who had not experienced it before— 3 The five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived in Mount Lebanon from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath. 4 They served to test Israel, to know whether Israel would obey Yahweh’s commandments that he had commanded their ancestors through Moses. 5 So the Israelites lived among the Canaanites, that is, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 6 They took their daughters for themselves as wives and gave their own daughters to their sons. They served their gods. 1

Othniel The Israelites did evil in Yahweh’s judgment. They forgot Yahweh their God and served the Baals and the Asherahs. 8 So Yahweh’s anger ignited against Israel. He sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim. The Israelites served Cushan-rishathaim eight years. 9 Then the Israelites cried out to Yahweh. Yahweh raised up a deliverer for the Israelites and he saved them: Othniel son of Kenaz and Caleb’s younger brother. 10 The spirit of Yahweh was upon him and he judged Israel. He went out to war, and Yahweh gave Cushan-rishathaim king of Aram into his hand. His hand overpowered Cushan-rishathaim. 11 So the land had rest forty years. Then Othniel son of Kenaz died. 7

Ehud The Israelites again did evil in Yahweh’s judgment. Yahweh strengthened Eglon king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in Yahweh’s judgment. 13 He gathered to himself the Ammonites and the Amalekites. He went forth and struck down Israel. They took possession of the city of palms. 14 The Israelites served Eglon king of Moab eighteen years. 12

48 Judges Then the Israelites cried out to Yahweh. Yahweh raised up for them a deliverer, the Benjaminite Ehud son of Gera, someone left-handed. The Israelites sent tribute by him to Eglon king of Moab. 16 So Ehud made a dagger for himself—it had two edges and was a gomed in length—and he fastened it up underneath his clothes on his right thigh. 17 Then he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man. 18 As soon as he had finished presenting the tribute, he escorted away the people who had carried the tribute. 19 But he turned back at the divine images that are near Gilgal. He said, “I have a secret word for you, O king.” So he said, “Quiet!” So all those in attendance went out from his presence. 20 Ehud came to him—he was sitting alone in his own cool upper room—and Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he got up from his seat. 21 Then Ehud reached with his left hand and took the dagger from his right thigh and drove it into his belly. 22 The handle went in after the blade. The fat closed over the blade, because he did not pull the dagger out of his belly. Then excrement came out. 23 Ehud went out into the columned room. He closed the doors of the upper room on him and locked them. 24 He went out and the servants came in. They saw that the doors of the upper room were locked. They thought, “He is only relieving himself in the cool chamber.” 25 They waited to the point of embarrassment, but when he did not open the doors of the upper room, they took the key and opened them. There he was, their master, fallen dead on the floor. 26 Meanwhile Ehud escaped while they hesitated. He passed beyond the divine images and escaped to Seirah. 27 When he arrived, he sounded the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim. Then the Israelites went down with him from the hill country with him leading them. 28 He said to them, “Follow me, because Yahweh has given your enemies, Moab, into your hand.” So they went down after him. They captured the fords of the Jordan against Moab and did not allow anyone to cross. 29 They struck down Moab at that time, about 10,000 men, all robust and valiant men. Not a one escaped. 30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. The land had rest for eighty years. 15

Shamgar After him was Shamgar the son of Anath. He struck down 600 Philistines with an ox goad. He also delivered Israel.

31

Notes 1 Yahweh allowed] Follows MT. LXXAL OL Syr read “Joshua allowed,” either under the influence of 2:21, as a misreading of an abbreviation, or as a theological corrective to eliminate the thought that God tempts people to sin.

 Judges 3

49

2 simply…but only] Translations of two occurrences of the emphatic restrictive particle, raq (see IBHS 39.3.5b). Simply (the first incidence) limits the statement of v. 1 to say that Yahweh’s purpose was solely to test Israel. The second raq restricts the extent of generations of the Israelites and them to persons lacking military experience, thus reiterating the point of v. 1b. for the sake of the generations] Follows OG (preferred by BHQ). OG does not witness the awkward infinitive construct daat “to know” of MT. This problematic word is a dittography of drwt (generations). If accepted, MT would have to be construed so that the construct expression “the generations of” functions as the grammatical subject of the act of knowing, which is syntactically anomalous. Generations indicates that the lesson stretches out over a period of time; “succeeding generations” of NJPS and “successive generations” of NRSV capture this nuance. to teach them war] Teach governs two direct objects. experienced it] Translating the masculine plural pronoun “them,” which presumably refers to the remote feminine plural antecedent wars of v. 1b, although the gender does not match. 4 served to test] Hebrew: “they were for testing Israel by them.” 5 that is, the Hittites] MT lacks a conjunction, which is supplied by the ancient versions. MT syntax implies that the last six nations are subsumed as examples under the category of Canaanites. Masoretic punctuation positions the athnah to recognize this. The conjunction could have been lost by MT before the final yod of the Canaanites. 7 Asherahs] Hebrew: ăšērôt. Follows MT and OG. This is a non-standard plural (usually ăšērîm). Syr and V harmonize to 2:13 and 10:6, which refer to a different deity group, the “Astartes” (aštārôt). 8 Aram Naharaim] If this features a dual suffix rather than a place name ending (compare Mahanaim, Ephraim, Kiriathaim), it would mean “Aram of the two rivers.” Targum interprets this as “Aram on the Euphrates.” English versions (such as ESV) sometimes adhere to the LXX and Vulgate translation tradition “Mesopotamia,” although this is somewhat misleading. NJB follows an emendation of “Aram” to “Edom” here and in v. 10 9 Othniel] Is he a son of Caleb’s younger brother Kenaz (thus Caleb’s nephew; NAB, LXXAB adelphou) or a son of Kenaz and himself a younger brother of Caleb (commentary translation; NJPS; OG [LXXL] adelphon and OL)? The nephew possibility would fix him into the book’s chronology as part of the post-Joshua generation. However, the Hebrew here and at 1:13 probably intends to say that Othniel is Caleb’s brother. Elsewhere, Caleb is a son of Jephunneh. Son of Kenaz here refers to Othniel’s clan membership: “Othniel the Kennizite” (Josh 14:6; 1 Chr 4:13). Othniel appears as an independent clan in 1 Chr 27:15.

50 Judges 13 They took possession] Follows MT. OG V smooth out to the singular, “he” or “it took possession,” which is preferred by BHQ. Jericho (Tell es-Sultan [1921 1432]) makes more narrative sense as the locale of the city of palms than Tamar (Ain Husb [1732 0244]) because it is near Gilgal (contrast 1:16). 15 Gera] This seems to be a clan name (1 Chr 8:3; Gen 46:21; 2 Sam 16:5). Ehud is a theophoric name, shortened from Ahihud (“my divine brother is majesty”; Num 34:27; compare Abihud, 1 Chr 8:3). It too may be a clan eponym (see 1 Chr 7:10). sent tribute] The plot sequence suggests the translation “arranged to send” (NJB: “appointed him to take”). left-handed] Hebrew: “hindered with regard to his right hand” (accusative of respect). Perhaps this means that in his training Ehud had been prevented from using his right hand in order to learn to use his left hand for fighting (the custom of the Spartans). LXX and V think of him as ambidextrous: “used either hand as the right hand” (also at 20:16). Suggesting a handicap, T translates as “withered” and Syr as “crippled.” However, for the story to work Ehud cannot have a visible imperfection. 16 for himself] Alternative translation: “for him” (that is, for Eglon). gomed] An unknown measure of length. Although later Hebrew and Aramaic use this word for a cubit, an eighteen-inch weapon sounds too long to conceal. OG translates as “a span,” the distance between thumb and little finger of a spread-out hand (about 23 cm). 17 fat] This is often understood as a negative judgment, part of the story’s coarse humor. However, heaviness can be a positive sign of gravitas and opulence. The word indicates “healthy, robust” in Gen 41:4–5; Ps 73:4; Dan 1:15. In Judg 3:29, the Moabite troops are fat (using a different root, šmn) in a positive sense, “robust, wellnourished.” The Greek translation is “exceedingly handsome,” apparently thinking of the lexical root br, meaning “well made” (HALOT 1:153–54). 18 escorted] In order to avoid contradiction with v. 20, the commentary translation understands the verb usually rendered as “send” as “go off with” as in Gen 12:20; 18:16; 31:27; 1 Sam 9:26. 19 divine images] Conceivably “carved stones” (REB, compare NRSV), “quarries” (T and see NIV margin), or natural rock formations in the Jordan Valley. However, any author or reader influenced by Deuteronomy would understand these as carved idols (Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3). A possible relationship to the twelve stones set up at Gilgal (Josh 4:20) is intriguing. Perhaps one should think of a cultic installation representing gods or spirits guarding a border point. Or these may refer to border markers (compare the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben in Josh 15:6 and Mesopotamian boundary stones). They function as a boundary in the story (vv. 19 and 26). If these are divine images, Eglon might have thought of Ehud’s secret word as an oracle. Yet the narrator does not help the reader make any such connection.

 Judges 3

51

Quiet!] This second person singular command effectively clears the room so that the confidential message may be delivered. The versions sought to soften the apparent incongruity between a singular command and a plural resulting action. Thus, LXXB: “be silent [addressed to Ehud], and he sent away” (as though hiphil). LXXA and T translate freely, taking the command as an address to the attendants: “said to everyone, ‘Leave.’ And they went out.” If we regard the word hās as an interjection that signals the end of the royal audience—a courtly convention calling for royal privacy—the problem disappears. OG (represented by a doublet preserved in LXXL) follows this line of reasoning by paraphrasing the king’s command as pantas ek mesou genesthai, “let everyone leave the scene.” 20 cool upper room] Cool describes the noun in construct with it and derives from the verbal root qrr. OG and Targum understand the phrase in this way and freely translate “summer house.” Another suggestion is “chamber over the beams,” based on the piel participle mqrh in Ps 104:3. The verb there is qrh (denominative of qôrâ “wooden beam”; Qoh 10:18), referring to laying beams. An elevated room would be constructed over the beams of a flat roof (compare 1 Kgs 17:19, 23; 2 Kgs 4:10–11). Perhaps this is a raised throne room or an upper story with a timbered ceiling. A proposal “unclean emission chamber,” indicating a toilet room, is based on the verbal root qrh “have a nocturnal emission” (Deut 23:10–15). In any case, Eglon does have facilities (a toilet chair? a chamber pot?) in this room for relieving himself, leading to his servants’ misunderstanding of the situation. from his seat] Some commentators imagine a toilet seat, which would represent a grave insult to Eglon and an indication of Eglon’s uncouth nature. A throne would be more in keeping with royal dignity. 22 went in] OG reads this as hiphil with Ehud as subject: “he drove in the handle after the blade.” The dagger had no guard at the hilt to prevent this. excrement] The most likely meaning of an otherwise unknown word, based on the narrative context of v. 24. This is the approach of T and V (compare NRSV NJPS). The meaning “feces” may be achieved via the Akkadian verbal root pršd (verb naparšudu) “go out, escape,” which in one case occurs with “bodily discharge” or “feces” as subject. The noun would then mean, “that which comes out” specifically “excrement.” This line of reasoning suggests that the locative ending is a contamination from misdərônâ in the next verse. The suggestion to emend hpršdnh to the Hebrew word for “feces” (pereš) achieves the same goal but is methodologically dubious. There are several other less likely possibilities. (1) The last two words of v. 22 may be an incorporated marginal gloss on the obscure msdrwnh in v. 23: “he went out of the pršdn room.” This would explain the locative ending on pršdnh. Indeed, the last words of v. 22 do not appear in OG (LXXAL), but perhaps this was because the word was unknown or offensive. One might ask why a glossator would explain a difficult word with an equally difficult one. (2) Some take the word as “escape route,” the part of the building that Ehud used to get to the columned room of v. 23. The Akkadian root pršd (go out, escape), used above to support “excrement,” could undergird understanding the noun as “place of escape, exit.” (3) The vocabulary

52 Judges item in question is sometimes understood as “anus” or “back.” The subject of the statement would then be Ehud’s blade, which “came out his back” or “anus” (compare NIV or REB “he left it protruding behind”). Although sword is a feminine noun and would be awkward as the grammatical subject, its unmentioned synonym blade is masculine. This construal creates a parallel structure: “The blade went out toward the back…Ehud went out toward the columned room.” 23 columned room] A pillared hall or porch (“aligned columns or beams”; from the root sdr “arrange in a row,” see 1 Kgs 6:9). The narrative staging suggests that this is a public audience room, vestibule, or reception hall, lower than the upper room and capable of being closed off from it by doors. This columned room would be an anteroom, outside the upper room where the throne stood, for those waiting for an audience or ready to do the king’s bidding. Seemingly the scene described in v. 19b took place here. OG (LXXAL) and T translate as “portico, vestibule.” LXXB (“through the appointed ones”) thinks of guards arrayed in order or perhaps people sitting in rows. The circumstance that Eglon’s courtiers do not see Ehud lock the upper room doors suggest that they retire to yet a third room in v. 19b. Ehud’s escape indicates either that the columned room had an exit leading directly to the outside or, more likely, that he sauntered unconcernedly past the king’s minions waiting in the third room. locked] The perfect tense is anomalous and perhaps should be pointed as an infinite absolute. The verb used by OG (LXXL), apotinasso (shake off), reflects nr “shook himself free” instead of nl (compare 16:20). The inside bolt was moved from the outside by a thong passing through a slit in the door. To get into the room from the outside required a hook (key) which fit the particular shape of the slit. The key was inserted in the hole and used to push the bolt back. Penelope unlocks a storeroom in this way in Odyssey 21.5–8 and 42–50. This straightforward technology would have been understood by Iron Age audiences around the Mediterranean. A more sophisticated possibility is the “Egyptian lock” with internal wooden pins that secured a beam on the outside of the door. A wooden key lifted the pins so that the bolt could be pushed by the key in or out of a guide in the door frame. on him] Ehud shuts Eglon in. This is the natural way to understand the preposition baădô. Alternative translation: “behind himself.” 24 He went out] Two subject-first clauses suggest simultaneous actions, and a disjunctive sequence sets Ehud’s escape over against the entrance of the servants: he went out…the servants came in. relieving himself] Hebrew: “covering his feet.” This refers to the arrangement of one’s clothing when going to the toilet. LXXB offers “emptying his feet,” possibly thinking of the verb nsk rather than skk. cool chamber] Hebrew: “the chamber of cooling.” Most likely this is simply an equivalent expression for the cool upper room introduced in v. 20. Some suggest a smaller room within the latter (NJB: “in the inner part of the cool room”) or between the main part of the upper room and the doors.

 Judges 3

53

25 waited] Following the understanding of the ancient versions, this qal of ḥyl should be emended to or construed as a piel or hiphil of yḥl as in Gen 8:10, 12 (BHQ preference). As a qal stem of ḥyl it could signify “writhe,” describing their anxiety (HALOT 1:307; 2:407). to the point of embarrassment] Hebrew: “until shame.” They waited an embarrassingly long time. Alternative translation: “until a long time” (T Syr) from a possible bwš II (Ugaritic; Judg 5:28). Either translation fits both here and at 2 Kgs 2:17; 8:11. HALOT 1:117. 26 meanwhile] Subject-first syntax contrasts Ehud’s escape with the attendants’ inaction. The infinitive construct construction makes the actions simultaneous: “as long as they were hesitating.” hesitated] Hithpalpel of mhh. The Greek translation “they were in a tumult” shows confusion with the verbal root hwm. The following OG plus “and no one paid attention to him” is an explanatory expansion. Seirah] The location of this muster spot (with a definite article and locative ending) is not known, although it seems to be in Mount Ephraim. Etymology suggests “wooded hills” or “goat mountain.” A Ugaritic parallel suggests a place where fleeces were processed. HALOT (3:1342) offers “place of the goat demon.” 28 Follow me] Follows MT, although “pursue after me” is unidiomatic. OG reflects the verbal root yrd “come down” instead of rdp “pursue.” This is probably a translation strategy based on discomfort with MT and the presence of go down in vv. 27b and 28b. against Moab] The preposition l is to be interpreted in the light of 7:24 and 12:5. It is a dative of reference: “captured the fords with respect to Moab.” Various ancient versions took this as “belonging to” and V as “leading to” (as NIV). The suggestion that it is a dative of (dis)advantage is unlikely because Moab is not the grammatical subject (see IBHS 11.2.10d). 29 robust] Hebrew: “fat,” but not the same word used for Eglon in v. 17. Context makes it clear that this connotes “capable because they are well nourished.” T translates as “fearsome.” OG (LXXAL) does not witness this word and presents “the fighters among them” as a doublet for “valiant men.” 31 ox goad] Follows MT bmlmd. This would be a wooden shaft into which a metal point was set. HALOT 2:562. OG (LXXL and a doublet in LXXA) reads a scrambled mlbd “apart from [the cattle],” perhaps thinking of spoil.

Structure and Rhetoric Chapter 3 consists of four sense units: vv. 1–6 (testing), vv. 7–11 (Othniel), vv. 12–30 (Ehud), and v. 31 (Shamgar). The chapter division at 3:1 is not particularly apposite since vv. 1–6 continues the topic of nations and test from the end of ch. 2. The unit boundaries are well-defined:

54 Judges

1. v. 1: now these are the nations 2. vv. 7 and 11: the Israelites did evil and the land had rest… Othniel…died 3. vv. 12 and 30: the Israelites again did evil and the land had rest 4. v. 31: after him Ehud’s death is not reported until 4:1, thus incorporating Shamgar into Ehud’s temporal frame. [1–6] This unit is made up of two distinct lists of remaining nations (vv. 3 and 5) with commentary about Yahweh’s motives and Israel’s consequent apostasy. The overall topic is one of divine testing and teaching, attached to what precedes by the catchword test from 2:22. The sense unit divides into vv. 1–4 and 5–6. The first subsection is defined by an enclosing repetition of to test…Israel in vv. 1 and 4, paralleling the wording of 2:22a. The typical list-introduction phrase these are starts a new sense unit in v. 1a, but the list itself does not begin until v. 3 after some interpretive digressions. Verses 1b–2 define the terms of the list, using two limiting clauses governed by raq (only) in order to restrict the extent of Yahweh’s intentions and the group affected. Verses 1–2 are syntactically complex. Verse 1b defines Israel in v. 1a in terms of lack of experience. Verse 2 in MT is awkward and corrupt (see the note). Any coherent translation must paraphrase. The overall effect of vv. 1b–2 is to define and limit the statement of v. 1a. The purpose of Yahweh’s testing is to teach war, and the audience of this lesson consists of the succeeding generations of Israel who lack experience of war. Verses 1–2 recall the generation of 2:10 that did “not know” Yahweh and his deeds, but now the issue is converted from a potential for infidelity to the problem of military ineptitude. Following the first list of nations in v. 3, v. 4 redefines the purpose of divine testing in terms of obedience to Yahweh’s Mosaic commands, circling back to the understanding of 2:22. Verse 3 moves from south to north. Mention of the Philistines ignores Judah’s victory over them in 1:18 or treats the “capture” described there as inconclusive. The list does not provide a good introduction to the content of Judges, although Philistines can be related to Samson, Canaanites appears in chs. 4–5, and Sidonians as enemies are mentioned in 10:12. Although Hivites are part of the standard Deuteronomistic list as set forth in v. 5, the Hivites of v. 3 are located to the north in the Lebanon mountains and are not the local Hivites of Gibeon or Shechem (Gen 34:12; Josh 9:7).

 Judges 3

55

Verses 5–6 build on the notion of test by presenting a version of the standard Deuteronomistic list of enemy nations (Deut 7:1 and repeatedly in Exodus, Joshua, and Kings) and by describing Israel’s failure to pass the test in terms of intermarriage leading to apostasy. This is a piece of stock Deuteronomistic rhetoric. Thus, vv. 5–6 relate to the testing purpose of v. 4, which in turn refers back to the test described in 2:22. In v. 5, a syntax of waw followed by grammatical subject and perfect verb picks up and generalizes the lived among situation of the Israelites that was described in 1:32–33. In contrast to the list of v. 3, which catalogs nations peripheral to Israel’s homeland, the second list in v. 5 enumerates peoples living in the land proper (lived among), with whom dangerous intermarriage would be attractive. This second catalog includes not only neighboring ethnic groups, but also those living in enclaves within Israel’s territory (Hivites, Jebusites). The list relates to Deut 7:1, which mentions seven nations, but this example has only six like Deut 20:17 and Josh 9:1. The order of this list moves the Canaanites up into first position in order rhetorically to highlight them (see note on v. 5). Verse 6 asserts that intermarriage was the expected consequence of living among these nations, something communicated by the initial waw consecutive verb. The verse alludes to the entanglement of intermarriage and idolatry about which Deut 7:3–4 warns. The Samson story will highlight the issue of ethnic separation and illustrate the negative consequences of violating this ethic boundary. Mount Baal-Hermon as far as Lebo-Hamath (v. 3) embodies geography as theology. In Josh 13:5 this locale (detailed more closely as “Baal-gad below Mt. Hermon”) represents territory not yet possessed, but whose population Yahweh promises to drive out before Israel. According to Josh 11:17, it marks the northern extent of Joshua’s conquest. The northern border point of this territory is Lebo- (that is, Entrance of) Hamath. If this is a town rather than a route through a pass, it may be Lebweh at the source of the Orontes (278 404). In any case, in the book of Kings, Lebo-Hamath serves as the northern terminus of the idealized border of Solomon’s kingdom that was supposedly restored by Jeroboam II (1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 14:25). [7–11] The reader has been prepared by the Achsah story of ch. 1 to view Othniel positively. There he is a successful warrior and married endogamously (in contrast with the misconduct described in 3:6). Lacking any detail beyond the hero’s name, the story of Othniel is basically an authorial construct designed to illustrate the pattern that will structure the following narratives from Ehud to Samson. Almost every element in the text corresponds to some other part of Judges. It provides a sort of

56 Judges

“reference index” of formulas that prepares the reader for the five judge narratives to follow. The Othniel narrative is also an “example piece” that helps fit together the disparate traditions of deliverers and minor judges into a single succession of leadership. Indeed, apart from the formulas of the cyclical pattern, the Othniel unit consists only of a couple of names formed into a bare-bones narrative. Although Othniel’s story is deficient in detail, it nevertheless does manage to function as a narrative. Its plot elements move from exposition (v. 7) to problem (v. 8) through sequential actions linked together by an unbroken series of waw consecutives, leading to resolution (vv. 9–10), and denouement (v. 11). The formula did evil in v. 7 is illustrated by two contrasting verbs. Israel forgot Yahweh and instead served (that is, worshiped through sacrifice) a multiplicity of gods designated as Baals and Asherahs. This second expression is not the standard one, which alludes instead to Ashtaroth (plural of Baal’s associate Astarte; 2:13; 10:6; 1 Sam 7:4; 12:10; 1 Kgs 11:33). Asherah may have been introduced to fit with the Gideon story (6:25–30). Definite articles and plural divine names summarize and disparage Israel’s apostasy. Using plurals serves to represent indigenous Canaanite religion as a whole. From the standpoint of Deuteronomistic theology, these gods are inherently plural, not one god like Yahweh. Readers are intended to connect this multiplicity to the many local cults of those gods and to contrast it with the unity of Yahweh, undergirded by the single sanctuary promoted by the Deuteronomic program (Deut 12). The use of definite articles implies that these are not personal names, so that Baal and Asherah are something less than real gods. This same rhetorical effect lies behind the use elsewhere in Judges of the divine name Astarte pluralized as Ashtaroth with a definite article (Judg 2:13; 10:6). Biblical texts speak of Asherah both as a divinity (1 Kgs 15:3; 18:19; 2 Kgs 23:4) and as a common noun used to describe a wooden cult object. These poles were erected as part of sanctuary assemblages is association with an altar (for example, Judg 6:25–30). Judges 3:7, however, uses a feminine plural form for Asherah rather than the usual masculine plural (see the note on v. 7). Is this done to hint that these Asherahs are to be seen as female consorts of the corresponding male Baals or to emphasize the fact they are definitely false gods, not merely cult objects? In any case, the verb serve requires a personal object, implying that the Asherahs are indeed gods here, not just wooden poles. Inscriptional materials indicate that Asherah was actually coupled, not with Baal, but with Yahweh. Asherah was not so much an independent god as a faculty or power associated with Yahweh. In fact, any connection

 Judges 3

57

between Baal and Asherah as a goddess in actual religious history is problematic. She is El’s consort in Ugaritic literature. The connection is instead theological and literary, stemming from the creative theologizing of the Deuteronomists. By associating her with Baal, Asherah could be distanced from Yahweh and her significance in the Yahweh cult could be labeled as apostasy. The association of Asherah with Baal and not Yahweh witnesses to Deuteronomy’s program to “deasherah-ize” Yahweh (see Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3; 16:21). Mixing up Asherah and Astarte is immaterial for the author, because the entire affair is apostasy and details do not matter. The phrase served the Baals and the Asherahs wraps up whole of apostasy in a merismus of male and female false divinity. Serve in v. 7 picks up the concern of v. 6 (they served), but also leads on to served Cushan-rishathaim in v. 8. The verb forgot (compare Deut 8:19) does not appear in later framework formulas, but Judg 8:34 is similar: “did not remember.” The review of 1 Sam 12:9 does use this verb. Forgetting represents a classic Deuteronomic notion (Deut 6:12; 8:11, 14, 19). The verb šakaḥ implies “disregard, fail to take account of,” rather than literally “not recall.” The verb “sell” (v. 8) to denote handing over to alien control apparently grows out of the practice of surrendering persons into slavery and transferring rights to the products of agricultural land. The verb does not necessarily imply a permanent transfer of ownership, for it is often used for a transfer of rights for a limited period of years (Deut 15:12, for example). In Judges, Yahweh conveys ownership rights over Israel for limited periods (4:2–3; 10:7–8). All of this suggests that sold may not be an adequate English translation for the verb (TDOT 8:291–96). NJPS uses “surrender” instead. The repeated and reversed phrase he sold them into the hand of Cushanrishathaim…Yahweh gave Cushan-rishathaim…into his hand bookends the action of vv. 8b–10a. Just as Othniel is the paradigmatic hero, so Cushan-rishathaim embodies the paradigmatic enemy. The name Cushanrishathaim (rhyming with Aram Naharaim) is pejorative and reflects the world of storytelling: “doubly wicked Cushanite.” Cushan apparently was a southern desert group associated with the Midianites (see Hab 3:7). Various attempts to historicize this character by emendation, by connecting him to the group referred to in Habakkuk, or evoking vaguely known historical figures are beside the point. The best parallel is the folktale world of Genesis 14, in which faraway kings with outlandish names invade and are bested. The narrative objective is to communicate that the enemy king was distant, exotic, and powerful.

58 Judges

Aram Naharaim is northwestern Mesopotamia. Without the added designation “Aram,” this area is known from Egyptian sources as the area of northern Syria near the great bend of the Euphrates and the Habor River. The prefixed element results from the region coming under Aramaean control at the end of the Late Bronze Age. This locale appears in Gen 24:10 in connection with Abraham’s brother Nahor, in Deut 23:5 [ET 4] as the home of Balaam, and in the superscription of Psalm 60 as a military foe of David. Mention here may echo Israel’s difficulties with various Aramaean kingdoms in the monarchy period. It appears in v. 10 simply as Aram. Rhetorically, the enemy’s origin in Mesopotamia communicates that this foe was a world-class power. Othniel is a totally effective leader and a model deliverer. The successful trickster Ehud will be like him, but the other heroes will all fall short in one fashion or another. For one thing, Othniel is too flat a character to raise any suspicion of a character flaw. He faces a most intimidating opponent and wins the day through Yahweh’s spirit and an uncomplicated sacral war. After only eight years of oppression, Othniel’s leadership brings about a problem-free period of rest for an entire generation. Othniel adds a Judahite presence and precedence to an otherwise exclusively northern roster of heroes. Moreover, if the anomalous Shamgar is counted as a judge, Othniel produces a total of twelve judges. Othniel also provides a chronological and genealogical connection to the days of Joshua. As someone chronologically close to Joshua, he was an appropriate figure to fashion into the first judge. The only solid tradition about him sets him firmly into the conquest period (Josh 15:15–19 // Judg 1:11–15). As Caleb’s brother he is part of the obedient generation that outlived Joshua (1:1; 2:7). The chronology of years of oppression (v. 8) and years of rest (v. 11) guides the readers to understand that the episodes related in Judges are intended to succeed each other in an unbroken sequence. Othniel’s bare-bones narrative leads into to increasingly more complex plot structures. Ehud’s story falls into two parts (personal assassination and national battle) but has no subplots. The Deborah/Barak episode is complex by comparison (five main characters, prose and poetry), and the narratives of the last three judges are even more convoluted. Othniel is a sole actor (He went out to war…into his hand. His hand prevailed), something like Samson but without the negative features. But again things become more diversified. Ehud begins with an individual exploit but moves on to involve Israel. In the Deborah, Gideon, and Jephthah narra­tives, there are complex stresses and conflicts regarding tribal involve­ment.

 Judges 3

59

Othniel is the paradigmatic judge. Only Othniel and Ehud are labeled as deliverer (compare 2 Kgs 13:5). However, the associated verbal root characterizes the commission of Gideon (Judg 6:36) and the exploits of Samson (13:5). Othniel is empowered by Yahweh’s spirit like Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. With Othniel the divine spirit is not connected with any dramatic act, but a way of Yahweh sanctioning the office and its activity. Like Jephthah and the list judges, Othniel judged Israel. After his exploits, the land enjoys rest, and this cycle formula reappears for Ehud, Deborah, and Gideon. Rest is an important goal in the Deuteronomistic view of history (Deut 12:9–10; 25:19; Josh 11:43; 14:15; 21:44; 23:1; 2 Sam 7). Othniel’s death (4:1) marks a transition point in the overall narrative, as is also the case with Gideon (8:32), Jephthah, the list judges, and Samson. Othniel and Ehud and together they are responsible for 120 years of peace. The following judges can only (and do) go downhill from here. [12–30] The plot movement concerning Ehud is encircled by the framework notices of vv. 12–15a and 30. The exposition segments of the plot is vv. 12–14, which set forth the main narrative problem as Moabite domination. This overarching narrative problem is concentrated by [Eglon] struck down Israel in v. 13 and a climax is only finally achieved by the reversal of this situation reported in v. 29: they stuck down Moab. This in turn leads to the resolution of the main problem in v. 30 (subdued) and to denouement (rest). Held together within this main plot are two successive sub-plots initiated by the introduction of Ehud in v. 15a. The first is an assassination account (vv. 15b–26) and the second a battle report (vv. 27–29). The opening of the first sub-plot is marked at the start of v. 15b by an abandonment of cyclical formula language and a change in grammatical subject from Yahweh to the Israelites sent. The second subplot is set off by the bracketing structure marked by a repetition of divine images that encloses the action between v. 19 and v. 26. In the first subplot, Ehud is a trickster. In the second, he is a military leader like Gideon or Jephthah. Numerous rhetorical features in the assassination sub-plot indicate sophisticated authorial involvement: 1. A bracket around most of the sense unit is created by struck down Israel in v. 13 and struck down Moab in v. 29. 2. Yahweh raised up a deliverer (v. 15) and Eglon got up from his seat (v. 20; verb qwm).

60 Judges

3. Israel sent tribute (v. 15), Ehud sent away the bearers (v. 18; commentary translation escorted), and then sent out his hand (v. 21; commentary translation reached). 4. The tribute that points to Benjamin’s oppressed state also turns out to be a prelude to Ehud’s unfolding plot. 5. The weapon of v. 16 (dagger…right thigh) stays hidden from the reader until v. 21 (again dagger…right thigh). 6. The significance of Eglon’s corpulent body type (v. 17) is not revealed until v. 22. 7. The frontier of return (v. 19; divine images) corresponds to the frontier of escape (v. 26). The attendants went out (v. 19) and Ehud came in (v. 20). The handle went in and excrement came out (v. 22). Ehud went out and the attendants came in (v. 24). 8. The fat closed over the blade (wayyisgōr…bəad; v. 22) and Ehud closed the door…on him (wayyisgōr…baădô; v. 23). 9. An effective use of opposites: close and open (vv. 23 and 25), got up and fallen (vv. 20 and 25), escaped and not a one escaped (vv. 26 and 29). 10. An effective triple use of hinneh (conventionally, “behold”) for the purpose of stress in vv. 24–25: [behold] the doors…were locked, [behold] he did not open the doors, and [behold] their master, fallen. Some of these features seem to resolve into a chiasm: Attendants go out – v. 19b Ehud goes in – v. 20a Dagger hilt goes in…fat closes – v. 22a Excrement goes out – v. 22b Ehud goes out…closes – v. 23a Ehud goes out – v. 24a Attendants go in – v. 24a

The narrative makes skillful use of narrative time. Circumstantial background data are offered by verbless clauses in vv. 15–17 (left-handed, sword characteristics, fat), and simultaneity are expressed within v. 24a and between vv. 24–25 and 26. The occurrence of again (hiphil of ysp) in v. 12 signals to the reader that that a sequential, recurring pattern has been initiated with Othniel and now continues with Ehud (compare 4:1; 10:6; 13:1). Mention of doing evil twice in v. 12 communicates that this sort of behavior did not stop, but perhaps even intensified (as asserted in 2:19), and makes the connection

 Judges 3

61

between apostasy and the Moab crisis unambiguous. Emphasis is laid on the fact that Eglon is king of Moab through repetition in vv. 12, 14, 15, and 17. The second item of the recurring cycle is stated in a unique way in v. 12 with the expression strengthen…against. The framing items are not used mechanically in Judges, but selectively and flexibly, tailored to the specific situation of each narrative. In v. 13 the national emergency is heightened as Eglon gathers a supercoalition of Israel’s traditional enemies: Moab, Amalek (Israel’s arch-foe, compare 6:3, 33), and Ammon. The use of yrš (took possession) in v. 13 creates an ironic reversal in that this verb is used throughout Joshua and Judges to describe Israel’s expected seizure of the land and dispossession of its inhabitants (for example, Judg 1:19; 2:6; 11:22; 18:9). The imprecise designation city of palms for what is apparently Jericho (Deut 34:3) may be a literary device evoking an intriguing past “story-world” (compare “city of the Jebusites” in 19:11). In v. 15, the noun deliverer is defined by the apposition Ehud and his kinship affiliation. Then Ehud is defined in turn by a second apposition as someone left-handed, Hebrew: “a man hindered in his right hand.” This expression creates an engaging little pun with the tribal name Benjamin, which means “son of the right hand.” The word hand emerges as something of a leitmotif in the story (vv. 15 [twice, in Hebrew the tribute is sent “by his hand”], 21, 28, and 30). The tribute mission is a signal of Benjamin’s dire straits, but the reader may also understand it as a ploy to reduce suspicion and to test whether Ehud can get his dagger through security. This “gift” (literally) may be seen either as an imposed tax or a goodwill gesture on Benjamin’s part to ward off further threat. The need for bearers suggests a bulky tribute, in kind rather than money. Yet ancient royal iconography indicates that a delegation of bearers, representative of the whole tribe, would have been an important symbol of respect and submission. They would not be just porters, but a ceremonial delegation. The exposition section of the assassination story (beginning with v. 15b; sent tribute) does not move forward immediately. Instead there is a delaying and tension-building portrayal of Ehud’s sword fabrication in v. 16. The reader will be asking: why two edges? why only a gomed long? why hide it where he does? Only with the renewed waw consecutive of v. 17a does the action move forward with tribute delivery. But then v. 17b stops the action once again to add another circumstance for the reader to ponder. Being well-fleshed out and robust sounds like it might make an assassination more difficult, but being very fat might make it easier!

62 Judges

A disjunctive relationship between vv. 18 and 19 is communicated by a waw plus subject-first word order: but he himself turned back. Narrative tension builds step by step from vv. 18 through 20a as the murder scene is set: escorted away, turned back, went out from his presence, sitting alone. Reported speech both delays and advances toward the critical moment: a secret word (an oracle from the Gilgal divinities?), “Quiet!” “I have a message from God.” A second instance (compare v. 19) of waw plus subject-first word order in v. 20 focuses reader attention back onto Ehud. Delayed exposition in a circumstantial clause reveals Eglon’s isolated location in his inner sanctum (v. 20) and privacy is emphasized: alone in his own room. The reader enjoys Eglon’s misapprehension about the word/thing (dabar) he is about to receive. It sets him up(right) for the kill (v. 20b). The secret word clears the room and then the message (again, “word”) from God causes the king to rise from his seat, respectfully (according to Rashi) or in joy (according to Josephus), to receive it—right in the gut! Word/message/thing (dabar) has a complex meaning. There is a rhetorical step up from secret dabar to dabar from God. It is a secret thing as a hidden dagger, but the dagger thrust is also from God as divine deliverance. The dabar is effectively an oracle from God that is delivered through an act that in itself performs the content of God’s will. The action reaches a high point as successive waw consecutives drive a series of repetitions in vv. 21–23. The initial verb translated reached (Hebrew: “sent forth”) picks up the use of this same verb (šlḥ) from vv. 15 and 18. The handle went in (v. 22), echoing Ehud’s entrance into Eglon’s presence in v. 20 (repeating the verb bw). The fat closed over it, and then Ehud closed the door (v. 23). The excrement came out (last two words of v. 22) and Ehud went out (both yṣ) to the next room. Whatever happaršədōnâ means (see note on v. 22), it creates a pleasing assonance with hammisdərônâ (columned room), held together by the repeated verb yṣ: came out/went out. Ehud leaves his dagger in the body, and the reader will think of both time pressure and the danger of being caught with it, something that would put an end to his alibi of being unarmed. He bolts the doors by pulling on the thong, pushes it back through the slot (see note on v. 23), and strolls out through the columned room. This stirring climax is not the end, however, for the discovery scene of vv. 24–25 underlines the delightful truth that Eglon is dead in most humiliating circumstances. These verses also provide plenty of narrative delay for the text to move into the second subplot. In the disjunctive waw plus subject-first grammar of v. 24, which highlights the two grammatical subjects, Ehud for his part went out and the servants for their part came

 Judges 3

63

in. The courtiers have seen Eglon leave with no suggestion of foul play (v. 24a), so an explanation of why the king is alone with the doors locked suggests itself to them (v. 24b). They delightfully misconstrue the evidence of the doors of the upper room (repeated in vv. 24 and 25). The position of the last word in the Hebrew of v. 25 is emphatic: dead. The disjunctive syntax that begins v. 26 shifts the narrative point of view from Eglon’s upper room to Ehud’s escape, and one might easily construe the verb as past perfect along with NJPS: “had made good his escape.” The divine images at Gilgal signal the conclusion of Ehud’s individual exploit (see v. 19). The subplot of the battle is not connected explicitly to the assassination subplot. Ehud makes no mention of the death of Eglon in calling out Israel’s forces. Apparently the reader is to fill in the blank and conclude that a leaderless Moab cannot fight effectively. Like Gideon (6:34), Ehud sounds a trumpet to muster the troops. The muster covers the hill country of Ephraim, which is to say all the highland territory northwards to the Jezreel Valley (compare Gideon in 7:24). Verse 27 is circumstantial: Israel moves down from the highlands while Ehud is leading. Ehud’s victory initiates the longest rest period in the book, eighty years, until the cycle begins again with apostasy some undefined time after Ehud’s death (4:1). Perhaps one reason for Shamgar’s appearance is to fill up those long decades with narrative time. Even though there are no explicit connections, there are rhetorical links between the two sub-plots. The motif of “hand” appears in both sections (vv. 15, 21 [both with the verb “sent”], and 28) as well as in the frame (vv. 12, 30). Ehud escaped (v. 26), but none of the Moabites do (v. 29). The verb tq as “blow [on a horn]” in v. 27 reuses the verb from v. 21, where it means drove [in the sword]. There is a loose rhetorical link between Eglon’s physical description and his fat (vv. 17 and 22) and the robustness of the Moabite forces (v. 29). The pattern of the deed of an individual hero being followed by a full-scale battle appears in the stories of Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14 and David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. Many vexing questions remain for the interpreter. Gaps and discontinuities in the narrative, as well as modern ignorance about lexical matters, create confusion. Reuse and abbreviation of a traditional story for a theological purpose explain some of these gaps. Some matters seem clear enough. Ehud as left-handed was able to hide his weapon on his right thigh, where it would not be expected, and could draw it out across his body. His short sword had two edges and was efficient for stabbing, being straight, not curved. Readers would be comfortable with left-handedness as a stereotypical quirk of the tribe of Benjamin (see 20:16).

64 Judges

Because the location of Eglon’s headquarters is not really specified, in spite of the mention of the city of palms, the movements of Ehud and the course of the battle remain unclear. On the one hand, Gilgal on the west bank near a Jordan crossing lies between Eglon and Israel, suggesting an east of Jordan location for the assassination. Yet Ehud is never described as crossing the Jordan in his movements. An east of Jordan location for Eglon’s headquarters would require four crossings (one before v. 17, two in v. 19, and one as Ehud escaped). Again, the Moabite forces seem to be on the west bank of the Jordan because the fords of the river are seized, presumably to block their escape eastward (compare 7:24; 12:5). However, the reader could instead envision this maneuver as a tactic to prevent Moab from attacking across the Jordan from the east side. In any case, Israelite readers, whose mental perspective would most naturally center on the west bank, would likely envision Eglon’s headquarters as being in verdant Jericho and the location of the battle action on their own side of the river. The most disconcerting set of puzzles centers around the layout of Eglon’s headquarters building, the business of Eglon’s upper room doubling as a toilet, and the staging of the assassination and escape scenes. A great deal of creative (one might say overly creative) effort has been expended in trying to explain these problems. The responsible interpreter must consider just how much unexplained detail an original reader can have been expected to assume or know about. Requiring the earliest readers to be acquainted with or care about the architectural details or sewer arrangements of royal residences goes beyond what is reasonable. The path of least resistance seems to be for the reader is to envision three rooms: (1) an inner chamber (cool upper room, upper room, cool chamber, vv. 20a, 23b, 24a, 24b) with doors that locked and toilet facilities of some sort. This was within sight and hearing distance of (2) a lower vestibule or audience hall (columned room) where Ehud has the public part of his audience with Eglon and into which he escapes. In addition there was (3) an (unmentioned, off-stage) outer waiting room to which Eglon’s servants retired and from which they could not observe Ehud manipulating the lock to the upper room. The upper room would be a raised area containing the king’s throne, from which he could converse with persons in the lower columned audience room, but which also could be closed off for comfort and privacy. Verse 19, then, took place with Ehud in the columned room and Eglon visible and audible in his raised upper room with the doors open. This upper room was cool and thus apparently on the roof or on beams raised higher than the audience room, but connected to it. From there, Eglon orders his courtiers to leave the columned room, and they move

 Judges 3

65

off stage into another, unmentioned room, where they can neither see nor hear the king and Ehud. Then in v. 20, Ehud passes (came to him) from the columned room across some sort of undefined threshold, seemingly via a stairway or ramp, into the upper room, where he and the king have a private interchange. Ehud approaches the king on his seat in the upper room and delivers his secret message. If Ehud locked the doors from the inside of the upper room, an unnecessarily complicated escape route must be imagined. It is much simpler for the reader to assume that Ehud locked the doors from the outside. Unobserved, he closes and pulls over the interior bolt with its string from outside and, unbloodied (because the king’s fat closed over the dagger) and without his dagger, simply strolls out through the columned audience room on his way to the outside. The king’s servants, having no reason to suspect anything, simultaneously enter the audience room as he leaves (v. 24). The servants can spy the closed door to the upper area and naturally think of Eglon’s toilet routine. Indeed, if they had not seen Ehud pass by them on his way out, they would certainly have been more immediately suspicious! There is no need to assume a special toilet room; the king can use a chamber pot. Modern critics of a synchronic bent relish this story. Recent interpretations have emphasized the scatological and humorous side of the text, but often depend on dubious textual or lexical decisions. Erotic features are traced in Ehud’s thigh and the supposedly phallic nature of his sword. Eglon’s fat closing over the blade in v. 23 suggests vaginal implications for some. Other interpreters over-read Eglon’s fat as having some relationship to sacrifice, seeing a pointer to this in his name (which features a diminutive ending, thus, “calf”). However, there is nothing at all uncommon about animal names in the ancient Semitic world. Moreover, one must wonder if the original readership would ever have thought of seeing in Eglon a pun on āgôl “rotund,” as some interpreters do. Certainly the recorded name Eglah (heifer; 2 Sam 3:5) seems a good parallel to Eglon. In spite of what some commentators suppose, the text itself mentions nothing about the odor of Eglon’s evacuated bowls playing some role in the thinking of his servants. Verse 24 speaks only of their seeing the locked door. The mild scatological features of the story are overemphasized by interpreters who choose to assume Eglon was actually in the act of relieving himself when stabbed. The colorful notion that Ehud escaped though the toilet drain relies on a substantial amount of guesswork about obscure vocabulary. Because of such suppositions and Eglon’s supposedly incapacitating obesity, some choose to read Ehud’s exploit as shameful and less than heroic, rather than as a shrewd tactic by an admired trickster. More interpretive restraint would seem to be appropriate.

66 Judges

From a theological perspective, the Ehud story is a good illustration of the principle of dual divine and human causality. The phrase dual causality describes the reality that events in the Hebrew Bible are often caused by the interplay of the action and will of God and humans unfolding together. Yahweh raises up Ehud and is predicted to hand over the enemy (vv. 15, 28), but Ehud and Israel do all the scheming and killing. The story’s many gaps and unexplained details invite the reader to participate in imagining scenarios and drawing conclusions. This leaves room for “coincidences” that benefit Ehud’s plan and give the reader a sense of Yahweh’s unexpressed causality. For the most part, the narrator lets readers draw suitable theological conclusions on their own. [31] Shamgar is attached to Ehud with the temporal connector after him in a disjunctive, perfect verb sentence. He is also linked verbally to Othniel and Ehud in that the substantive participle deliverer used for them (3:9, 15) is picked up as a finite verb and by the expression gam hû (also). That Shamgar was a well-known folk hero (compare Nimrod, Gen 10:8–9) is indicated by his appearance with Jael in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:6) to mark an era of insecure travel. It must be noted that Judges avoids saying that he was a leader of Israel or even an Israelite. With our knowledge of linguistics, we think of him as non-Israelite because of his (Hurrian?) name, but one ought not to assume that the readers to whom the text was originally addressed would have done so. Even if a foreigner, however, he is asserted to be part of Israel’s story of deliverance. A comparison with the use of “deliverer” in 2 Kgs 13:5 is instructive. Shamgar is incorporated into Ehud’s career in that the death of Ehud is not reported until 4:1, and the new cycle of disobedience does not start until then either. Of course the reader may wonder why there would be any need for deliverance if there is no apostasy. Shamgar’s place in chronology is also indeterminate. He appears after Ehud or at least Ehud’s exploits, but before Ehud’s death. In any case, the writer does not want Shamgar overlooked, insisting that he also delivered—in effect: “and don’t forget Shamgar.” The message is that, although Shamgar was quite different from the other heroes in Judges, nevertheless and remarkably he delivered Israel as well. Shamgar’s uneasy position within the career of Ehud, lack of formulaic frame, and text-critical considerations (see below), suggests that he was only added to Judges at a later stage in its growth. Perhaps he was included in order to prepare for his appearance in 5:6 as a contemporary of Jael. Or possibly there was an impulse to fill up the two generations (eighty years) of rest. Shamgar is in some ways a parallel character to the non-Israelite Jael. His ox goad correlates with her tent peg. Shamgar

 Judges 3

67

also prepares the reader for the appearance of the Philistines as enemies later on (10:11, 17). He rounds out the number of protagonists to twelve, perhaps as a later replacement in the design of the book for the problematic Abimelech. Genre and Composition The lists in vv. 3 and 5 have a purely literary background and are not administrative documents of any sort. The list of v. 3 is related to Josh 13:2–6. Verses 5–6 present a version of the standard Deuteronomistic inventory of enemy nations. The Othniel unit consists only of a couple of names formed into a narrative, completely lacking either dialog or drama. Although Othniel was a traditional character (as conqueror of Debir), this is not a genuine folk tale, but an authorial construction. A “conveyance formula” (gave… into his hand, compare 3:28; 4:7) marks v. 10 as a battle report, but one created purely by authorial activity. The pattern of invasion from the north by a Mesopotamian power is a geo-political notion originating in the author’s own time, that is, in the late monarchy period. Some of the language of the Othniel story has its source in the older catalog of the minor or list judges (10:1–5; 12:7–15). Othniel judged Israel (3:10) and then he died (v. 11). In v. 10, the figure of the charismatic hero and the office of the minor judge are brought together by coordinating the phrases the spirit of Yahweh was upon him…he went out to war with the formula used for the minor judges, he judged Israel (10:2, 3; 12:7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14). The use of judged Israel (for Jephthah and Samson as well), along with the concept of an unbroken temporal succession of leadership ending with each leader’s death, shows that the list of minor judges was employed as one of the book’s guiding structural templates. The Ehud story is a different matter. An entertaining tale about a Benjaminite folk hero was expanded into an “all Israel” sacral war narrative. This modification was achieved by supplementing the original narrative participants (Eglon, Ehud, and their entourages) by the addition of dangerous enemy troops in vv. 13 and 29 and the Israelites as a military muster in v. 27. Standard sacral war features make up the bulk of vv.  27–29: trumpet, mustering forces, “conveyance formula” (v. 28), holding the Jordan fords (compare 7:23–24; 12:4–6), and high enemy casualties. The conveyance formula may be defined as a statement that the divinity will hand over Israel or the enemies of Israel to suffer defeat (see Josh 6:2; 8:1, 18; Judg 4:7, 14; 7:7, 9, 15, 20:28). The combined whole consisting of hero tale and war narrative was then set into a Deuteronomistic frame (Judg 3:12–15a and 30).

68 Judges

In regard to genre, the assassination sub-plot was formed on the basis of earlier folktale material celebrating Ehud as an underdog trickster. It follows the type scene of a devious and duplicitous attack, similar to 2 Sam 20:9–10. Ehud’s resolute ingenuity reflects positively on his clan and tribe. The colorful scatological undercurrents, the hoodwinked king, and the dull-witted courtiers function to dishonor the enemy and increase entertainment value. One might compare the degrading of Moab’s ancestry in Gen 19:36–37. The original story probably ended with the climactic discovery of Eglon’s body (compare the somewhat parallel encounter between Jael and Sisera; Judg 4:22). The uncommon vocabulary seems to be an indication that a written source was used. The sculpted stones at Gilgal, if understood as divine images, point to a story tradition old enough to diverge from later Deuteronomistic and aniconic orthodoxy. Gaps and discontinuities indicate that the received story has been abbreviated. However, the tale’s two complementary intentions (glorification of Ehud’s deed and mocking Moab) may explain some of the text’s irregularities, especially those involving vv. 19–22a and 22b–23. There is nothing particularly distinctive about the battle report. Ehud blew a trumpet (compare 6:34), Israel seized the fords (compare 12:5–6), and struck down so and so many of the enemy (compare 20:45). The only unique detail is the enigmatic place name Seirah. Therefore, the battle narrative seems to be an authorial creation intended to connect Ehud’s personal exploit to sacral war victory in order to finish out the cycle. Like other periods of oppression that are not stated in round numbers, the eighteen years before Ehud may represent calculations used to balance out the chronology to its intended total of 480 years (1 Kgs 6:1). Shamgar is son of Anath. This could mean either that tradition designated him as a devotee of the goddess Anat, as an indication that his hometown was Beth-anat or Anatoth, or even that he was physically descendent from a person named Anat. The name Mar-Hanuta appears in a court record from Hazor at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (COS 3.120:269). Another possibility is that Shamgar was thought to be a half-divine offspring of the goddess herself, similar to Gilgamesh son of Ninsun or Heracles son of Zeus. Those who seek to support Shamgar’s actual historicity go so far as to suggest that he was a foreign mercenary in service of the Egyptians in Palestine, whose operations to control the Philistines indirectly benefitted Israel. Line 19 of the Wadi Hammamat inscription from Rameses IV Year 3 may be read as “the apiru of the troop of ‘An[ath]—eight hundred men.” The preponderance of evidence, however, indicates that Shamgar is being presented as a member of a military class or guild, and that son of Anat was a sort of professional title. “Son of” denotes a member of a class or someone possessing a special

 Judges 3

69

character, in this case, the warlike prowess of Anat. This conclusion is supported from Ugarit and bolstered by the Egyptian inscription cited above. The existence of such a warrior elite is further substantiated by five eleventh-century arrowheads from the Bethlehem area inscribed “servant of the Lioness,” referring to a goddess. One of these reads “servant of the Lioness bin-Anat” (COS 2.84:221–222). Another arrowhead from about the same period features the name “Zakarbaal ben-an[at].” The owners of these arrowheads seem to have belonged to a guild of archers. Shared narrative themes (an ad hoc weapon, an enormous slaughter of Philistines, and the toponym Lehi) incorporated into stories about three similarly named heroes Shamgar, Samson (15:14–17), and Shammah (2 Sam 23:11–12), demonstrate that all three of these reports represent examples of a folktale genre. Brief notices about the exploits of clan, tribal, or royal heroes would have been gathered together and retold in order to generate pride and communal solidarity (see 1 Sam 21:15–22; 2 Sam 23:3–39). The notices of two of David’s champions are even formatted like that of Shamgar with after him (wəaḥărāyw, 2 Sam 23.9, 11; usually translated as “next to him”). As in the case of Samson’s jawbone, Shamgar’s use of a nonmilitary implement has the effect of increasing the glory of his deed. Even with a metal point in it, an ox goad would have been a problematic weapon for such a slaughter. Six hundred may indicate a military unit of approximately that number. Such contingents are mentioned in narratives about Saul and David and in Judg 18:11. The majority Greek tradition handles the disturbance caused by the presence of Shamgar by putting “Ehud judged them till he died” at the end of v. 30 (LXXABL) and cutting out “and Ehud died” in 4:1 (LXXL). This seems to be evidence for an old text form that lacked Shamgar at this point, but did have him instead at 16:31, where he appears in LXXL. The apparent subsequent transfer and insertion of Shamgar into the end of ch. 3 in the Greek tradition was facilitated by a plus loosely formed on examples in the formulaic framework (10:2; 12:7; etc.) intended to make it clear that Shamgar did not overlap with Ehud’s tenure. Of the two possibilities for Shamgar’s “original” location in the book (3:31 MT or 16:31 LXXL OL), the MT placement has the advantage of preparing for 5:6. Conversely, the OG position after Samson highlights the parallel between Shamgar’s exploit and that of Samson reported in 15:15–17. Taken as a whole, the textual evidence suggests that Shamgar came into the book of Judges at a stage later than the framing structure, finding a home after Ehud in one recension and after Samson in another. The placement after 16:31 suggests that Judges ended at ch. 16 at the time the insertion was made.

J u d g es 4

Deborah, Barak, and Jael The Israelites again did evil in Yahweh’s judgment—Ehud having died. So Yahweh sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera. He lived in Haroshethha-goiim. 3 Then Israelites cried out to Yahweh, because he had 900 chariots made with iron and had ruthlessly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years. 4 Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, was a prophet. She was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under the Palm of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim. The Israelites would go up to her for legal decisions. 6 She sent and summoned Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali. She said to him, “Surely Yahweh the God of Israel has commanded, ‘Go and draw together at Mount Tabor and take with you 10,000 men from Naphtali and Zebulun. 7 I will draw out toward you, to the Kishon River, Sisera commander of the army of Jabin, with his chariots and his multitude. I will give him into your hand.’ ” 8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me I will go, but if you will not go with me I will not go.” 9 She said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, there will be no glory for you on the road by which you are going, because it is into the hand of a woman that Yahweh will sell Sisera.” Then Deborah set out and went with Barak to Kedesh. 10 Barak called out Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh. 10,000 men went up under his command, and Deborah went up with him. 11 Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses. He had pitched his tent as far off as the terebinth at Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh. 12 It was reported to Sisera that Barak son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor. 13 So Sisera called out all his chariots, 900 chariots made with iron, and the entire army that was with him from Harosheth-ha-goiim to the Kishon River. 14 Then Deborah said to Barak, “Up! This is the day in which Yahweh has given Sisera into your hand. Surely Yahweh goes out before you.” So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with 10,000 men following him. 15 Yahweh threw Sisera and all his chariots and all his army into a panic before Barak by the edge of the sword. Sisera got down from his chariot and fled 1 2

 Judges 4

71

on foot. 16 Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoiim. The whole army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword. Not even one survived. 17 Meanwhile, Sisera fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, because there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the family of Heber the Kenite. 18 Jael went out to meet Sisera. She said to him, “Turn aside, sir; turn aside to me. Do not be afraid.” So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. 19 He said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, because I am thirsty.” So she opened a leather container of milk and gave him a drink. Then she covered him up. 20 He said to her, “Stand at the opening of the tent. If anyone comes and questions you and says, ‘Is anyone here?’ say ‘No.’ ” 21 Then Jael the wife of Heber got a tent stake and took a hammer in her hand. Then she came up quietly to him and drove the stake into his temple so it went down into the ground. He was sleeping and exhausted. So he died. 22 Barak then appeared pursuing Sisera. Jael went out to meet him and said to him, “Come and I will show you the man you are seeking.” So he went in with her and there he was, Sisera, fallen dead with the stake in his temple. 23 So on that day God subdued Jabin king of Canaan before the Israelites. 24 The hand of the Israelites bore down harder and harder on Jabin king of Canaan until they cut off Jabin king of Canaan. Notes 1 Ehud having died] Absent in LXXL, indicating that the awkwardly placed notice about Shamgar (3:31) was not present before this verse in the OG recension of Judges, but at 16:31. 2 Harosheth] HALOT 1:358 suggests “forested area.” The pointing may be a “shame vocalization” like Ish-bosheth, Topeth, or Ashtoreth. Ha-goiim (“of the nations”) is reminiscent of Isa 8:23 [ET 9:1]. 4 wife of Lappidoth] This is the most natural translation. Alternative translation based on rabbinic tradition: “spirited woman,” taking the expression as “woman of torches [flames].” 6 Go] Follows MT. The Greek read lēk as ləkâ “you” as the complement of commanded. 6–7 draw together…. I will draw out] There is wordplay between the intransitive and transitive occurrences of mšk in vv. 6 and 7 (ûmāšaktâ and ûmāšaktî). The first is a military term, “to deploy”; the second means “lure” in this context. 8 will not go] OG justifies Barak’s hesitation with an interpretive expansion at this point, “For I do not know the day in which Yahweh prospers the angel with me.”

72 Judges The Hebrew original behind this plus seems to have been: “the angel of Yahweh will prosper me.” Compare the interpretative expansion of T at v. 14. The addition seems to be based on 5:23 (and Exod 23:20?) and provides motivation for Deborah’s later words to Barak in 4:14. 9 Nevertheless] OG reads “but know that” as a clarifying translation strategy, not as a witness to a different text. on the road] This may be understood as either “the military expedition which you are undertaking” or “the way you are going about this.” 10 under his command] Hebrew: “at his feet.” 11 Now Heber the Kenite…from the Kenites] Follows MT. OG understood ḥbr hqyny as an ethnic association and qyn as its home location: “all the Kenites withdrew from there.” had separated] The verb implies not just physical separation but a break in previous relations (Gen 13:9, 11; Prov 18:1; 19:4). father-in-law] Numbers 10:29 might lead one to vocalize this as “brother-in-law” (NIV). See note on 1:16. at Zaanannim] Taking the first letter b as a preposition and following qere. This is the form found in Josh 19:33. Ketiv could be vocalized as a place name beginning with “b” as a root letter (compare NRSV NJPS Elon-bezaannim). This is how matters were construed by different streams of the Greek tradition, which take the Hebrew root as bṣ “illicit gain” or “cut off”; and by the Greek transliteration at Josh 19:33. The verbal root ṣn means “to pack up” (Isa 33:20) and might suggest a caravan transit point. 13 army] Hebrew: am “people.” The commentary translation uses army for maḥaneh “encampment” in vv. 14 and 16. 14 Surely…before you] To avoid anthropomorphism, T interprets: “Surely the angel of Yahweh is going out to assure success before you.” 15 by the edge of the sword] Follows MT. The phrase lpy-ḥrb is awkward as a description of Yahweh’s action. However, it is attested in one way or another by all the ancient versions. There is no textual evidence for either a dittography of lpny-brq or a vertical dittography from v. 16b. NRSV eliminates the phrase and NJPS attaches it to Barak. 17 peace] Either as a treaty relationship (1 Kgs 5:26) or as a state of neutral nonbelligerence. 18 rug] The meaning of the Hebrew word must be derived from cognate languages. OG (LXXA) translates as “her leather screen,” implying a barrier used to cover the opening of a tent or to partition off the women’s section so that Sisera would be isolated.

 Judges 4

73

20 stand] Sisera seems to address Jael with a masculine imperative, which is not unheard of. The word could be vocalized as an infinitive absolute being used as an imperative. 21 quietly] For lat used for stealth, see 1 Sam 24:5; Ruth 3:7. drove] For tq in the context of pitching tents, see Gen 31:25; Jer 6:3. This same verb describes Ehud’s blow (3:21). temple] The word raqqah describes some portion of the head (Cant 4:3; 6:7), the “thin” part of the skull. LXXA: “jaw”; Josephus: “mouth and jaw” (Ant. 5.208); LXXBL: “temple.” it went down] Although Jael could be the feminine grammatical subject (“she struck it down,” LXXA), this rare verb is clearly intransitive in 1:14, where it describes Achsah’s descent from her donkey. Thus, the grammatical subject must be stake. Less probably, one could take temple as the grammatical subject: his pierced temple sank into the ground. was sleeping and exhausted] The triad of verbs in v. 21b is hard to interpret. Syntax shows that these words indicate Sisera’s state of being while Jael was acting. There are three ways to vocalize whw-nrdm wyp. (1) MT presents a niphal participle followed by a waw consecutive imperfect qal: “and being asleep, he became exhausted.” (2) Some Hebrew witnesses vocalize this sequence as a niphal perfect and waw consecutive imperfect: “and as for him, he had fallen asleep and then became exhausted and then he died.” This order of events does not make much sense. (3) BHS suggests treating the second item as the adjective yāēp “tired”: “and he, being asleep and exhausted, died.” HALOT 2:820 suggests that the by-form yp could be taken as “lose consciousness”: “he was sleeping, then he lost consciousness and died.” The commentary translation follows MT, understanding the first waw consecutive imperfect “exhausted” as continuing the force of the circumstantial participle “sleeping” (consider the conjunctive accents). NRSV captures this well: “he was lying fast asleep from weariness—and he died.” 22 Barak then appeared pursuing] Hebrew: “behold, Barak was pursuing.” 23 God] Follows MT as difficult. “Yahweh” (Syr) or “Yahweh God” (OG [LXXA OL]) would be more expected in a framework passage.

Structure and Rhetoric Standard elements of the cyclical frame are present in vv. 1–3 and 23, but the item stating that Yahweh raised up a deliverer is absent. Including this would not have been appropriate since Deborah’s summons to Barak and her prophetic words begin the narrative action and cover this narrative ground. This slight anomaly demonstrates that a somewhat fixed written tradition lay before the Deuteronomistic author, obliging a modification in

74 Judges

the frame. Furthermore, this chapter represents a special situation in that there two (or three) deliverers. The core plot begins with exposition introducing the situation, enemies, and the protagonist (vv. 1–5). Verses 4 and 5 provide Deborah’s credentials as a prophet and leader. Data given in v. 2 point forward directly to v. 7 (Sisera, commander of the army), to v. 13 (Harosheth-ha-goiim), and to v. 17 (Hazor). Verse 3 previews the 900 chariots made with iron of v. 13. The action of the main battle report plot unfolds in vv. 6–7: summons, oracle, and conveyance formula (into your hand). The action is continued in v. 10 and then vv. 12–14 (muster at Kedesh, positioning of rival forces at Tabor and the Kishon, Deborah’s incitement to attack). The battle report climaxes in vv. 15a and 16 and concludes with a summary denouement (on that day) in vv. 23–24. Enclosed and skillfully interwoven within the battle report is what one may call an assassination anecdote, similar to 3:15–25 or Jdt 12:10–13:10. This sub-plot begins with a new chief character and a new plot trajectory that arcs from Sisera’s escape to his death. Subject-first word order with perfect verbs (“and Barak pursued…and Sisera fled”) indicates that vv. 16 and 17 report simultaneous events (meanwhile). Verse 17 restarts the story line from the end of v. 15 by repeating fled on foot and switching the waw consecutive imperfect of v. 15 to a perfect. There is also a verbal connection between vv. 11 and 17 (Heber the Kenite). The core assassination scene is bracketed by another verbal repetition in v. 18 and v. 22 that highlights Jael’s assertiveness with Sisera and Barak: Jael went out to meet…said to him. The assassination sub-plot helps move the main battle plot to its conclusion in that it removes Sisera from the scene. It also closes the narrative arc begun by Deborah’s negative word to Barak in v. 9 (hand of a woman). The reader will conclude that because Yahweh lies behind Deborah’s prophetic word, ultimately Yahweh stands behind Jael’s deed. The narrative problem for the assassination sub-plot is set up by Barak’s resistance to Deborah’s command and her prophetic prediction (vv. 8–9a). Narrative tension emerges. How will this happen? Who is the woman? There is some misdirection in that Deborah is the only woman on the scene at this point. Again, even before Jael appears, v. 11 interrupts the course of the main action (between vv. 10 and 12) in order to introduce items of still-unexplained data about background of Jael (who still remains hidden) and the locale for the assassination: Heber the Kenite, his tent. Narrative tension continues to increase—what is all this about? It is only in v. 17, after the climax of the battle plot has been achieved, that Jael, her tent, and the peace obtaining between Jabin and

 Judges 4

75

Heber are disclosed. From this point on, the assassination story unfolds through dialogue initiated by Jael (went out…she said…he said…he said) and her step-by-step actions (she covered him…she opened…and gave… she covered…got a tent stake…took a hammer…came up quietly…and drove the stake). A pleasing chiastic structure emerges in vv. 18bβ–20aα: he said to her…covered him…covered him…he said to her. The climax of the subplot is v. 21b (he died). The denouement is the revelation of the body to Barak (v. 22; dead with the stake in his temple). This closes the plot circle begun with v. 9 (no glory for you…hand of a woman). The assassination subplot thus moves in two coordinated directions: Barak’s glory is limited and Jael is glorified. The narrative structure outlined above is reinforced by examples of disjunctive syntax at v. 4a introducing Deborah (followed by circumstantial exposition sentences in vv. 4b–5a), at v. 11 (subplot exposition), at vv. 16 and 17 (transition from main plot to subplot), and at v. 22 (reappearance of Barak). The main plot and the sub-plot are each told using dialogue between a woman and a man. Deborah and Jael each commence their respective dialogues (she said) and both have the last word (vv. 6–7, 9, 14, 18, 22). Barak and Sisera respond to the initiatives of the women (he said; vv. 8, 19, 20). A useful way to appreciate the communicative impact of the narrative is to examine its characters and their narrative functions. In addition to its paired heroes, somewhat oddly the narrative also features paired villains, Jabin and Sisera. Perhaps this communicates to the reader a notion of serious crisis similar to that of the “double wickedness” of Othniel’s opponent (3:8, 10). Jabin and Sisera are cited together in 1 Sam 12:9 and Ps 83:10 [ET 9]. Jabin. Jabin as king of Canaan provides an inclusive bracket around the overall action of the chapter (v. 2 along with three times in vv. 23 and 24). But in the material that lies in between these brackets, he comes into view only in the background v. 17, where significantly he is king of only Hazor, not of all Canaan. The Canaanites in fact were organized into numerous city states, each having its own king. Labeling Jabin as king of Canaan increases his status as a dangerous enemy. This designation also associates him with other enemy kings: of Aram Naharaim (3:8), of Moab (3:14), and of the Ammonites (11:12). Jabin oppresses Israel as a whole (vv. 1, 3), not just the tribes Naphtali and Zebulun who make up Barak’s attack force. At the end of the chapter it is Israel that clinches the victory (vv. 23–24).

76 Judges

As ruler of Hazor, Jabin also appears in the conquest traditions recounted in Joshua 11, where he was decisively defeated and eliminated (vv. 10–11). This raises the question of whether Joshua 11 and Judges 4 could actually be part of the same compositional process. Nevertheless, Hazor, as an impressive site and major political center in the monarchy period, would invite the production of multiple heroic stories. Moreover, the name Jabin was apparently a dynastic name shared by several kings of Hazor in the eighteenth to sixteenth century (compare Ibni-Addu as king of Hazor in the Mari documents) and would likely have been a standard part of Israel’s folk memory attached to Hazor. The compiler of Joshua and Judges (DH) was simply willing to follow the sources at hand and include both stories. The daunting force of 900 chariots presumably belonged to Jabin (v. 3, his), and were a feature of the inherited narrative. The presence of chariots in the narrative signal the political and economic gap between Canaan and Israel. The classic weapon of the Canaanite city state, chariots, required centralized royal authority and substantial resources to acquire and support horses and train an elite class of warriors. Chariots indicate the difference between hill dwellers and those who control the lowlands. They could be deployed rapidly to inflict an effective shock attack against infantry, especially troops who were poorly trained and equipped. The narrative repeatedly emphasizes that Sisera led a two-division army of chariots and foot soldiers (vv. 7, 13, and 15). Sisera. Sisera appears robustly in both the battle report and the death scene, and was apparently part of both narrative traditions. He is introduced by the circumstantial clause in v. 2b and brought on stage by the wordplay of vv. 6 and 7 (draw together//draw out). Sisera is largely a reactive character. He responds to Barak’s muster at Tabor (v. 10; called out; v. 12; it was reported) with a muster of his own at the Kishon in v. 13 (again called out). He reacts to defeat with flight. Jael must go outside to invite him to her tent. It is only then that he takes independent action with two requests (vv. 19 and 20), each of which calls his adult manhood into question and sets up the situation for his death. His non-Israelite name creates reader interest and perhaps labels him in terms of being the ultimate enemy alien. His name appears among the netînîm temple servants (Ezra 2:53//Neh 7:55) and might suggest to original readers some relationship to the Gibeonite ethnic enclave (Josh 9:23, 27). In v. 14 Deborah predicts that Sisera is to be given into Barak’s hand. The reader might imagine a contradiction with her negative predication in v. 7, but soon realizes that this expression is a metonymy for Sisera’s

 Judges 4

77

chariots and army (vv. 15 and 16). As Barak went down (v. 14), Sisera got down (v. 15; wayēred in both cases). The text does not explain what motivates him to abandon his chariot, rather than using it as a means of escape. Those who wish to harmonize the ch. 4 narrative with ch. 5 think of flooding water or mud bogging down his chariot (5:21), but Sisera’s panic mentioned in 4:15 seems to be sufficient cause (compare Exod 14:24–25). His army turns back toward its home base (Haroshethha-goiim; vv. 13 and 16) and is slaughtered. He heads for safety in the direction of Israel’s original muster point Kedesh (vv. 9, 11), eastward on his way to Hazor. Will the reader think that he is heading toward the terebinth at Zaanannim for a chance at asylum at a holy site? The disjunctive syntax of v. 16 (Barak as subject first) and then v. 17 (Sisera as subject first) makes Sisera’s flight on foot (vv. 15 and 17) simultaneous with Barak’s chase. Sisera’s death is bracketed by Barak’s pursuit (vv. 16 and 22; ûbārāq rādap…wəhinnēh bārāq rōdēp). Verse 17b is required to explain why Sisera felt he could count on safety with Jael, because readers would normally assume amicable relations between a Kenite and Israel. The discovery of Sisera’s corpse parallels that of Eglon’s body (3:24– 25). Both scenes build narrative tension with a repeated use of hinnēh (conventionally “behold”; obscured in the commentary translation): wəhinnēh…wəhinnēh…nōpēl mēt (there he was, their master, fallen dead on the floor//there he was, Sisera, fallen dead). One might think of two sequential video shots in 4:22: “behold Barak pursuing…behold Sisera fallen dead.” Deborah. Deborah is the protagonist, who commissions Barak and speaks for Yahweh. She reveals, steers, and certifies Yahweh’s plan and activity. Disputes about whether it is she or Barak who is the “real” judge are beside the point, although subsequent texts pay more attention to Barak for cultural reasons (1 Sam 12:11; Heb 11:32). As is the case with Othniel and Ehud, there is no hint of negativity in her portrayal. Barak may perhaps be the first of the judges who display more problematic behaviors (Gideon, Jephthah, Samson). Deborah’s role in the received tradition, which may have been geographically tied to her tree, is as a war prophet like Elijah or Elisha (compare the women prophets of Mari). Her full identification includes being wife of Lappidoth, the conventional designation of a married woman (compare vv. 17 and 21, and significantly the prophet Huldah in 2 Kgs 22:14). There is no reason to think that this expression was intended to parallel the connection of Barak’s name with “lightning” or be an attribute of hers (see note on v. 4). Although often quarried for significance by interpreters,

78 Judges

the meaning of the names Deborah (bee), Barak (lightning) and Jael (ibex) play no explicit role in the narrative development, and none of those names would be considered unusual by the ancient reader. Deborah sits, as is appropriate (Exod 18:13; Ps 122:5; Joel 3:12), to perform her public function of deciding legal issues. Ancient readers would think of the judges appointed by Moses (Deut 1) and Samuel (1 Sam 7:15–17) and realize that her qualifications as a prophet would authenticate her juridical activity. Her vocation is incorporated into the book’s overall schema by v. 4b: she was judging. Judging in a forensic sense plays no role in story to follow, but using of the verbal root unites her (and not so much Barak) with the other heroes and office holders of the book. The phrase at that time suggests that this view of her role is an authorial contribution (compare 3:29; 12:6; 14:4). She is not a merely tribal functionary, for the Israelites come to her, which gives her a national function to counter the national oppression reported in v. 3. The circumstantial v. 5 locates Deborah at an eponymous palm tree in the Bethel area. It seems likely that this is the same tree located in the same general area at the grave of Rebekah’s nurse Deborah (Gen 35:8) and designated Allon-bacuth (Oak of Weeping). There is no reason why the same sacral location could not have different traditional etiologies. Strangely, palm is vocalized as tōmer, perhaps preserving a dialectical variant form or even a disparaging vocalization as a questionable shrine. The tree is located only very generally as between Beitin (1727 1482) and perhaps er-Ram (1722 1402). Such a location would be far south of the field of action. As prophet Deborah’s role is to communicate Yahweh’s commission of Barak, incite war, dictate tactics, and provide inspiration to Barak (vv. 6, 7, 14). As advisor and motivator, she is the catalyst for sacral war action. Prophetic prediction and comfort expresses that Yahweh is in ultimate control of events. In the narrative, Deborah serves the purposes of calling the leader (compare the angel and Gideon in ch. 6), overcoming Barak’s resistance, providing assurance, and confirming or guaranteeing the oracles that she proclaims with a sign. In this case, the prophetic sign is the anomalous fact that the enemy general will fall by a woman’s hand. The role of sign in her prophetic activity will remind the reader of Deut 18:15–22. This authenticating sign is not to be experienced until the end of the story (compare the return of Moses to the mountain in Exod 3:12). Her words provide unity and structure to the composite narrative in that the first element of Deborah’s speech in v. 7 leads to vv. 12–16 and the second about the hand of a woman (v. 9) leads to vv. 17–19.

 Judges 4

79

Deborah’s interchange with Barak is ambiguous. His unwillingness to go into battle without the support of Yahweh’s prophet would seem to make good sense. One could even understand his response to Deborah as an expression of faith in her prophetic leadership and her ability to channel Yahweh’s power and presence (compare Elijah and Elisha). She agrees to go along, and he will not be deprived of the assurance of the divine oracle she will speak in v. 14. Yet Barak’s request is implicitly treated as a lack of faith (compare Gideon and Jephthah). Deborah does not exactly reprimand him, but predicts a sign that will rob him of his fame. What was predicted about Barak’s hand in v. 7 turns out to refer to victory in battle, but not the killing of Sisera. This is made clear by a repetition of the give into your hand formula in v. 14. Using the verb sell in v. 9 (instead of give) ameliorates reader confusion. Word order foregrounds and emphasizes the sign nature of the prediction as an extraordinary event: by the hand of a woman Yahweh will sell. The oracular sign is indefinite in that the woman is not named and her identity is not revealed until near the story’s end, when Jael takes up a hammer in her hand (v. 21). Repeated use of the verb hlk (go) in the conversation and actions of Deborah and Barak hold them together (vv. 8 [4 times], 9 [4 times]), but also make it clear that she is the instigator (v. 6). This verb also appears in the idiom rendered in the commentary translation as harder and harder in the concluding v. 24 (hālôk). In vv. 12–13 the preliminary factors commanded and predicted by Deborah’s words in vv. 6–7 have all taken place (Mount Tabor, 10,000 men, Zebulun and Naphtali, draw out, Kishon River), so her next words in v. 14 set the conflict in motion. Up! (the same command appears in 5:12). Yahweh goes out before as vanguard and commanding officer (Num 27:17; 1 Sam 8:20; Ps 68:8 [ET 7]). Significantly, Deborah vanishes after she proclaims her sacral war oracle. Barak. Barak is introduced in v. 6 as the narrative sequence picks up again after the circumstantial background given in vv. 4b–5. The pattern of his calling in vv. 6–9 is typical of the genre: commission, then objection, then assurance, and promise of a sign. The call of Gideon is similar. Interpreters have often characterized the response of Barak to Deborah as unmanly and cowardly. However, the interchange may not be so much an indication of judgment against Barak as it is an effective narrative strategy used to set up the hand of a woman predication and thus create narrative tension. Hand of a woman means that, unlike Ehud or Gideon (3:21; 8:21), Barak will not achieve the fame and honor of slaying his opponent with his own

80 Judges

hand. At the same time and conversely, the manner of Sisera’s demise will bring shame on Sisera (consider 8:21 and 9:54). Verse 10 under his command in Hebrew is “at his feet,” an expression that gains depth when this same wording is ironically picked up in vv. 15 and 17 as on foot. The verb “go up” is used for mustering for battle (vv. 10, 12), while “go down” signals actual battle engagement (v. 14). Barak’s place of muster atop Tabor is the site of a tribal holy place shared by Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali. This was quite likely the place where the battle story and the Song of Deborah were preserved and recited. Sisera reacts to Barak’s threatening move, fulfilling Deborah’s “draw out” predication of v. 7. Just why an Israelite muster at Tabor would cause Sisera to move down into the Kishon lowlands (v. 13) is something of a strategic puzzle, but doubtless this has more to do with narrative strategy than military tactics. Clearly both Tabor and Kishon had to be accommodated in the story. After victory is assured, sentences describing Barak’s pursuit of his foeman create narrative delay that allows for the action of vv. 17–21 to unfold. As the story concludes, disjunctive grammar in v. 22 returns Barak on stage to witness Sisera’s dead body. This completes the narrative arc begun in v. 9. Jael. The intertwined stories of Jael and Deborah celebrate Yahweh’s power to deliver. Playing off reader expectations in regard to the roles of women is important to the text’s strategy and impact. The reversals of gender role expectation and the tensions set up between the sexes are not part of some pre-modern liberationist ethic. Rather, they utilize the stresses between the sexes found in all human societies in order to achieve an authorial objective. The narratives are intended to glorify Yahweh, whose prophetic word determines these deviations from the socially conventional and who maneuvers ways to use the underdog and the trickster—so beloved of folktales—in order to deliver Israel. The startling hand of a woman motif glorifies Yahweh, who chooses to use such a surprising mechanism to achieve divine will. Yahweh uses both women and men to deliver Israel as a society consisting of men and women. Jael’s entry into the story is held off as long as possible in order to create narrative tension growing out of the hand of a woman motif. She is prepared for but not actually introduced by Deborah’s oracle in v. 9 and the background exposition reported in v. 11. Thus, her eventual appearance in v. 17 surprises the reader. Barak’s pursuit (vv. 16 and 22) brackets and integrates Jael’s story into the larger plot movement. In the larger shape of Judges, Shamgar and Jael are coordinated in time by 5:6. Shamgar appears temporally just before the start of the Deborah

 Judges 4

81

story, and Jael wraps up its hand of a woman theme. Shamgar’s status as an Israelite is left undetermined; as the wife of a Kenite, the reader is left to assume that Jael was not of Israel either. In any case, Shamgar’s status as son of Anat (3:31) and her status as part of the nomadic social structure label them both as outsiders. Each uses a non-military implement as weapon: ox goad and tent stake. The Jael narrative depends on unstated cultural conventions about hospitality, gender roles, and sexuality that we moderns may not be entirely competent to understand. Jael would seem to violate gender and hospitality conventions by offering hospitality as a woman (and not as the male head of household), assertively going out to invite Sisera into the tent, and betraying the hospitality norm that a guest who receives nourishment should be protected until he leaves. Sisera’s request for water was also an appeal for protective hospitality. She does offer him the best (not just water but milk). Comparison with the invitations (Gen 18:3; 19:2) and hospitality (Gen 18:6–8; 19:3) of Abraham and Lot is instructive. In the Tale of Sinuhe a hospitable Asiatic gives Sinuhe water and boiled milk (COS 1.38:78; ANET, 19). The status of peace between Heber and Jabin makes narrative sense because as itinerant smiths the Kenites would have special immunities and arrangements with the powers that be. No doubt the Zaanannim terebinth, like the Palm of Deborah, was one of Palestine’s numerous holy trees (Gen 12:6; 18:1, 4, 8; 21:33; 23:17–18; 35:4; Deut 11:30; Judg 6:11). It is probably the landmark tree referred to in the Naphtali boundary list (Josh 19:33). Its mention in v. 11 brings Heber’s encampment into the realm of the narrative and the neighborhood of Kedesh, cross-referencing the relocation of the Kenites reported in 1:16. Verse 11 explains why this individual Kenite (and his wife Jael) are encamped so far north of that group’s expected southern location. The preposition translated as far as communicates that Heber was a long way from his home Kenite region. Verse 11 interrupts the connection between Barak’s move in v. 10 and Sisera’s countermove in v. 12 and thus creates a bit of narrative delay while the rival armies maneuver and a report is carried to Sisera. Is highlighting Kenite kinship to Moses (v. 11) a way of somewhat explaining Jael’s action in spite of the peace that obtained between Jabin and the bet-ab of which Heber was patriarch (v. 17)? When these two verses are put together, a dramatically meaningful “coincidence” is revealed. Heber’s tent at Zaanannim turns out to be placed along Sisera’s logical escape route from Kishon eastward to Hazor. His tent in v. 11 contrasts with tent of Jael in v. 17, suggesting separate tents that would allow Jael more freedom of action. Then again,

82 Judges

it also deepens the questionable nature of her invitation. Wife of Heber the Kenite was apparently a standardized appellation fixed in the tradition (5:24; also see 4:4). In the Ehud story, assassination made victory possible; here the order of causation is reversed. The narrative leads up to the climactic killing through dialogue and Jael’s actions. This pattern builds tension and progressively clarifies for the reader how a woman could kill a general. Jael is the decisive actor. She takes the initiative to invite Sisera in (as she will Barak, v. 22). Ironically, her deceptive do not fear echoes the wording of a sacral war oracle. Her act of covering is emphasized by repetition: she covered him with a rug…she covered him. Covering comforts him into sleep, conceals him, and allows her to approach him unseen. The reader may perhaps also connect her provision of milk as a causative factor in Sisera’s sleep. Structurally, there is an interplay of imperative and response: Turn aside…he turned aside…she covered Give me water…she serves milk…she covered Stand at the opening…she drove the stake

His order for her to stand guard emphasizes the danger of pursuit and his pressing need to hide out. Like Jael’s act of covering, this request adds to his sense of security. Hiding is not necessarily cowardice (compare Josh 2:4–7 and 2 Sam 17:17–20). However, his command Stand at the opening, along with the covering rug that impedes his line of sight, actually allows Jael to get the tent peg and mallet and sneak back. In the last reported speech of the chapter, the narrator uses wordplay to mock his manhood: “Is there any [real] man here?” The answer is indeed “no,” because Sisera has lost any claim to manhood. Chapter 4 stages the assassination so that Sisera is clearly already on the ground sleeping and exhausted and the stake goes down into the earth. Jael’s mighty blow drives the stake through whole skull and out the other side, just as Ehud pushed his dagger all the way down. Indeed, 4:21 shares three verbal connections with 3:21: took, hand, drove (root tq). In this climactic v. 21, repetition of wife of Heber reminds the reader of the peace reported in v. 17 just as it is being violated. Her hammer and tent stake compel the reader’s interest, fit Jael’s background as a tent woman, and would certainly have been a most memorable and enduring part of the tradition. They join ox goad, millstone, and jaw bone in the book’s catalog of unusual weapons near to hand.

 Judges 4

83

There is a touch of both maternal behavior and eroticism. Jael’s provision of milk and covering Sisera up (twice) suggests something maternal. Jael’s invitation sounds like that of the seductress in Prov 7:10, 15 (to meet) and 9:16 (turn aside). Sexual undertones are suggested by her act of covering Sisera and his sleep (compare scenes like Judg 16:19; Esth 7:8; Jdt 12:16; Prov 7:16–18). Readers would judge being alone in the tent together, with Sisera apparently lying down, to be a dubious situation at best (compare Amnon and Tamar; 2 Sam 13:9–10). Whether an ancient reader would see her insertion of a tent stake as a rape reversal scene is uncertain, although the implication is nearly unavoidable for modern readers in 5:27 when read against 5:30. Yahweh. It is the narrative character Yahweh who is in charge of events, stands behind the prophetic oracles (vv. 6–7, 14), and functions as the actual operative subject of what happens in the sacral war plot (vv. 7, 9, 14, 15, 23). Verses 7 and 14a are sacral war oracles (compare 1 Sam 23:2, 4; 2 Sam 5:23–24; 1 Kgs 20:13–14; 22:5–6, 15). The surely assertions about Yahweh in vv. 6b and 14a (in Hebrew actually rhetorical questions) provide tactical guidance and encouragement. Panic (v. 15) is the classic weapon of the Divine Warrior (Exod 14:24; Josh 10:10; 1 Sam 7:10; 2 Sam 22:15; Pss 7:14; 77:18; 144:6; Zech 9:14; Hab 3:11). Yet the human actors are also vital to what takes place (vv. 6, 8–10, 12–14, 16, 24). What Yahweh calls on Barak to do sets in motion the battle the Divine Warrior wins with Israel’s participation. Both divinely induced panic and the edge of the sword work together. The ambiguous usage of by the edge of the sword in vv. 15 (as though wielded by Yahweh; see note on v. 15) and the passive voice of v. 16 allows for a dual causality of both divine and human agency. Both Yahweh and Israel are the operative subjects in the two-part denouement of vv. 23–24 The usual divine passive of the formulaic subdued (3:30; 8:28; 11:33; 1 Sam 7:13) is here replaced by the active voice: God subdued Jabin. It was really God who delivered, but this was done through the actions of Israel and the three heroes. Wordplay may be intended between the verbal root kn (subdue) and knn (Canaan). On that day in v. 23 points back to Deborah’s prediction in v. 14: this is the day. Verse 24 follows up with the aftermath of God’s action; Israel kept on bearing down until they cut off Jabin.

84 Judges

Genre and Composition The genre of the main plot is battle report. This is evidenced by the conveyance formula (v. 7), divinely induced panic (v. 15), and pursuit (v. 16). The active presence of a prophet and prophetic oracle often feature in a battle report, as for example in 1 Kings 20 or 2 Kings 3. The concept that divine oracle was central to sacral war was an international convention. Examples may be found in the Mari letters, for example an oracle of Dagan using the “into the hand” formula in a letter to Zimri-Lim (ANET, 623). The Mesha Stela reports oracles of Chemosh: “Go, take Nebo”; “Go down, fight against Horonaim” (COS 2.23:137–38, ANET, 320–21). Zakkur of Hamath reports that Balshamayn spoke through seers and diviners in a war context: “Do not be afraid” and “I will save you from” enemy kings (COS 2.35:155, ANET, 501–502). Striking similarities with Exodus 14 illustrate elements of the classic Divine Warrior tradition: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

 Chariots  The enemy is told about Israel’s status (Exod 14:5; Judg 4:12)  Panic (Exod 14:24; Judg 4:15)  Flight (Exod 14:27; Judg 4:15, 17)  Not even one survived (Exod 14:28; Judg 4:16)  The enemy is seen to be dead (Exod 14:30; Judg 4:22)  Summary formula on that day (Exod 14:30; Judg 4:23)

The battle report behind ch. 4 was originally a tribal tradition celebrating Zebulun and Naphtali alone. These tribes, whose spiritual center was Tabor, make up Barak’s army. Barak is from Kedesh-naphtali. Jael’s tent is on the Naphtali border. This circumstance fits with local nature of war in the pre-state period. Judges, however, recounts local folktales as the story of “all Israel,” converting local conflicts into national ones. This tendency is visible in the repeated mention of Israel and Israelites (vv. 1–3, 4–5, 23–24) and particularly in the phrase Yahweh God of Israel (v. 6; compare 5:3, 5). The geography of military action and its aftermath cannot be reconstructed. Attempts to harmonize 5:19 (Megiddo and Taanach) into this picture are methodologically inappropriate (see note on 5:19). One ought not to historicize this geographic information. The proper question concerns how competent ancient readers would have envisaged the geographic staging of the narrative.

 Judges 4

85

The region Harosheth-ha-goiim cannot be located, although one might think of a wooded area on the Galilee side of the Jezreel Valley. The boundary line of Josh 19:33 locates the Oak of Zaanannim somewhere along the eastward-running south border of Naphtali between Mount Tabor and the Jordan. Plotting this on Sisera’s flight path from south of Tabor means that Kedesh near Zaanannim (Judg 4:11) must be located east of the battle site. Geographic certainly is blocked by the pervasiveness of the popular toponym Kedesh (Sanctuary). One issue is whether Barak’s home town Kedesh-naphtali (v. 6) is to be equated with the Kedesh of vv. 9–11. This is certainly the path of least resistance for the reader. Kedesh-naphtali was used initially in order to distinguish that particular Kedesh from other sites by that name, especially the prominent Kadesh north of Hazor. After v. 6 the simple designation Kedesh sufficed. The Kedesh of Judges 4 is often equated with the sizable Tell Qades north of Hazor (1997 2798). However, this is too far north to be the muster site of vv. 9 and 10. Another suggestion is Tell Qedesh (Tell Abu Qudeis 1706 2184), 4 km north of Taanach. Although this would be a reasonable identification if the battle were imagined as taking place near Taanach and Megiddo (inappropriately harmonizing with 5:19), this would be a really strange direction for Sisera to flee. Tell Qedesh is also too far from the Oak of Zaanannim. Kedesh in the city list of 1 Chr 6:57 is a pure red herring, because the name there is an artifact of the textual situation and really represents Kishion in Issachar (Josh 21:28; compare 19:20). Seeking a location near Zaanannim makes Khirbet el-Qedish (2023 2378) near the southwest shore of Lake Galilee the best candidate for Kedesh(-naphtali). This location would be a reasonable muster site for the two Galilee tribes before a move westward to Tabor. To summarize, Barak is instructed to gather his forces at Tabor (v. 6). He musters them first at Kedesh (vv. 9–10), then marches up to Tabor (v. 12). This deployment induces Sisera to move into the eastern portion of the Kishon drainage area. Israel moves southwards and westwards down from Tabor to the upper tributaries of the Kishon. While his army scatters back toward Harosheth-ha-goiim, Sisera flees eastward in the direction of Jael’s tent at the Oak of Zaanannim, near Israel’s original muster point at Kedesh (v. 11). He is on his way to Hazor, hoping to head northward along the west shore of the lake. The Jael incident represents the type scene of a high-status man assassinated by a woman, sometimes in compromising circumstances. The tale of Judith is the other biblical example. In the Ugaritic Aqhatu Epic, Pughatu disguises herself and carries a sword into the quarters of Yaṭpan to wreak

86 Judges

vengeance on her brother’s assassin. At his request she brings him wine twice. Then the text breaks off (COS 1.103:355–56; ANET, 155; there are many translation issues). Interest in women who violently transcend social conventions is reflected in Herodotus’ tale of Queen Tomyris, who defeated Cyrus in battle, decapitated his body, and insulted his head by stuffing it into a wineskin of blood (Histories 1.214). More generally, woman’s wisdom and courage are often honored in stories (Gilgamesh; Judg 9:52–54; 11:36; compare Exod 1:15–22; 2:1–10, 16–22; 4:24–26; 1 Sam 19:12; 2 Sam 14:2; 20:16, 22). Judges 4 and the Song of Deborah The narrative of ch. 4 and the poem of ch. 5 recount more or less the same story, but similarities and differences create puzzles for both critic and reader. A popular opinion has been that much of the content of ch. 4 depends on and seeks to clarify the Song of Deborah. However, it cannot be claimed that ch. 4 was created totally on the basis of ch. 5, because the former preserves features that point to a relationship with an independent traditional tale. The scribal technique of bracketing both chapters between the frame elements of 4:1–3 and 5:31b and the Song itself between 4:23 and 5:31b indicates that the juxtaposition of the two chapters was created by DH. The two text blocs are also connected by the phrase on that day used both to summarize the battle (4:23) and in 5:1 to indicate when Deborah (and Barak) sang her song. Chapters 4 and 5 taken together are referred to in Ps 83:10–11 [ET 9–10], which deduces the battle location as En-dor by coordinating Judg 5:19 with Josh 17:11//Judg 1:27. For its part, 1 Sam 12:9–11 focuses on Judges ch. 4, mentioning Barak (as Bedan) in v. 11, with v. 9 echoing Judg 4:2. Elements common to both chapters include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Deborah in a leading position with respect to Barak (compare 5:12) Deborah present at the place of conflict (4:9; 5:15) the cast of characters, including Sisera, Heber, and Jael (Jabin is absent from the Song) Israel’s troubled situation (4:1–2; 5:6–8), Israel’s muster (4:6; 5:14), and a triumphal outcome (4:16, 23–24; 5:19–21) Zebulun and Naphtali are the fighting tribes in 4:10 and cap off the six-tribe roster in 5:18 enemy chariots (compare 5:22 and 28)

 Judges 4

7. 8. 9. 10.

87

Divine Warrior motifs the Kishon as one location of engagement (4:7, 13; 5:21) identification of Jael as wife of Heber the Kenite (4:17; 5:24) parallels in the murder scene including the offer of milk (4:19; 5:25)

The two chapters share a vertical geography in describing the campaign. In ch. 4 Israel’s maneuvers to battle are described by contrasting verbs: had gone up to Mount Tabor (4:12; compare v. 10) and went down from Mount Tabor (v. 14). The poem similarly features the verb yrd (go down) in 5:13 and 14, but also intimates movement from “heights of the field” (5:18) down to engagement at a lower level, that is, the valley (v. 15), the waters of Megiddo (v. 19), and River Kishon (v. 21). Yet the differences are also striking. Chapter 4 has no theophany approach, mythic involvement of astral bodies, tribal connections beyond Zebulun and Naphtali, Meroz, booty, or Sisera’s mother. Chapter 5 for its part lacks Jabin, the rapport between Heber and the Canaanites, Sisera’s muster, or Barak’s encounter with Sisera’s body. That is to say, 4:11–18 fills in a yawning narrative gap between 5:23 and 24 that, left unexplained, would leave the reader absolutely clueless. Deborah functions as prophet in a somewhat different sense in each chapter. She offers sacral war oracles in ch. 4, but is the singer of a numinous song in ch. 5, like Miriam (Exod 15:20) or even Balaam. Women’s perspective dominates much of both chapters, but while Barak is ideologically downgraded with respect to Deborah in ch. 4, the two work together in the poem (5:1, 12). It is significant that, without any mention in ch. 5 of Barak’s pursuit, Sisera’s flight to Jael, her invitation, or the location of the murder in her tent, no reader could reconstruct much of a narrative on the basis of the Song of Deborah alone. Overall, ch. 4 is not predominantly concerned with solving problems but with telling an entertaining, theologically sound story. The reader of ch. 4 finds explanations for some enigmatic elements of ch. 5, but not all. Chapter 4 explicates what is described in 5:22, the gap between 5:23 and 24, and the staging of 5:25–27. However, it does not clarify the “natural” mechanisms for sacral war victory ambiguously suggested in 5:4, 20–21 (astral bodies, heavy rain, and River Kishon). Nor does it help the reader with the puzzle of Meroz (5:23). Chapter 4 is more formulaic and less mythic than ch. 5 in its description of sacral war. The Kishon is a mere location in 4:7, but is a mythic combatant in 5:21. In ch. 4 Yahweh acts by communicating prophetic word,

88 Judges

panicking the enemy, and effecting their subjugation (v. 23). In contrast, in ch. 5 Yahweh approaches in Divine Warrior theophany, and stars and river serve as mythic agents of victory. Failure to pick up on the involvement of astral bodies in ch. 4 may have grown out of Deuteronomistic theological sensitivity. The prose account was composed with the preceding Ehud story somewhere in the background. This is particularly noticeable when comparing the death scenes of Sisera and Eglon. Chapter 4 closes the narrative arc begun in v. 9 by having Barak discover Sisera’s body. Chapter 5 handles the matter of narrative closure in a different way. The fruitless waiting by Sisera’s mother and the hard-hearted reported speech of her companions generates a sense of closure and moral satisfaction for the reader. Chapter 4 preserves traditional elements from its source battle report that are not covered in the Song: Harosheth-ha-goiim, Deborah’s tree and its location, and the impressive number of chariots involved. Only ch. 4, and not ch. 5, preserves the geographic connection to the Tabor shrine (Hos 5.1). This holy site was shared by Naphtali and Zebulun and was located where the borders of two tribes and that of Issachar touched. This sacred summit would have been an ideal location to situate a traditional story reporting an attack by troops from Galilee. The Tabor shrine was most likely the place where the Deborah and Barak traditions were preserved, recounted, and celebrated. The presentation of Jael’s violent deed in the prose and poetic accounts require special attention. Vocabulary connections are extensive: Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite, tent, milk, tent stake, and hammer. Judges 4:19–21 and 5:24–27 share the sequence of Sisera asking for a drink of water, Jael providing a dairy product to drink instead, her act of violence, and his death. In 4:19 Jael opens a leather container; in 5:25 she provides her hospitability in an aristocratic bowl. The single dairy product of 4:19 is stated as a merismus of milk and curds in the poetic parallelism of 5:25. The poem mentions nothing about pursuing, inviting, covering, hiding, keeping watch, or weary sleep. Chapter 4 provides an explicit motive for Sisera’s request for a drink (I am thirsty). Jael’s invitation and covering (4:18) and Sisera’s request and command (vv. 19, 20) are narrative devices to set up the kill. Being sent to the tent opening, combined with Sisera’s sleep, allows Jael to get the murder weapons. So these items were probably already features of the inherited folktale. The narrative of ch. 4 thus combines authorial artistry with an inherited tradition that included more details than what ch. 5 portrays.

 Judges 4

89

Killing Sisera while he sleeps, so that the stake goes down into the ground, makes narrative sense in 4:21. In contrast, 5:27 leaves the reader with the confusing impression of Sisera sitting or standing when she strikes him (sank…fell). It is abundantly clear that the notion of Sisera’s death by means of a piercing tent stake driven by a hammer could not have been derived from the poem’s staging of the assassination. Judges 5:26b engages in poetic parallelism that, if taken too literally, seems to divide Jael’s action into the bludgeoning of a standing or sitting man and piercing his head once fallen (5:26b). Efforts to harmonize ch. 4 with the description of his sinking and falling in the poem (see below) may be justified by certain theories of final-form interpretation, but should be eschewed by the critical interpreter. The reality is that ch. 5 is poetically representing (but hardly making clearer) a form of the Jael tradition similar to that used by ch. 4. Chapter 4 may have depended on ch. 5 for the connection between the battle report and the Jael episode, but could hardly have derived all the concrete details it reports from the poetic obscurity of Deborah’s song. Some contend that in ch. 5 Sisera must have been standing, or at least leaning on something, so that he subsequently fell (5:27). Jael, then, must have been standing behind or over him and shattered his head with a blow, since in that position she could not pound a stake into it. Connected with this construal of how Jael’s act is being described is the proposal that her hammer and stake were really a single “blunt instrument,” divided in two by poetic parallelism in 5:26a. However, it is hard to see how any reader would imagine that Jael could strike from behind while Sisera is standing if he is to fall to lie between her legs. The ambiguities in the presentation result from poetic technique and not a difference in tradition or staging. For example, in 5:26a, Jael’s hand and right hand could indeed be synonymous parallels (compare Ps 68:14), but stake and hammer are slant lexical parallels. Two objects must be meant: In her hand she picked up one tool. Yes, in her right hand she picked up a second tool.

This was recognized by the Old Greek and Vulgate translators when they rendered hand in 5:26aα as “left hand.” The parallelism is also sequential: “first she did this and then she did that.” A tent stake can hardly be a weapon without the required hammer.

90 Judges

Judges 5:26b disassembles the act of murder into a hammering action and a piercing action and encloses the results caused by Jael’s assault with these two actions. That is to say, hammered and pierced enclose shattered and crushed in an ABBA structure. In this way the poetry merges two things (hammering and piercing) that it also holds apart. The verb translated crush (mḥṣ) is appropriate for smashing the head with a blow (Ps 68:22 [ET 21]; Hab 3:13). The verb translated shatter (mḥq) is too rare to say much about. The bottom line is that Jael picks up two implements (Judg 5:26a) and Sisera’s temple ends up being pierced, so the reader naturally assumes that she uses both hammer and stake in the predictable fashion—to puncture. As a consequence of this supposition, the reader must picture Sisera’s head as being already on the ground. Something similar is true for the matter of sinking down and falling in 5:27. It is hardly surprising that the poem does not mention the preliminary action of laying down, since it also fails to portray Sisera’s flight or entry into the tent or the context for the offer of milk. The text expects the reader to rely on previous knowledge of the traditional story. The piled up verbs of 5:27 do not portray a diachronic, sequential process, but instead provide a synchronic, static snapshot showing Sisera’s body as it lay, dead and straddled by Jael’s feet. His corpse looked like a body struck down in battle, one about whom it would ordinarily be said: he sank, he fell. These verbs are being used in a stative and static manner in order to supplement and parallel šākab (lay). They are chosen to indicate that Sisera was comparable to a casualty of battle. Thus, nāpal (fell) here can also be read as a stative (“lay fallen”) as in Exod 21:18 and Zech 11:2. Similarly, the verb sank (kāra) can be understood as in the state of having one’s lower legs on the ground (HALOT 1:499). Both these verbs sometimes refer to death as a result of military action (2 Kgs 9:24 and Isa 66:12; Jer 47:4 and 49:28; Ezek 32:21). To highlight this static, snapshot effect, one could translate: Straddled by her legs, he was down with lower legs on the ground, Fallen as a corpse, lying flat Straddled by her legs he was down, fallen; Where he was down, right there he was fallen—struck dead

This drawn out and repetitive buildup of verbs wraps up with a climactic thud: struck dead (passive participle, “destroyed”). The poet is clearly more concerned about conveying an emotional impact than about the cause and manner of death.

 Judges 4

91

In summary, ch. 4 is partially dependent on ch. 5, but ch. 5 cannot really tell a coherent story without the background offered by ch. 4. Chapter 4 had ch. 5 as one of its sources, but also relied on a prose version of the core tradition received in a form not unlike the stories about Ehud or Gideon. Chapter 4 features elements not derived from the poem and not driven entirely by its own authorial intention. It does not use the sequential format of ch. 5 as its structure. In the present form of the text, on that day in 5:1 incorporates the Song into the overall story, making the Song into a victory salute sung by Deborah and Barak on the day of the battle that is described in ch. 4. By putting the traditional prose narrative before the traditional poem, the author was able to clear up matters that someone reading the poem alone would find puzzling.

J u d g es 5

The Song of Deborah On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang: When hair hangs loose in Israel when the people volunteer themselves— bless Yahweh! 3 Hear O kings! Give ear O princes! I will sing to Yahweh. I will make music to Yahweh the God of Israel. 4 O Yahweh, when you went out from Seir, marched forth from the country of Edom, the earth shook, the sky poured forth, even the clouds poured forth water. 5 Mountains quaked before Yahweh, the One of Sinai, before Yahweh the God of Israel. 1 2

In the days of Shamgar, son of Anath, in the days of Jael, highways were abandoned; and journeyers were traveling roundabout paths. 7 The peasantry ceased in Israel; they ceased until you arose O Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel! 8 God chose new ones. Then war was in the gates. Was a shield to be seen, or a spear, among forty thousand in Israel? 9 My heart is with those who command Israel, with the willing volunteers among the people. Bless Yahweh. 6

10

Riders on the tawny ones, those who sit on saddle blankets, and travelers on the road—declare it!

 Judges 5 11

To the sound of musicians at the watering places, there they recount the righteous triumphs of Yahweh, the righteous triumphs of his peasantry in Israel.

Then the people of Yahweh went down to the gates. 12 Awake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, give voice to a song! Arise, Barak, Take captive your captives, son of Abinoam! 13 Then the remnant of the noble went down; the people of Yahweh went down for him against the warriors. 14 From Ephraim, those whose root is in Amalek, after you Benjamin among your kinfolk; from Machir commanders went down and from Zebulun those who wield the marshal’s staff. 15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah As was Issachar, so was Barak; Sent out into the valley after him. In the clans of Reuben there were great decisions of heart. 16 Why did you sit among the sheepfolds, to hear the whistling of flutes for the flocks? Among the clans of Reuben there were great searchings of heart. 17 Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan; and Dan—why did he dwell as an alien by the ships? Asher sat at the coast of the sea, and by its landings he stayed. 18 Zebulun is a people who risked their very lives; Naphtali, too, on the heights of the field. Kings came, they fought, then the kings of Canaan fought. At Taanach, near the waters of Megiddo, they did not take booty of silver. 20 The stars fought from the sky. From their pathways they fought against Sisera. 21 The Kishon River swept them away— primordial river—Kishon River. March on my soul in strength! 22 Then the hoofs of the horses hammered, from the galloping, galloping of his steeds. 19

93

94 Judges “Curse Meroz,” says the angel of Yahweh. “Utterly curse its inhabitants, because they did not come to the aid of Yahweh, to the aid of Yahweh against the warriors.”

23

More blessed than all other women be Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, among women living in tents most blessed. 25 Water he asked, milk she gave. In a bowl fit for nobles she brought soured milk. 26 She reached out her hand to the tent stake, her right hand to the laborer’s hammer. She hammered Sisera, she shattered his head; she crushed and pierced through his temple. 27 Between her feet he sank, he fell, he lay; between her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell—struck dead. 24

Through the window she looked down, Sisera’s mother lamented through the lattice: “Why is his chariot so slow to come? Why delay the hoof beats of his chariots? 29 Her wisest noblewomen answer, indeed she answers the question herself. 30 Surely they are finding and dividing spoil. A womb or two wombs for each man. Spoil of dyed fabric for Sisera. Spoil of dyed fabric colorfully woven. Two pieces of dyed fabric colorfully woven for necks as spoil. 31 So may all your enemies perish, Yahweh, but may those who love him be like the sun going forth in its might. 28

The land had rest for forty years. Notes 2 When…when] Alternate translation of the preposition plus infinitives as causal rather than temporal: “In that…in that,” that is, “in view of the fact that” (compare NJB ESV). hair hangs loose] The meaning of the verb pr and its cognate subject is uncertain. (1) Parallelism suggests a sense related to dedication to war. The commentary translation (or as an alternative “hair hangs untrimmed”; compare NJB NRSV NJPS) derives from the association of the root (as verb and noun) with the unshorn hair of

 Judges 5

95

ritually separated persons, including dedicated warriors (Lev 10:6; Num 5:18; 6:5; Deut 32:42; Ezek 44:20; compare Samson). LXXB, “a revelation was uncovered,” and Symmachus, “when heads are uncovered,” take the concept in a metaphorical direction, apparently following Num 5:18 LXX. (2) The widely accepted alternative translation, “leaders take the lead” (compare NIV ESV REB) follows V Syr OG (LXXAL OL) and is supported by Arabic and Ugaritic cognates (HALOT 3:970–71) and by the Greek translation of Deut 32:42. This approach achieves a good parallel with those who command Israel in v. 9. If the feminine plural perāôt is taken as an abstract, then the translation “leadership took the lead” would be appropriate. (3) The expression could connote setting things loose in a general way, either rebellious ones casting off restraint or dedicated ones letting everything go for the cause. NABRE: “when uprising broke out.” volunteer] Answer the call to fight when the militia is mustered (Ps 110:3). NABRE: “when the people rallied for duty.” 3 kings…princes] This is a stock poetic pair (Ps 2:2; Hab 1:10), as are listen…give ear (Deut 32:1; Ps 86:6) and sing…make music (Pss 27:6; 68:5 [ET 4]). I…I] Emphatic pronouns: “as for me, to Yahweh I will sing.” OG (LXXAL) does not witness the second pronoun. This would be an easy haplography, but OG most likely represents a free translation of MT. to Yahweh] Alternative translation: “about Yahweh.” 4 poured forth] Follows MT and OG (LXXB). MT is supported by Ps 68:9 [ET 8] and exhibits the stair-step parallelism of progressive intensity characteristic of this poem. The lexical meaning of the verb is “drip,” but the poetry demands something stronger. LXXMN (compare OL Syr) etarachthē “shaken” and LXXL exestē “displaced, disordered” are often thought to reflect namôgû (niphal of mwg) “waver, melt away in despair” or namôtû (from mwt “totter”; compare NABRE REB). However, these do not represent genuine variants. The actual OG reading supports MT as estaxen drosous (“dripped dews”). The translator added an explicit direct object for the sake of symmetry and clarity. This was then corrected to estaxen alone, dropping the direct object, which in turn was converted to exestē (LXXL) by an erroneous transposition of consonants. LXXA exestathē in turn derives from exestē (passive for active). The translation etarachthē (LXXMN) was created to provide a better parallel to the “the earth shook.” T “bent down” is a midrashic reference to the sacrifice of Isaac. 5 quaked] Along with BHQ, follows OG Syr T, which reflect a vocalization as the niphal perfect nazôllû from zll: “were shaken’ (Isa 63:19; 64:2; HALOT 1:272). The masoretic vocalization is the qal perfect of nzl “trickle, flow down”: “the mountains were engulfed” (HALOT 2:683) or “melted” (V NJB). One of Sinai] Quoted in Ps 68:9 [ET 8]. The demonstrative zeh here is used as something akin to a relative particle (the one who…; IBHS 19.5c, d). Construing the masculine demonstrative with Yahweh results in an archaic divine title (HALOT 1:264, section 11). OG (LXXL) recognizes this: “the God of Sinai.” The expression provides a poetic parallel to God of Israel and is similar to expressions identifying a

96 Judges specific god according to the location of its cult: Baal of Zaphon, Yahweh of Teman, or Yahweh of Samaria. An alternative translation “even that Sinai” (compare ESV and the neuter demonstrative pronoun of LXXAB) understands the demonstrative as identifying one of the mountains at the beginning of the verse. The omission of this expression by LXXMN OL has led some to consider zeh sînay to be an explanatory gloss referencing lawgiving: “this means [the theophany at] Sinai.” However, haplography between the repeated phrase “before Yahweh” is a more likely explanation. 6 highways were abandoned] Follows MT. Many (NRSV NJPS) conjecture “caravans”, reading orəḥot in place of MT ŏrohôt. MT can be translated as either “they forsook the highways” or “the highways ceased.” Insecurity caused by brigands or enemy action curbed trade and travel. 7 peasantry] A sociological designation: “people from the open country” or (impersonally) “village life” (compare Ezek 38:11; Zech 2:8), as opposed to those living in walled towns (Deut 3:5; Judg 4:5–6). The noun here designates Israelite hill-country population in implied contrast to urban Canaanites. As a collective the noun takes a plural verb. Alternative translations, “champions” (REB) or “deliverance” (NJPS), derive the noun from an Arabic cognate to achieve “leader” or “leadership” (compare LXXBL OL: “the powerful ones”). ceased…ceased] Alternative translation, “held back,” that is, were paralyzed in their daily pursuits or, more specifically, did not join in military resistance. What is understood negatively in most translations is interpreted by NRSV positively: “prospered…grew fat.” This rendition takes the verb as a different root, ḥdl II “become fat, successful” (1 Sam 2:5) and requires an abrupt shift from ḥdl I used in v. 6. NRSV goes on to explain how this prosperity took place. They grew fat “on plunder,” understanding d in v. 7b not as “until,” but as “booty” (Gen 49:27; 1 Sam 2:5 NRSV). This approach apparently interprets the breakdown in public security in v. 6 as something positive for non-urban Israelites, who are raiding travelers. you arose, O Deborah, arose] Construing the subject suffixes as archaic second person feminine. An alternative translation treats the verbal suffixes as first person: “I arose; I, Deborah, arose.” However, the absence of an explicit personal pronoun before the proper name makes this construal problematic. A first person subject corresponds with the assumption of v. 1 that Deborah is the singer, but not with the direct address of v. 12. The question of the identity of the singer has played a similar role in the text transmission of vv. 13 and 15. OG V translate here as “she arose,” perhaps witnessing a loss of the final yod. as a mother] Another possibility is “O mother of Israel!” This parallels the honorific “father” in Judg 17:10; 18:19. Both expressions represent an honorable social status with expected duties and privileges (Gen 45:8; Isa 22:21). 8 God chose new ones] That is new leaders, or if read as an abstract plural, “something new.” The commentary translation understands “God” as the grammatical subject and the verb as preterit. The generally accepted translation follows the masoretic accents and takes “god” as a direct object: “They chose new gods” or as an impersonal

 Judges 5

97

passive “new gods were chosen.” Reference to apostasy may correspond to the Deuteronomistic presuppositions of the book as a whole, but fits poorly with the poem itself, where a reference to divine initiative is more appropriate. then war was in the gates] Follows MT (and the consonantal text that OG Syr V attempted to translate). War translates an otherwise unattested noun from the root lḥm “fight.” NJPS vocalizes the word as a participle: “fighter.” REB has “they consorted with demons,” reading lāḥam śeirîm “demons” instead of šeārîm “gates.” Gates provides an urban poetic contrast to peasantry in v. 7. Was a shield] A rhetorical question beginning with im (compare Lam 2:2) or perhaps an oath formula: “[I swear] no shield or spear was seen.” Shield and spear would be patrician weapons owned by professional military men and requiring some training for effective use (1 Chr 12:8; compare 1 Sam 13:22). The forty thousand Israelite peasants would carry agricultural implements and the lighter equipment of sword, bow, and sling. 10 Riders…road] An alternative translation takes the expression as a merismus incorporating two groups rather than three, the rich who ride and the poor who walk: “Riders on tawny donkeys who sit on rich carpets and those who walk the road” (compare NIV NJB REB). OG (LXXAL OL) omits “and those who walk the road.” tawny ones] Follows OG in omitting the noun tnwt “donkeys.” This was added in MT as a gloss to explain “tawny ones,” an obscure or obsolete usage designating a special color of donkey (HALOT 1019). BHQ also prefers OG. who sit on saddle blankets] “Those who dwell near Midian” (compare the association in Ps 83:10 [ET 9]) is possible, but obliterates the topical unity of travel. LXXB “who sit on a judgment seat” (compare V Syr) construes the word from the lexical root dyn. OG “wagons” was derived from context and indicates that the word was not understood by translators. The noun more generally denotes “robe, clothes,” so the phrase could convey “those who sit on [luxurious] carpets.” declare it!] Follows MT. In agreement with BHQ, NABRE and NJB construe this imperative with the next verse: “Sing of them to the sound of…,” eliminating the preposition from miqqôl at the start of v. 11 as OG (LXXA) does. The verb śyḥ II connotes “engage in enthusiastic speech,” but “meditative reflection” is also part of its range. 11 to] The preposition min could also be taken as “amongst” (Ps 104:12) or even “from the perspective of.” sound of musicians] The task of translation becomes desperate here. (1) The most common translation, “musicians,” follows the interpretation of OG, “those who strike up music.” One may achieve this by reading mḥṣṣym as mḥṣṣrym, a hiphil participle of ḥṣṣr (1 Chr 15:24): “the sound of trumpet players.” (2) Another set of translations is based on a proposed verb meaning “divide, share out”: “the sound of those who distribute water” (HALOT 1:344) or “the sound of the shepherds” (i.e. those who divide a flock between the watering troughs). This is how NJB produced “shepherds at the watering places.” (3) NJPS, “louder than the sound of archers,” construes the preposition min as comparative and relates the participle to a denominative piel from

98 Judges ḥēṣ “arrow.” The idea is that victorious praise sounds more loudly than the noise of hostile foes. (4) REB “to the sound of merrymakers” emends to the piel participle məṣaḥăqîm. at the watering places] Hebrew: “between the watering places” or “water troughs” (if animals are thought of). LXXB “those who draw water” supports this. OG “merrymakers” reflects a plural participle of śmḥ or sb (drink deeply). Watering places were usual spots to gather for social interaction. recount…righteous triumphs] The verb (basically “repeat, second”) implies an antiphonal performance (compare 11:40). Compare 1 Sam 12:7 and Mic 6:5 for the translation righteous triumphs. The sense is “vindication,” that is, bringing things back into a “righteous” state that measures up to the proper norm. peasantry] The word przn again causes trouble (see note on v. 7). The usual choices are “his peasants/villagers” (as NRSV NJB) or “his deliverance” (NJPS, compare NABRE). NIV opts for “warriors.” Then the people…gates] This may be a doublet of part of v. 13 or a gloss, but it is part of the earliest recoverable text. People here has a military connotation: “troops” (Deut 20:1). 12 Awake, awake, give voice to a song] Follows MT. OG (which is the first element of a doublet reading in LXXAL) witnesses an addition after Deborah: “raise up myriads among the people.” This resulted from confusion involving dbwrh and dbry, a scrambling of letters, and a mistake of resh for daleth and ayin for shin, so that the reading hyry rbbwt (b)m emerged from a haplographic [dbwr]h wry [wry] dbry šyr. 13 remnant] “Remnant” could denote survivors of previous conflicts returning to battle again or those who have survived Canaanite oppression. NJB replaces “remnant” with “Israel” (on the basis of v. 11b): “Israel went down” and then takes “noble” as representing “gates” (again v. 11b; šrym for śryd) to achieve “Israel marched down to the gates.” REB “the column” reads śdr for śryd and assumes an Akkadian cognate. The suggestion that the supposed place name Sarid is intended is undercut by the likelihood that Josh 19:10, 12 is a textual error for Sadud (Tell Shadud). people of Yahweh] Shifting the masoretic punctuation. Retaining the MT position of the athnah and the pausal vocalization of am (people) would require that “Yahweh” be the subject the second verb “went down.” Moving the athnah after “people” makes “the people of Yahweh” the subject of yrd, which parallels v. 11b and creates a parallelism with the remnant…went down. One way to allow the masoretic punctuation would be to propose an enclitic mem so that remnant can be a noun in construct state: dyry[-m] m “the remnant of the nobles of the people.” went down…for him] This is the customary translation (NRSV). It follows LXXB in understanding both occurrences of the verb as a perfect of yrd (also Syr T), moving the athnah to divide the verse before “people”, and judging ly “for me” to be an error for lw “for him.” Masoretic pointing seems to take yrd as imperative or as a short piel imperfect of rdh “give dominion.” This would understand the verse as a prayer or wish: “May he (Yahweh) cause a remnant to have dominion over the nobles—the

 Judges 5

99

people; may Yahweh cause me to have dominion over the mighty.” Some of this is reflected in NJPS: “Then was the remnant made victor over the mighty / The Lord’s people won my victory over the warriors.” OG (LXXAL) (“was made great” and “trouble” as imperative) envisions the two verbs as rdh (have dominion) or rbb (be magnified, by confusion between daleth and beth) in v. 13a and rdd (beat down) in v. 13b. for him] If this emendation of “for me” is correct, the pronoun could refer to either Barak or Yahweh, or even as an ethical (or “reflexive”) dative to the people themselves (“got themselves down”). See IBHS 11.2.10d, examples 34–35. against the warriors] REB (compare NJB) translates “like warriors,” taking the preposition as a beth of identity (beth essentiae; IBHS 11.2.5e) instead of an adversative beth as translated here. 14 those whose root] Follows MT, literally “their root.” This presumably means that Ephraim was thought to have originated from some sort of association with the Amalekites. The reference could be geographic, since Judg 12:15 speaks of a “hill country of Amalek” in “the land of Ephraim” where Pirathon was located. The expression could also have originated as a defamatory anti-Ephraimite slur. The text is often emended. REB “rallied in the vale” (for “vale” see below) seems to vocalize šršm as a participle, “taking root,” thus metaphorically “establishing oneself firmly, standing firm.” NRSV offers “they set out (into the valley),” either from a supposed verb šwr II “go down” (HALOT 4:1451) plus šam, “there,” or perhaps following the suggestion of BHS to emend to āšərû “they strode forth.” Another option is to read śarîm “princes” (NJB). NABRE thinks of “root” as Ephraim’s home headquarters. Both LXXA (“took vengeance”) and LXXB struggled to interpret the consonantal text as it stands in MT by treating šrš as the piel verb “uproot” (Job 31:12; Sir 10:16). is in Amalek] Follows MT as the more difficult text. The problematic bmlq “in Amalek” is replaced in OG (LXXA; Theodotion) with an easier bmq “in the valley.” This secondary reading arose either from the command to “blot out” the hated name (Deut 25:17; see 12:15 LXXAL) or an assimilation to valley in v. 15b. OG is followed by many modern translations (NRSV NJB). An alternative translation “against” Amalek” is possible (1 Sam 28:18). after you Benjamin among your kinfolk] am can denote family or clan relationship, thus kinfolk. NABRE and NJB pursue the military connotation of this word, “troops, ranks.” On the basis of Hos 5:8, REB takes this phrase as a war cry: “[We are] with you, Benjamin! Your clansmen [are here]!” marshal] In military contexts, sōpēr was an officer responsible for mustering (2 Kgs 25:19). 15 princes] Masoretic vocalization is “my princes,” but this is better construed as a construct noun before a preposition, as recognized by the ancient versions (compare 5:10). If retained, the MT pointing should be translated “my princes in Issachar,” as though spoken by Deborah (or Yahweh).

100 Judges As was Issachar, so was Barak] In other words, Issachar was in accord with and faithful to Barak. Hebrew: “and Issachar so Barak.” An alternative translation (ESV NRSV), “Issachar faithful to Barak,” understands ken as an adjective, “steadfast, true.” NJB changes “Issachar” to “Naphtali” based on a conjecture without textual evidence. Sent out…after him] Hebrew: “were sent off…at his feet.” NRSV: “at his heels.” The expression means the troops were “under his command” (compare 4:10). Alternative translation: “on foot” (compare 4:15, 17). HALOT 4:1516 translates “sent out into the valley to get him from behind”; hence NJB “follows in hot pursuit.” clans] The foundational verbal root indicates some sort of division of the tribe. Alternative translation: “factions” (REB: “was split into factions”). decisions] Follows MT, construct plural of ḥoq “legal decision.” Most contemporary translations (NRSV for example, without notice) emend this to the noun ḥeqer in order to harmonize with v. 16b: “searching of heart, reasoned considerations.” However, MT represents an ironic wordplay indicating a change of attitude from initial resolute decision (v. 15b) to hesitant indecision (v. 16b; compare NJPS). 16 sheepfolds] This noun is uncertain and was not understood by ancient translators. The dual number reflects two converging stone walls used to assemble the animals. OG (as a doublet within v. 15) offers “lips” (šəpātayim for mišpətayim, presumably intending “sea shores, river banks” or “boundaries” (compare V T). LXXB “two burdens” suggests “saddle baskets” on a pack mule (HALOT 2:652). This offers an image of stubbornness and immobility, like a mule refusing to move under its load, and fits the usage of this noun in Gen 49:14 (of Issachar with a verb meaning “crouch [like animal]”). “Hearths” (NABRE) and “campfires” (NIV) assume a connection with the verbal root špt “put on the hearth.” The verse seems to be a proverb characterizing those who stay at home when duty or adventure calls. whistling of flutes for the flocks] This assumes that šəriqôt describes notes played on a shepherd’s pipe (NRSV “piping”). NABRE assigns the sound to the animals: “lowing of the herds,” but the meaning “whistling, hissing” is well-established for the verbal root (TDOT 15:480–81). REB suggests human whistling rather than instrumental music: “shrill calling of the shepherds,” a characteristic sound used to drive the animals into the protective fold. The word translated “flocks” connotes an undifferentiated assembly of domestic animals, flocks and cattle together (HALOT 793), but the word is most often used in parallel with small livestock. Among…searchings of heart] See note on v. 15. REB eliminates v. 16b as a repetitive addition, but enclosing reiteration is a feature of this poem (as vv. 11b and 13a). 17 dwell…ships] Ships is an adverbial accusative, “with reference to ships.” NJB “stayed aboard ships” (compare NABRE) interprets the verb yāgûr as indicating hired service as oarsmen. its landings] A hapax legomenon understood on the basis of Arabic as coves or creeks where ships are pulled up, thus “mooring points.” OG translated correctly as “estuaries.” The references to ships and landings are proverbial references to inaction and may have little to do with the actual geographic or social situations of Dan and Asher.

 Judges 5

101

18 risked] More literally, “derided death.” The verb denotes “utter a sharp word, taunt” (HALOT 1:335). NJPS: “mocked at death”; NRSV: “scorned death.” lāmût is pointed as an infinitive construct, “to die” (compare 16:16); the ancient versions treated it as a noun. heights of the field] High open places, where the tribe would be exposed to enemy chariot action. 19 fought. At Taanach] Dividing the bicolon after kənaan. English versions, following the athnah, divide the verse to indicate that the kings fought at Megiddo and Taanach and disconnect the words about booty from this. Poetic parallelism and rhythm, however, indicate instead that Taanach and Megiddo are to be associated with the kings’ failure to acquire and divide booty. The site of the battle is not necessarily specified by this verse, but rather these are places where the kings could not seize plunder. waters of Megiddo] Probably Wadi el-Lejjun flowing southeast into the Kishon from the spring Ain el-Qubbe (1678 2215), which serves the village Leijjun (Legeon), a kilometer south of Megiddo. booty of silver] Alternative translation “gain of silver” (HALOT 1:148). “Pieces of silver,” also suggested by HALOT with reference to beṣer I (p. 149), is not supported by usage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 20 stars] The translation divides the verse metrically. The placement of the athnah in MT leads to: “From heaven they fought / the stars from their pathways fought….” pathways] The “highways” along which the stars move across the sky. 21 primordial] Following the interpretation of LXXB, Syr T, equating Kishon with the mythic river of the primordial age (Gen 2:10; Pss 46:4; 68:34 [ET 33]; compare Deut 33:15). BHS suggests emending to the piel perfect of qdm: qiddəmām, “confronted them, forestalled them” (compare REB: “barred his flight”). NRSV “onrushing” and NJPV “raging” rest on the spatial meaning of the verbal root as “before,” referring to the river’s “front parts,” that is, those that overflow its banks in a flood. OG translated “river being swept away,” which seems to support this. The Kishon is the Nahr el-Muqatta flowing by Megiddo into Acco with many wadis entering around Megiddo. It upper tributaries are intermittent. This is supported by the location required in 1 Kgs 18:40. A much less likely possibility is the eastward-flowing Wadi el-Bira (195 228), based on Arabic name tradition. March on my soul] This sounds like a war cry. Alternative translation “trample down” (compare T; OG reads “my mighty soul will trample him/them”). Some commentators understand naphšî as “neck of” (hireq compaginis) and read this line as “may you (feminine, Deborah?) trample down the neck(s) of the powerful.” 22 horses] MT has collective singular (Exod 14:9, 23). BHS prefers a plural, assuming haplography before the initial mem of the following word or an incorrect division of sws mdhrwt dhrwt. Some Greek evidence and V reflect a plural, most likely as a translation strategy.

102 Judges galloping] The sound of the pounding hooves is caused by (preposition min) “the hurrying, the hurrying of his steeds.” Nahum 3:2 uses the verbal root to the same effect. 23 the aid of Yahweh] Objective genitive: to bring support to Yahweh. against] the preposition b is ambiguous: perhaps “among the warriors” or “as warriors.” 26 reached out] The form of the verb is anomalous (as though feminine plural) and sometimes construed as a singular form with third person feminine object suffix referring to her hand (“her hand, she reached it out”). It is most likely an archaic feminine singular emphatic or energic form. Hammered…shattered…crushed…pierced] Perhaps the idea is that, as she pounded down the tent stake, she hit his skull with the hammer as the stake sank in. Note the repetition of the verb hammer from v. 22. 27 Sank…fell…lay…struck dead] Are these successive actions, suggesting he was standing upright when the blow was struck, or are they piled up and interleaved as synonyms for first dying (sank, fell) and then lying lifeless on the ground (lay, dead)? The first scenario makes no particular narrative sense and would contradict the staging of his death offered in ch. 4. Greek and Hebrew textual data show various haplographies caused by repetition in MT, which is the earliest recoverable text. 28 lamented] Follows MT, reading the verb ybb piel “yell,” a hapax legomenon. The cognate verb in Aramaic denotes “to speak with a trembling voice,” thus “lament, wail.” NRSV “gazed” reads the verb as though from nbt, a suspiciously easier reading that flattens the parallelism. The BHS note obscures a complicated situation. LXXB omits the verb in question, failing to understand it. LXXA preserves two translations as doublets. One appears to support the emendation with kai katemanthanen “and perceived,” but this is probably a Hexaplaric plus. The true OG may be excavated from the corrupted and expanded second doublet in LXXAL as epiblepousa kai epistrephousa. OG uses the second verb to translate nbt a few times. Thus, OG, along with T (“looked attentively”), seem to support nbt, but actually are probably mirroring an old exegetical tradition that sought to explain the rare verb found in MT. Because v. 28a introduces the direct discourse of v. 28b, “lamented” is contextually preferable to “gazed.” hoof beats] Hebrew: “paces, steps,” as an image for the approach of a chariot. NJPV and NIV collapse the metaphor into the noise of wheels. 29 wisest noblewomen] Translates the plural construct vocalization and plural verb of MT, “the wise ones of her noblewomen.” MT is supported in these particular aspects by OG. BHS reads this as a singular construct (following Syr V)—thus as a superlative adjective (IBHS 9.5.3j)—and reads the verb “answer” as singular with a feminine object suffix. This results in “the wisest one of her noblewomen answers her,” followed by NABRE NJB.

 Judges 5

103

30 womb] Coarse soldier language: “a vagina or two.” The captive women are to be used for sex, immediately perhaps (Isa 47:1–3; Lam 1:8; 5:11; Zech 14:2; Nah 2:7; 3:5), but certainly eventually (Deut 21:11–13). Masoretic pointing as a by-form rakhab may intend to suggest a less vulgar usage (Ugaritic, “maiden, girl”; Mesha Inscription, line 17, “slave girl”; thus NJPS “damsel”). two pieces…colorfully woven] Alternative translation: “double embroidered” or “embroidered on both sides.” necks as spoil] This attempts to follow MT, “the necks of spoil.” MT may be thinking of scarves on the necks of the captive women. (1) NRSV vocalizes with a first person suffix: “for my neck as spoil” (compare NABRE NJB NIV). (2) REB reads the final word as a participle (šōlēl, “one who gains spoil”), thus “to grace the victor’s neck.” (3) BHS recommends deleting šll and emending to “his neck” with reference to Sisera (“his” is supported by OG T). NJPS nicely captures the ambiguity of MT: “A couple of embroidered cloths / Round every neck as spoil.” 31 love him] Follows MT as the more difficult text. Syr V LXXL witness “love you,” certainly an easier text. Many English translations follow suit, conceivably assuming the haplography of a k caused by the first letter of the next word. Abrupt shifts in person are not uncommon in Hebrew poetry, perhaps in this case as a liturgical response.

Structure and Rhetoric The Song is held into the framework language of Judges by 4:23–24 and 5:31b and connected to the end of ch. 4 by a repetition of on that day (4:23; 5:1). In the final compositional form, 5:1 makes the poem a victory song sung by both Deborah and Barak on the day of battle itself. Examples of this technique for integrating a traditional poem into a narrative are Exod 51:1, 21; Deut 32:22; and 2 Sam 22:1. It is important to note that there are no references to apostasy anywhere in the Song; this is an interest of the Deuteronomistic frame only. The poem does not tell a systematic or connected story but offers a series of impressions to achieve an emotional impact. For the poem to be meaningful, the reader must know the traditional story either from ch. 4 or some other source. The poem evokes and explores emotions called forth by events it only partially describes and provides commentary on a story known to and shared by its audience community. It might be compared to the Star Spangled Banner and the way it relates to events in Baltimore Harbor during the War of 1812. The sheer entertainment value of the poem ought not to be ignored, especially as national courage is celebrated, the recalcitrant are mocked, and the enemy is delightfully humiliated.

104 Judges

The Song of Deborah offers a montage of narratival scenes interleaved with observations and exclamations by the implied singer. The narratival (or quasi-narratival) tableaux are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Yahweh marched forth (vv. 4–5) From crisis to war (vv. 6–8) Recounting the triumphs (vv. 10–11a) The people of Yahweh go down (vv. 11b, 13–15a) Kings came, they fought (vv. 19–22) Cursed be Meroz (v. 23) Blessed be Jael (vv. 24–27) Sisera’s mother (vv. 28–30)

Readers seek for patterns and are likely to try to read out a story line (fabula) from these jumbled scenes. Even without ch. 4 to serve as guide, this is possible and the reader is able to construct a rough chronological plot order, particularly out of the sections vv. 6–8, 11b–15a, 19–22, 24–27, and 28–30. The chronological place of Yahweh’s theophany (vv. 4–5), appropriately enough, is indefinite and cannot be slotted into the sequence of earthly events. The enemy consists of warriors (vv. 13, 23) and kings (v. 19), but Sisera appears only in a delayed fashion in v. 20 to prepare for vv. 24–30. The narrative problem is set forth in vv. 6–8. The crisis is concretized by the report in v. 6 that roads were deserted and travel was hindered. This situation is highlighted when it is precisely riders and walkers who tell out the victory that reverses the problem (v. 10). War is in the offing, but an obstacle to a resolution of the problem is the unarmed state of Israel (v. 8). Movement toward resolution begins as Yahweh marches out (vv. 4–5), Deborah arises with Barak (vv. 7, 12), and commanders offer themselves (v. 9). The people and leaders go to battle (vv. 11b, 13), and a roll call is made of the tribes as they advance (vv. 14–18). Battle is joined (v. 19), decisive action takes place (v. 20), and success is achieved (vv. 21–22). Yet the narrative problem is not completely resolved because, in a seeming failure, Sisera survives. Jael acts, solves the lack of weapons in her own way, and murders Sisera (vv. 25–26). Success is achieved in v. 27 as Sisera dies. Final events solidify the climax with irony as Sisera’s mother and her ladies converse (vv. 28–30), but the reader knows that Sisera is not coming home. In the last scenes of the chronological sequence, Deborah (and Barak) sing in celebration (vv. 1, 3, 9) and the saving events of Yahweh and Yahweh’s peasantry are declared (vv. 10–11).

 Judges 5

105

Evaluative observations and celebratory exclamations, mostly by the implied singer, are interspersed into the narratival scenes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

People volunteer—bless Yahweh (v. 2) Willing volunteers—bless Yahweh (v. 9) Awake! Arise! (v. 12; interjected into vv. 11b–15a) Tribal indecision and decision (within vv. 14–18) Yahweh’s angel curses Meroz (v. 23) Blessed by Jael (v. 24) May all enemies perish (v. 31a)

Verses 2, 9, and 31a provide observations on the content of the whole poem. Verses 2 and 9 bracket vv. 3–5 and 6–8. Verses 15b–17 contrast the unwillingness of four tribes with those which fought. Internal parallelisms provide unity: vv. 2 and 9 (volunteer, bless Yahweh), vv. 3 and 19 (kings), and vv. 22 and 26 (hammer). Three apostrophes call on kings to hear (v.  3), urge those on the move to declare (v. 10), and exhort Deborah and Barak to awake and arise (v. 12). Numerous suggestions have been made concerning shape and structure. One suggestion thinks of antithetical blocks that set forth an alternation of hope and despair. Thus, the glory of Yahweh is countered by the misery of Israel (vv. 4–5 versus vv. 6–8), the willing tribes are contrasted by unwilling ones (vv. 11b–15a, 18 versus vv. 15b–17), stars and Kishon are victorious but kings are defeated (vv. 20–21 versus vv. 19, 22), and Meroz is cursed while Jael is blessed (v. 23 versus v. 24). Finally, Sisera’s death is set off by his mother’s confidence about booty. Another approach is to trace the movement of the poem through three phases: celebration (vv. 2–11a), prelude to battle (vv. 11b–18), and total victory (vv. 19–30). The first, celebration phase brings together a pre-battle and post-battle chronological horizon. The singer announces a determination to celebrate, addressing both kings and Yahweh (vv. 2–5). In vv. 6–8, the singer addresses Deborah to acclaim her rise as mother. In vv. 9–11 the singer calls for celebration, addressing riders and walkers. This celebration phase is bracketed by the language volunteer…bless Yahweh in vv. 2 and 9. The second phase, prelude to battle, is attached by a double linkage to the celebration phase. Verse 11b restarts the sequence of action initialized in v. 8, and the transitional imperatives of v. 12 link back to the address to Deborah in v. 7. The prelude scene divides itself into positive responses (vv. 13–15a, 18) that enclose and trump four negative responses (vv. 15b–17). The third stage, describing victory, unfolds in three scenes. The battle scene begins with kings came and ends with flight

106 Judges

by galloping, galloping (vv. 19–22). A transitional curse in v. 23 leads from the battle scene via blessed into the second scene, Jael’s heroic act (vv. 24–27). Then a scene shift from tent to house (with a window) leads into the third scene featuring Sisera’s mother (vv. 28–30). The point of view is mixed. The I of the singer shows through most clearly in vv. 3, 9 (my heart) and 21 (my soul). If MT is taken at face value, Deborah may also be understood as the singer in vv. 7 (“I arose”), 13 (“for me”), and 15 (“my princes”). The singer’s point of view is also reflected in the various imperatives and addresses to others: hear O kings (v. 3), O Yahweh (v. 4), declare it (v. 10), awake…arise (v. 12), why (v. 16), may your enemies perish, Yahweh (v. 31). At one level the song is presented as Deborah’s own prophetic perspective on the battle, but a generic bard in the background shows through in v. 3 (compare Deut 32:1, 3; Pss 2:10; 45:1). Deborah is addressed by this alternate singer in v. 12 and is described in third person in v. 15. In much of the poem, the singer’s distinctive voice fades into that of a less personally involved, but hardly “objective,” narrator of events, as in vv. 11, 13, 19–23, 24–27, and 28–30. Zebulun and Naphtali, the only two tribes that fight in ch. 4, come in for special, highlighted comment (5:18). The forty thousand of 5:8 is a conventional forty multiplying the thousand sometimes found in military contexts (Num 31:4–6; 1 Sam 18:13). The number has narrative effect similar to the ten thousand for Zebulun and Naphtali in 4:10, 14, indicating that the volunteer militia mustered in impressive numbers. [1–5] Judges 5:1 connects the Song to the previous narrative in a fashion similar to Exod 15:1. The Song is put into the mouths of the two leaders (compare vv. 7 and 12), although the singular verb in v. 1 could be evidence that Deborah alone was the singer originally. A Divine Warrior hymnic section (vv. 2–5) establishes that the overall topic is the praise of Yahweh. Verse 2 includes a call for a group (plural imperative) to praise (bless) Yahweh, suggesting the liturgical realm of the hymn genre. The identity of the volunteering people will be revealed as the song unfolds (vv. 9, 11, 13). They turn out to be the people and thus the army of Yahweh. In v. 3, an individual in the first person offers the praise called for by v. 2. The appeal for attention (hear!) is similar to Pss 49:2; 78:1; Isa 1:2. An address to kings and princes warns an imaginary audience made up of potential enemies (see Ps 2:10; Hab 1:10) in order to build identity and pride in the real Israelite audience. This apostrophe assigns international significance to the victory. The self-referential pronoun I is emphatic. Following the masoretic accents makes this obvious: “I, to Yahweh I will sing.” I will make music is more explicitly “pluck the strings” (Amos 5:23).

 Judges 5

107

In the theophany unit of vv. 4–5, there is at least a hint of a concentric pattern: Yahweh from Seir and Edom Earth shook Sky poured forth Clouds pour forth Mountains quaked Yahweh of Sinai, Yahweh of Israel

Habakkuk 3:12–13 presents the same parallel between yṣ (went out) and yd (marched) used in Judg 5:4a. In v. 4 the parallelism is progressive. Earth and sky are paralleled, each with an appropriate verb. Sky and clouds are then cast into parallel around the second of those verbs, poured forth, while the direct object water is held over until the end of the verse. Sky points forward subtly to the stars of v. 20 and water to the Kishon. Verse 4 addresses Yahweh in the second person; v. 5 shifts to the third person. That Yahweh’s home base it is outside Palestine and to the south is significant for the question of Yahweh’s origins. There are hints (Elijah in 2 Kgs 19 and the exodus itinerary in Num 33) that Sinai was at some point a pilgrimage sanctuary. [6–9] Verses 6–7 celebrate the rise of Deborah. In the days of (v. 6) typically introduces a past era (compare Gen 14:1; 2 Kgs 15:29). Israel’s insecure situation before the battle is one of economic and social paralysis. It is Deborah who reverses this state of affairs (v. 7b). One wonders if Shamgar is a reference to another, lost hero story not preserved. The honorific mother in Israel points forward to Sisera’s mother. Israel’s disarmed situation (v. 8) leads the reader to sympathize with the commanders and volunteers of v. 9, but also implicitly indicates the need for action on the part of the Divine Warrior. A shortage of weapons is a standard characteristic of Israel’s army in sacral war, but this is just the sort of battle in which Yahweh gives victory (1 Sam 17:47). Judges 5:8a is extremely obscure. It is unclear what gates are being referred to. Gates may be a metonymy for towns. Gates are not characteristic of Israel as peasantry but of the Canaanite enemy. Is the statement about new ones being chosen intended to be a negative statement about new gods being selected by the people (see note on v. 8)? If so, v. 8a could be a proverb asserting that when new religious choices are made, conflict arises. It is more likely however, that these new ones are to be understood as a positive development. They are new leaders chosen by God and refer to Barak and other commanders (vv. 9, 14). If one reads this line on the basis

108 Judges

of ch. 4, then 5:8a may describe the new leadership situation that stemmed from Deborah’s just-mentioned achievement as intrepid mother. Verse 8b then circles back to the problems of vv. 6–7a. Understanding the new ones as new leaders leads smoothly into the sympathy with leaders and volunteers expressed in v. 9. My heart is an emotion-laden way of saying “I” (1 Sam 2:1; Job 23:16). My heart invites readers to join the singer in approving Israel’s eager leadership and willing army. Yet the bracketing request to bless Yahweh (Judg 5:2b and v. 9b) is a reminder that victory will primarily be the achievement of the Divine Warrior. [10–11a] This section flashes forward to ongoing celebration contemporaneous with the audience of the Song. As a sort of intermission, it provides narrative delay before the battle action commences. It also serves as an invitation to the audience to think about and express God’s acts. Yahweh’s righteous triumphs point back to the theophany of vv. 4–5, while the righteous triumphs of the peasantry support the theme of dual divine and human causality. It was a team effort. Verse 10 seems to be a merismus for the whole people, both rich riders using saddle blankets and those of modest means who walk. Tawny, red-gray donkeys may indicate high-value animals owned by the rich. Or perhaps three groups may be intended: riders, those seated on carpets, and walkers (see note on v. 10). Musical praise of Yahweh on the part of all elements of society balances the evocation of aristocratic kings in v. 3 (and perhaps the lifestyle of Sisera’s mother). This reference to travel also contrasts with the breakdown in trade and travel lamented in vv. 6–7. Verse 11 recounts that at locations where ordinary life is lived, where water is divided and animals drink, Israel praises Yahweh’s saving acts. The intention of these verses is to convince the audience that the victory the Song describes has ongoing significance for present-day hearers and readers. The order of v. 11a is first Yahweh and then the peasantry. This sequence is reversed as the poem unfolds: Israel’s contribution to victory first (vv. 11–18) and then Yahweh’s actions (vv. 19–23). [11b–18] These verses explore the commitment of the people and its leaders. Verse 11b restarts the war action sequence from v. 8. Verse 12, an imperative address to the two heroic leaders, sets in motion the incipient attack (or perhaps the preliminary muster) in v. 13, which in turn leads into the roster of tribes. Gates may be either the location of Israel’s gathering or the target of their attack (see v. 8). This apostrophe to Deborah and Barak in v. 12 is bracketed by repetition of the people of Yahweh went down (vv. 11b and 13a). In v. 12a dabbərî (give voice) is a wordplay on

 Judges 5

109

Deborah. Deborah’s singing corresponds to Barak’s successful parade of captives. Perhaps her song is being pictured as rousing the troops to battle, or perhaps it has prophetic, supernatural power to defeat the enemy (compare Balaam). The call to awake is an urge to action (examples in military contexts are Isa 51:9 and Zech 13:7). Captives ironically previews the comments of Sisera’s mother at the beginning of Judg 5:30. A tribal roll call portrays a dramatic moment of decision. Some tribes went down and were with the leaders; four others remain frozen (sit, stayed, dwell as an alien). The positive responses are held together by three occurrences of the verb yrd (go down) in vv. 13 and 14 that describe deployment into battle (4:14b; 7:9, 24). The negative responses of 5:15b–17 are framed by Reuben’s heart. The expressions decisions (v. 15b) and searchings (v. 16b) have slightly different meanings, implying a move from a potentially positive response to negative paralysis (see note on v. 15). Verse 18 contrasts Zebulun and Naphtali with this indecisiveness and transitions into the battle action—in which Israel will turn out to play no part! Verse 18, like ch. 4, indicates that those two tribes were central to Israel’s military response. Attention to tribes beyond the two featured in ch. 4 gives the poem a national, trans-tribal perspective, consistent with the emphasis on Israel throughout vv. 2–11. The list starts with Israel’s core tribe Ephraim and recognizes the ancient connection between Ephraim and its southern neighbor Benjamin, as witnessed by Benjamin’s name (“Southerner”). Manasseh is not mentioned but Gilead is. Issachar is associated tightly with both Deborah and Barak in v. 15. This fits Issachar’s historic association with Zebulun and Naphtali at the Mount Tabor sanctuary. Reuben remains undecided in its pastoralist lifestyle, with the ludicrous excuse of listening to shepherds’ flutes derided. Gilead too stays home to do what is normal. Asher and Dan have Mediterranean coastal connections that impede their cooperation. Dan is a sojourner, a guest worker. So they sit (yšb) and stay (škn), choosing inactivity and inertia, not challenge. The passive tribes function as a foil to increase the honor ascribed to the participating groups. The rebukes are mild and indirect (in contrast the curse of v. 23) and are shaped by the contrast with the tribes who are praised. The subtext seems to be that these four tribes missed an opportunity for honor by remaining passive. [19–23] The battle is described without direct reference to either Yahweh or Israel’s army. Verses 19 and 20 name the enemy (kings of Canaan, Sisera). Mention of kings envisions a battle against several city states. There is stair-step repetition (kings, kings fought, stars fought; Kishon

110 Judges

River…primordial river…Kishon River). In vv. 19–20 there is lyrical assonance: kənaan and bətanak (Canaan…at Taanach), nilḥāmû and lāqāḥû (they fought…take), as well as bāû…bətanak…beṣa (they came… at Taanach…booty). Verse 21 echoes nilḥāmû with naḥal (river). Defeat in vv. 20–21 leads to the noise of flight in v. 22. Stars above are balanced by the river below. The reader may think of the Deuteronomistic confession that Yahweh is God of the sky above and the earth below (Deut 4:39; Josh 2:11; 1 Kgs 8:23). Stars form an “army of heaven” organized in their pathways and mustered by Yahweh (Isa 40:26; Jer 33:22; compare Josh 10:12–13). The poem shows no concern for any potential danger from cults of deified celestial bodies (Amos 5:26; Isa 14:12–13; 2 Kgs 21:5; 23:4–5, 11–12), indicating an absence of Deuteronomistic censorship. Stars can be symbolic of royal and noble power, as in the Star from Jacob (Num 21:7). Thutmose III recounts that Amun-Re fought for him with a marvelous star in the form of a meteorite or other astral phenomenon, stunning the enemy (Gebel Barkal Stele; COS 2.2B:17; ANET, 238). An alternative interpretation would be to see the stars as functioning in an astrological sense, deviating from their standard orbits in order to favor Israel. Addressing Kishon as primordial river (see note on v. 21) continues the mythic framework, evoking the role of sea and river in creation and salvation (Pss 66:6; 74:13–15; Job 26:12). Some commentators put together the stars and the river (translated as an overwhelming river) in order to theorize that the stars cause a flooding rain that makes the Kishon overflow and wash away or bog down the enemy. The Ugaritic Baal myth does connect stars to rainfall and the Kishon sweeps the enemy away here, but detecting a rainstorm is an example of over-reading, probably aided by Exod 14:25. Rain is never mentioned in the text outside of v. 4 in the theophany. Josephus, apparently on the basis of v. 4, envisaged a storm that drove rain and hail into the enemy’s faces and made their bows and slings useless and hands too cold to hold their swords (Ant. 5.205–206), but fails to mention stars. These mythic concepts heighten the wonder and significance of the event and make it plain that Yahweh is the actual victor. Yet v. 21b wraps up the mythic scene with what seems to be a war cry addressed by the singer to her own self: march on! Three levels of causation are coordinated: humanity, the mythic cosmos, and Yahweh the Divine Warrior. Verse 22 evokes the sound of the enemy chariots running away in panic, which is emphasized by a repetition of what causes the hammering sound—galloping or hurrying. This is how Ps 68:13 [ET 12] comprehended the scene. Steeds translates “strong ones,” that is, the warhorses of his (Sisera’s?) chariots (see Jer 8:16; 47:3; 50:11).

 Judges 5

111

Verse 23 quotes a cursing oracle mediated by Yahweh’s angel. The town or region of Meroz is totally unknown, but presumably its inhabitants were an expected source of help, either as fellow Israelites or as foreigners bound by treaty. The harshness of curse, contrasting with the mild rebukes of fellow tribes, may imply that a divinely endorsed treaty has been broken and the resulting danger is being nullified by execration. Notably, the cursed ones have failed to assist Yahweh specifically, not Israel. The curse on Meroz transitions into its opposite, a blessing on Jael. As a foreigner, she does what Meroz fails to do. [24–27] The remainder of the poem (vv. 24–30) uses contrasting vignettes about Jael and Sisera’s mother to emphasize the totality of enemy defeat. Verses 24–27 form a diptych with vv. 28–30. It may be that the battlefield rape reference in the second panel is reversed upon Sisera by Jael’s penetrating tent peg in the first. The narrative action of vv. 24–27 could only be understood by a reader on the basis of ch. 4 or on familiarity with another version of Jael’s story. Verse 24 could be a traditional saying (compare the tribal blessings Deut 33:20, 24). Verse 24b gives further information about Jael and should not be read as a limitation parallel (as though, “most blessed—at least of women who dwell in tents”). The soured milk (butter or treated milk; TDOT 4:390–91) of v. 25 follows the more general milk as a narrowing and specifying parallelism: “a dairy product she gave, that is to say, she brought soured milk.” She serves it in a bowl, either one fit for a heroic aristocrat or one that is a beautiful and worthy vessel. Perhaps this is a reference back to the noble ones in v. 13. The sound parallel of Jael’s four actions in v. 26b is striking: hammer (halemâ), crush (māḥaqâ), shatter (māḥaṣâ), and pierce (ḥālepâ). The parallelism reflects a narrowing focus from head to temple. In v. 27 there are probably humiliating sexual implications to the penetrating tent peg and Sisera’s position between her feet (or legs; Deut 28:57). Sisera suffers what he would have inflicted on others if victorious (v. 30). The verb translated sank, more specifically “sank onto lower legs,” is used in Job 31:10 to describe the male position in intercourse. Likewise fell occurs in a sexually ambiguous context in Esth 7:8, and šakāb (lay) is commonly used for intercourse (Gen 19:32–35). Even šādûd (struck dead, destroyed) appears in Jer 4:30 in a context that suggests someone sexually despoiled. Some interpreters also see the gift of milk as a sexual invitation. Between her feet certainly could be taken to mean that Jael stood over him and straddled him to deliver the blow. In any case, sexuality is not an explicit fact of the narrative action but a plausible interpretation of it promoted by rhetoric and poetics.

112 Judges

[28–30] This concluding cameo sketch attaches not only to the Jael episode (why…so slow to come? ravished wombs), but also to earlier matters: mother in v. 7 and booty/spoil in v. 19. The scene is deeply ironic because the reader already knows what is unknown to the characters. It strengthens the impact of enemy defeat and shame, in a way similar to the discovery scene staged by Eglon’s courtiers (3:24–25). Sisera’s mother and Deborah present contrasting images of motherhood. Deborah as national mother provides military leadership and sings the victory song. Sisera’s mother instead speaks out of greed and patriarchy. She longs for booty and tacitly approves of battlefield rape and plunder. Verse 28 effects a quick change of scene, contrasting the life of nobility in a building with windows over against Jael’s nomadic tent. The perspective shifts to that of foreign outsiders in order to provide a comment on the situation (compare the role of the Philistines in the Ark Story; 1 Sam 4:7–9). In the chiastic structure of v. 28a (through the window…looked…lamented…through the lattice), the initially undefined third person feminine subject is disambiguated in the parallel colon by Sisera’s mother in order to introduce a new character. The reader’s initial neutrality about the referent of that first pronoun she is instantly wiped out. The reader also recognizes a common type scene. The portrayal of a woman looking out of a window—in this case an upper story lattice (looked down)—was common in both ancient Near Eastern art and biblical narrative (2 Sam 6:16; 2 Kgs 9:30; Prov 7:6). The barred window in an upper story divided the public world of men from the domestic realm of women (Cant 2:9; Sir 42:11). Perhaps Sisera’s mother is waiting to go out to meet the victor with song and dance (Judg 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6). Her bemoaning may seem overblown in response to a late arrival, so the verb lamented may point obliquely to the shocking truth still hidden from her. Her reference to hoof beats also sounds ironic when read over against Judg 5:22. Verse 29 presents a parallelism of intensification: “noblewomen answer…she herself returns her own words to herself.” The tone seems satirical. Is this the best answer she and her supposedly wise court ladies can come up with? An ironic contrast between Sisera’s fate known to the reader and the circumstances imagined for him by these women drives the rhetoric of v. 30. The reader is intended to despise both Sisera and the culture he represents. The contrast is brutal. Not a girl or two for each man (Hebrew: “for each warrior’s head”; compare per capita) but a smashed head impaled by a woman. Not battlefield rape but a shameful death, lying penetrated between Jael’s legs. Stair-step repetition (fabric…two pieces

 Judges 5

113

of fabric) communicates the mother’s enthusiasm over anticipated booty. However, the reader knows that no booty has been taken (v. 19b) and that this is no time to be thinking of fashionable fabrics! Israel’s women are not wombs but saviors. Deborah, the Jael scene, and by contrast this vignette, work together to encourage women in the poem’s audience to behave boldly: to incite their warriors and to sing of victory, of course, but also even to kill when needed (compare Judg 9:53; 2 Sam 20:16–22; Jdt 13:7–8). [31] Verse 31a reviews what has been recounted by means of the initial kēn (so, that is, “in this way”) and also through the use of perish and enemies in contrast to those who love Yahweh. Wordplay resonates between ôyəbêkā (your enemies) and ōhăbāyw (those who love him). As in many lament psalms, praise and plea go hand in hand. For Yahweh’s enemies, compare Exod 15:6; Num 10:35; 1 Sam 30:26; Pss 89:11 [ET 10]; 92:10 [ET 9]. Love is a treaty word, suggesting a society that is in a covenant relationship with Yahweh. Perhaps there is a subtle warning to Israel here not to betray that relationship, held in tension with the comforting concept that they need not fear hostile armies. For the progressing sun as an image of beauty and might, see Ps 19:5b–7 [ET 4b–6]. Finally, v. 31b ties the two chapters about Deborah into the larger whole of Judges and completes the thematic arc begun by 4:1–3 (compare 3:11, 30; 8:28). Genre and Composition The Song bears some relationship to a hymn of praise, at least in its clear intention to praise Yahweh and proclaim Yahweh’s power and deeds. Yet the poem spends more effort on describing human deeds than divine ones. Deborah’s Song evidences a thematic relationship with Exodus 15 in the realm of sacral war celebration. In each case there are female and male singers in the final form of the text (Moses and Miriam; Deborah and Barak). Each features enemy chariots and horses and Divine Warrior motifs. Annihilating water plays a role in each (Exod 15:1, 5, etc.; Judg 5:21). The enemy expects spoil but fails to acquire it (Exod 15:9; Judg 5:19, 30). News of victory is heard by foreigners (Exod 15:14–16; Judg 5:3). Yahweh’s right hand (Exod 15:6, 12) is echoed by Jael’s (Judg 5:26). In each text, narrative vignettes (compare Exod 15:4–6, 8–10, 12, 19) are interspersed with observations and praise by the singer. The description of Yahweh’s theophany is similar to those of Deut 33:2–3; Ps 97:2–5, and Habakkuk 3 (compare also Mic 1:3–4; Ps 77:19–20 [ET 18–19]). In the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions too, God arrives for battle

114 Judges

and the mountains melt (COS 2.470:173). Divine Warrior language and similarities to Exodus 15 suggest that Judges 5 ought to be given the genre label of victory song. But this example is much more developed and artistic than simple victory songs like 1 Sam 18:7 or Judg 16:23–24. What might be the social purpose of a song such as Judges 5? In so far as it is motivational (compare the various imperatives and heroic portrayals) one might think of recruitment to the militia during times of national danger. Reference to those who volunteer supports this, as do reprimands to the dilatory or passive tribes and the curse on inactive Meroz. The poem could provide both warning and encouragement to clans and tribes called to assemble for battle. Another intention, not really too different from this, appears to be that of celebration. It salutes the Divine Warrior and Israel’s militancy. The singer revels in amazing events brought about by Yahweh’s power and Israel’s courage and leadership. The reader is to enjoy the total destruction and humiliating fate of the enemy. The goal is to maximize group pride and solidarity, which would also have the effect of strengthening readiness for war. Perhaps an appropriate genre label would be war ballad. Judges 5:3 strongly suggests that the Song of Deborah could have been part of the repertoire of bards, whose existence in Israel is indicated by 2 Sam 1:19–27. The setting in life sketched out in vv. 10–11, as a popular song sung in the midst of the activities of ordinary life, is hard to ignore. However, scholars have sometimes suggested cultic usage, perhaps during dramatic reenactment of the righteous triumphs of Yahweh (1 Sam 12:7; Mic 6:5). The Song could have been preserved at the Tabor sanctuary, which was shared by Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali (Deut 33:18–19) and was still in operation during the time of Hosea (Hos 5:1). References to the Song in Psalm 68 suggest the Jerusalem temple as another possible home. The statements characterizing the tribes bear some generic relationship to the tribal aphorisms and blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. These sometimes celebrate military prowess and describe tribal situations and lifestyles. Enlightening examples are 1. Gen 49:13: Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships 2. Gen 49:14: Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds 3. Deut 33:23: O Naphtali, possess the lake and the south

 Judges 5

115

Attempts to date the poem must begin from its non-standard tribal roster. This tribal list evidences a rhetoric of ethnic self-identification and has been compared to Homer’s catalog of ships (Iliad 3.160–244). These verses present a state of affairs earlier and less systematic than the standard twelve-tribe lists, and no doubt represents a more realistic vision of tribal interactions and attitudes than later was envisioned. Manasseh is not mentioned but Gilead is. The formula that Manasseh was the father of Machir who was the father of Gilead (Num 26:29, etc.) has not yet become the standard conception. Gilead is a functioning kinship group, not just a regional name. The geography of the tribal catalog corresponds in some ways to the description of Saul’s kingdom in 2 Sam 2:9: Gilead, Ashurites(?), Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin. However, a pre-monarchic date cannot be assumed. Tribal consciousness and local tribal structures certainly lasted for a long time into the monarchy period. Verse 6 in the days of suggests a certain chronological distance from the events described. One should certainly set aside romantic notions of a date of composition close to the event described. The poem’s obscure language is generally thought to be archaic, exhibiting Ugaritic features in its poetics and vocabulary. However, it is difficult to evaluate such arguments without a reasonable number of securely dated control texts. Certainly, however, the LXX translators often found themselves at a loss. If there are Aramaisms, as some have suggested, these could point to a North Israelite origin rather than a late date. Gaps in the settlement of Megiddo and the destruction of Taanach provide no help, since 5:19 does not necessarily imply occupied cities. To be mentioned together, the ten tribes of vv. 14–18 must have had some historical connection or attributes in common. The active tribes were more central geographically than the more marginal Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Asher. Evoking sea and ships underscores the peripheral nature of the latter two. Verses 15b–16 may be an inherited unit, a taunt song based on traditional tribal aphorisms, with purported underperformance highlighted by accusatory why questions. Some see the presence of Reuben as an indication of a period before the ninth-century Mesha Inscription, which indicates that by that time Reuben’s territory had been occupied by Gad. Dan seems to be in a sojourner (ger) relationship, which suggests to some a date before its relocation north. The poem itself reflects a pan-Israel horizon (Israelites, people of Yahweh) and is concerned with the nature and depth of Israel’s unity. The tribes mentioned are described as having some level of intertribal relationship and military leadership. Nevertheless, the absent or reluctant

116 Judges

tribes are not condemned as violators of some pact or covenant, but merely mocked and reprimanded. Although Judah and Simeon are not on the horizon of the poem’s concern, this would be true for most periods in the history of the Tabor sanctuary, as well as for what one may presume was the attitude of the Northern Kingdom toward its less important neighbor kingdom. Whether the poem reflects early roles for women later superseded by an increasingly patriarchal society is a difficult argument to control. Perhaps it is best to date the Song in the late pre-state period or the early northern monarchy. Psalm 68 knew Deborah’s Song and alluded to it, reusing its language and motifs and linking them with other Divine Warrior references (most notably to the battle song of the ark: Num 10:35–36; Ps 68:1). This dependence is most visible in the quoted theophany verses (Judg 5:4–5 and Ps 68:8–9 [ET 7–8]). As part of the Elohistic Psalter, references to Yahweh have been changed to “God.” In Ps 68:14 [ET 13], the psalm contrasts the women who divide spoil with men who lie bên šəpattāyim, which can only be deciphered on the basis of the sheepfolds of Judg 5:16. However, this reference may be a later gloss in the psalm. Mention in Ps 68:28 [ET 27] of Benjamin (in the lead of what sounds like a liturgical procession), Zebulun, and Naphtali (to whom Judah is added), only makes sense as a cross-reference to Judges 5 from the perspective of the kingdom of Judah.

J u d g es 6

Oppression by Midian The Israelites did evil in Yahweh’s judgment. Yahweh gave them into the hand of Midian for seven years. 2 The hand of Midian overpowered Israel. Because of Midian the Israelites made themselves rock shelters in mountains, caves and strongholds. 3 Whenever Israel finished sowing, Midian and Amalek and the people of the East would come up and advance against it. 4 They would encamp against them and ruin the produce of the land, as far as the vicinity of Gaza. They would leave no livelihood in Israel, not a sheep or an ox or a donkey. 5 For they and their livestock would come up, and they would bring their tents and camels as many as locusts, and they were without number. Thus, they came into the land to ruin it. 6 Israel became very poor because of Midian. So the Israelites cried out to Yahweh. 7 When the Israelites cried out to Yahweh on account of Midian, 8 Yahweh sent a prophet to the Israelites. He said to them, “Thus says Yahweh God of Israel: I am the one who brought you up from Egypt and I brought you out of the house of slavery. 9 I delivered you from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of all who oppressed you, and I drove them out before you and I gave you their land. 10 I said to you, ‘I am Yahweh your God. You shall not worship the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live.’ But you have not obeyed me.” 1

Gideon Is Commissioned The angel of Yahweh came and sat under the terebinth at Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite. Now Gideon his son was beating out wheat in the winepress to rush it away from Midian. 12 Then the angel of Yahweh became visible to him and said to him, “Yahweh is with you, mighty warrior.” 13 Gideon said to him, “Excuse me sir, but if Yahweh is with us, then why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonderful deeds that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, ‘Surely Yahweh brought us up from Egypt’? But now Yahweh has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.” 14 Then Yahweh turned to face him and said, “Go in this your might and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. I hereby commission you. 15 But he said to him, “Excuse me sir, how can I deliver Israel? Look here, my clan 11

118 Judges is the humblest in Manasseh and I am the youngest in my father’s house.” Then Yahweh said to him, “On the contrary, I will be with you, and you will strike down Midian as though it were a single person.” 17 He said to him, “If I have really found favor in your eyes, then perform a sign for me that it is you who are speaking to me. 18 Please do not leave this place until I come to you and bring out my present and lay it before you.” He said, “I will stay until you return.” 19 Gideon went into his house and prepared a kid and made unleavened cakes from an ephah of flour. He put the meat in a basket and put the broth in a cooking pot, and brought them out to him under the terebinth and presented them. 20 Then the angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened cakes and lay them on this rock here and pour out the broth.” He did so. 21 Then the angel of Yahweh reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes. Then fire came up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes. The angel of Yahweh went out of his sight. 22 So Gideon saw that he was the angel of Yahweh. Gideon said, “Alas, my Lord Yahweh, since I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face.” 23 But Yahweh said to him, “Peace to you. Have no fear. You shall not die.” 24 There Gideon built an altar to Yahweh and called it Yahweh is Peace. To this day it is still there at Ophrah of the Abiezrites. 16

Gideon Destroys Baal’s Altar That night Yahweh said to him, “Take the bull that belongs to your father, that is, the second bull, seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that belongs to your father and cut down the Asherah that is beside it. 26 Then build an altar to Yahweh your God on the top of this stronghold, with stones laid in a row. Take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah which you shall cut down.” 27 So Gideon took ten of his servants and did just as Yahweh had told him. But because he was too afraid of his father’s house and the men of the town to do it by day, he did it at night. 28 The townspeople rose early in the morning, and look! The altar of Baal had been torn down and the Asherah that was beside it had been cut down and the second bull had been offered up on the altar that had been built. 29 They said to one another, “Who has done this thing?” They searched and inquired and then said, “Gideon the son of Joash has done this thing.” 30  Then the townspeople said to Joash, “Bring out your son that he might die, because he has torn down the altar of Baal and cut down the Asherah that was beside it.” 31 But Joash said to all who stood opposed to him, “Will you be the ones to contend for Baal? Will you deliver him? Whoever contends for him shall be put to death by morning. If he is a god, let him contend for himself when someone tears down his altar.” 32 So that day he was named Jerubbaal, that is to say, “Let Baal contend against him,” because he tore down his altar. 25

 Judges 6

119

Yahweh’s Spirit Clothes Gideon Now all Midian and Amalek and the people of the East joined forces and crossed over and encamped in the Jezreel Valley. 34 The spirit of Yahweh clothed Gideon, and he sounded the trumpet, and the Abiezrites were called out after him. 35 He sent messengers throughout all Manasseh and it too was called out after him. He also sent messengers to Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and they went up to meet them. 33

Fleece on the Threshing Floor Gideon said to God, “If you will deliver Israel by my hand, just as you have said, 37 look here, I am laying a fleece of wool out on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, just as you have said.” 38 That is what happened. He rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece and wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, “Do not let your anger burn against me that I may speak just one more time. Please let me test with the fleece just one more time. Please let it be dry only on the fleece but let there be dew on all the ground.” 40 God did so that night. It was dry only on the fleece but there was dew all over the ground. 36

Notes 3 Whenever] “And it would be if Israel planted.” See IBHS 32.2.6c. come up and advance against it] Follows MT “come up and come up.” wəālû ālāyw is not present in V or 4QJudga, but is supported by OG, Syr, and T. NRSV (compare NIV) translates the repeated “come up” as a single verb. It is better to treat the second “come up” as a second action: “attack” (RSV) or “raid” (NJPS). The idea is that enemy forces would first move upcountry and then advance against Israel. The omission in 4QJudga is a haplography owing to the pileup of multiple words beginning with waw. 4 vicinity] Hebrew: “up to your approach to Gaza.” Compare 11:32. 5 bring] Follows OG (which is the first item of a doublet in LXXAL) in construing the verb as hiphil, as preferred by BHQ. Qere is waw consecutive perfect qal “they would come.” Ketiv is an imperfect form which can be pointed as hiphil. camels] Follows the less awkward reading of OG (LXXL) and 4QJudga (based on spacing). MT (supported by LXXAB Syr T) reflects a vertical displacement of “camels” to later in the verse: “they and their camels were without number.” 4QJudga and OL omit “their camels” at that later point where it occurs in MT. LXXL has “camels” in both places.

120 Judges 6 poor] Hebrew: “those made small” or “low.” 7–10 When…obeyed me] Follows MT OG V Syr T. This long section is absent from 4QJudga. Scholars had long suggested that this paragraph represents a relatively late Deuteronomistic addition to Judges. Many feel that this Qumran evidence indicates that a form of Judges without vv. 7–10 circulated alongside the standard, fuller version, suggesting a late (Persian, Hellenistic) date for such an insertion. However, no other witness supports 4QJudga and other reasons can be advanced for the absence of these verses there. 4QJudga may have been an abbreviated text for liturgical or other purposes. In MT tradition this section is marked off by petuhah text separators, and Qumran manuscripts sometimes reflect this paragraphing tradition by leaving gaps at the same places. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is haplography from gap to gap. 7 When the Israelites…Yahweh] Follows MT. Verse 7a is absent from LXXB Syr, but LXXAL tracks MT. V is periphrastic and does not really witness this omission. The repeated phrase was omitted by haplography triggered by the repetition of bny-yśrl l yhwh in vv. 6b and 7a. 10 obeyed me] Hebrew: “listened to my voice.” See 2:2, 20. 11 Ophrah] There are several candidates for this site and no certainty is possible. The most popular identification is Afula (1774 2240), based on location and an apparent continuity of names (alteration of r to l). However, this site is far north of where the Samaria Ostraca apparently locate the Abeiezer clan and also too far from Shechem to fit with data suggested by the Abimelech story. the Abiezrite] Follows MT, supported by LXXB V Syr. The gentilic is based on an apparent construct ăbî-ezer so that the second term of the chain takes the definite article (compare 1 Sam 17:58). 4QJudga (supported by LXXAL) regularizes the position of the article to hbyzry. Compare 8:32. rush it away] nws hiphil implies “cause to escape, whisk away to safety”; compare Exod 9:20. 12 became visible] Taking the niphal as tolerative. After a while, the angel allowed himself to be seen. IBHS 23.4g. 13] if Yahweh] 4QJudga “if God.” Later in this verse the Qumran manuscript has the relative particle š instead of MT šr (no change in meaning). The same relative is present in the MT of 6:17; 7:12; 8:26. 14 hereby commission] Hebrew: “Have I not sent you?” This is a commissioning formula utilizing performative speech. Compare Exod 3:12; Ezek 3:6. NJPS: “I herewith make you My messenger.”

 Judges 6

121

15 sir] Vocalizing as the suffix for the singular noun (“my lord,” “sir”), following LXXB V and v. 13. The plural noun vocalization witnessed by MT and LXXAL would represent the divine name Yahweh, but Gideon clearly does not recognize his interlocutor as Yahweh until v. 22. humblest] Poor, powerless, and low in status. The verb from this root is used in 6:6. 16 on the contrary] Emphatic kî opposing the implications of the previous sentence (compare Gen 3:5; Deut 13:10; Ruth 1:10). The phrase repeats the first part of Exod 3:12, which similarly raises the issue of a sign in the context of Moses’ objections. a single person] The phrase usually refers to the grammatical subject of an action done in concert (Num 14:15; Judg 20:1, 8, 11), but here describes the collective effect on the object of an all-inclusive military strike (compare Num 14:15). 19 presented them] Follows the masoretic vocalization as a hiphil. Construing the verb form as qal rather than hiphil would denote “approached him.” There is no versional evidence for reading as qal. Although LXXB translates prosēggisen, that verb can be either transitive or intransitive and so this translation could have assumed the hiphil. OG (LXXA) employs proskuneō (worship), framing the meal in a worship context, if not unambiguously as a sacrifice. NJPS (and NJB) begins a new sentence at v. 19b and runs it into v. 20a, “As he presented them, the angel of God said.” 25 bull, that is the second bull, seven years old] Follows MT, supported by LXXB V Syr. The expression par-haššôr “bull of the cattle” (translated here simply as “bull”) is apparently redundant, and it is unclear what par hašēnî “second bull” is supposed to mean. Although the text might seem to speak of two bulls here, only one bull appears in vv. 26 and 28. The textual witnesses evince attempts to correct or interpret MT and all ultimately derive from MT. (1) LXXB translated MT precisely: ton moskon ton tauron, “the calf [that has become?] the bull,” followed by an epexegetical kai and moskon deuteron “that is a second bull.” (2) LXXL proceeded from an ancient exegetical concept reflected in the interpretation of T: “the second bull which has been fattened for seven years.” Accordingly in v. 28, LXXL translated “the second bull” with ton moskon ton siteuton “the fatted calf” and used this same translation in v. 25a. LXXL also failed to comprehend, and thus dropped, “second” (and from v. 26). NABRE follows this direction: “the bull fattened for seven years.” (3) LXXA shifted LXXL closer to MT by restoring “second” into vv. 25 and 26. that is, the second bull] MT describes a single animal. The conjunction before “second bull” is epexegetical: “that is” (NJB NRSV). REB (“a young bull of your father’s, the yearling bull”) also translates as a single animal. Second bull may indicate that an animal born second might have been considered better than the first-born for fattening and thus offer higher quality meat. Perhaps it would be thought more appropriate as a voluntary offering because the first bull calf to open the womb would have been a required sacrifice (according to Exod 13:15).

122 Judges seven years old] This may intend to indicate that it has escaped destruction by Midian (compare v. 1). Another line of interpretation understands second bull as the younger of two oxen in a yoke. Yet another possibility is that second bull entered the text as an explanatory gloss based on Lev 4:21 and Num 8:8, which describe the sacrifice of two bulls as part of the same ritual. Some scholars revocalize MT to haššanî, taken to mean either “the best” (from šnh III “shining, splendid” based on Arabic; HALOT 4:1599) or “full grown” (from šny II, again based on Arabic; HALOT 4:1604). throw down] NRSV and NJPS have “pull down,” implying that the bull is to help out by dragging out the stones. 26 stronghold] Either a natural strong point, compare “the top of this height” (NIV) or a fortified sanctuary (as in Shechem, 9:46). with stones laid in a row] Admittedly, adding “stones laid” to “in the row” is a rather desperate translation strategy (ESV). Other interpretations are “on the level ground” (NJPS), “in proper order” (NRSV), and even “from the same stratum of rock.” Perhaps the expression refers to a row of other cultic objects such as pillars or stelas. Another possibility relates to the usage of Sir 50:14, where the reference is to the stacking of firewood (compare Middle Hebrew “pile of wood”): “at the [place for] stacking [firewood].” 31 Will you be the ones] The pronouns are emphatic, implying that Baal and not the townspeople ought to be doing this. NJB: “Is it your job to plead for Baal?” contend for] rîb in this context with the preposition l means “contend on behalf of, defend, argue the cause of.” 32 he was named] Construing as an impersonal third person verb. Alternatively, “he [Joash] named him, saying.” contend against] rîb with the preposition b means “put on trial, indict.” 34 clothed] Follows MT, supported by OG (LXXL OL) V Syr T. Divine spirit clothes or envelops Gideon (1 Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 24:20). LXXAB corrupted or interpreted this as “empowered.” It is grammatically possible to reverse this and understand Gideon as the entity with which the spirit clothed itself (that is, “the spirit put on Gideon”; compare Isa 49:18) so that Gideon serves as an external agent of God’s action. NRSV seems to follow this line of reasoning with “took possession of.” However, comparable phrases in Judges (3:10; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14) make this approach unlikely. were called out] The niphal here and in v. 35 could be vocalized as an active voice stem (qal or hiphil): “he called out.” This was the understanding of OG (LXXAL OL) and V. 35 it too was called out after him. He also sent messengers] Missing from LXXB either as a haplography triggered by the repetition of “he sent messengers” or an intentional abbreviation of a superfluous repetition.

 Judges 6

123

them] The plural pronoun suffix is awkward but refers to the army gathered in vv. 34 and 35a. The Greek tradition smoothed out MT in two ways: “they went up to meet him” (LXXAL) and “he went up to meet them” (LXXB). 36 you will deliver] The emphasis is on “you”: “if you will be the one delivering.” 37 fleece of wool] Some think of a sheepskin, others of freshly shorn wool. The contexts in which the verbal roots gzh/gzz (cut, shear) and the related noun gez (Deut 18:4) appear make the second meaning more probable.

Structure and Rhetoric The narrative about Gideon is complex and extensive (100 verses). It is set into the Deuteronomistic cycle, characterized by reporting sin, punishment, Israel’s cry, raising up a deliverer, and a period of rest. Introductory materials (6:1–10) cover the first three of these items. Then extended narratives reporting call and multiple signs describe Yahweh’s provision of a deliverer, taking the place of the formula used in 3:9, 15. Finally, a forty-year period of rest and the notice that Midian was “subdued” (3:30; 4:23; 11:33) complete the framework unit (8:28). Organizing structures transcend chapter divisions. Hand (yād or kap) provides a sort of leitmotif for the Gideon chapters. Yahweh gives Israel into the hand of Midian that oppresses Israel (6:1, 2, 13) and then delivers Israel from that same hand through Gideon (6:14; 8:22, 34). Yahweh is the real force behind this delivering hand, not Israel (7:2). Gideon’s hand is featured in 6:36, 37; 7:9, 14; 8:6, 7, 15, and Israel’s hand in 7:2, 7, and 15. Hands holding trumpets and jars rather than swords win the day (7:16, 19–20). Oreb and Zeeb fall into Ephraim’s hand (8:3) and Gideon’s hands capture the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna (8:6–7, 15). Even hands from which water is lapped and which take provisions play a role in deliverance (7:6, 8). Deliver (yš hiphil) is another key word, usually occurring in association with the hand of the enemy. This is the heart of Gideon’s commission (6:14, 15) about which he needs assurance (6:36, 37). However, Yahweh is Israel’s true deliverer (7:2, 7). Deliverance is characteristic of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel (using the synonym nṣl hiphil: 6:9; 8:34). The question of Baal’s capacity to deliver himself undermines his claim to divinity (6:31). Finally, the people’s offer to Gideon of permanent sole rule rests on their conviction that he has delivered them from Midian (8:22).

124 Judges

The three chapters about Gideon feature geographic detail. Rather than trying to use this to attempt historical reconstruction, the interpreter should recognize that geography has a rhetorical purpose. It adds interest, vividness, and believability for the reader who knows the ground. Some elements of geography were no doubt part of the inherited tradition (Ophrah; the spring of Harod). However, other elements, particularly Midian’s flight path and their ultimate defeat east of the Jordan, are contributions of the authorial process and reflections of scribal learning. For the most part the topographic staging seems accurate. It had to make good sense to early readers familiar with the geography of central Palestine. Syntactical and topical transitions divide ch. 6 into sense units. 1. Judges 6:1 is a new framework start that concludes with cried out in v. 6. 2. Verse 7 begins with a repetitive resumption of v. 6, and v. 10 concludes the prophet’s speech. 3. Movement of a new character onto the narrative stage creates a new start at v. 11. 4. The narrative arc of the sacrifice sign begins at v. 17 and ends with v. 24. 5. Verse 25 begins with a new time marker. The last effect of what is commanded there is reported in v. 32. 6. Verse 33 begins with a circumstantial background statement that leads into the muster of Israel concluded by v. 35. 7. The narrative arc of the fleece test reaches from v. 36 to v. 40. Verses 1–6 and 7–10 may be taken together as the exposition for the Gideon plot, describing in turn two narrative problems. One is Israel’s religious apostasy and the other its military peril. Readers will expect Gideon to deal with the Midianite threat, but also eventually come to terms with the problem of the gods of the Amorites (v. 10, see Josh 24:15). Verses 2–6 report Midian as a narrative problem (vv. 2–6). The following narration about Gideon and Israel is interleaved repeatedly by glimpses of the menacing Midianite camp (6:33; 7:1, 8, 12). These offer periodical reminders to the reader concerning the crisis against which Gideon’s personal drama plays out. The Midianite encampment is first described as a generalized, repeated threat (6:4–5). It returns as a particular invasion in 6:33 in order to bring the story line back to the Midianite crisis. In 7:1 the Midianite camp introduces the reduction of Gideon’s army. Finally in 7:8 and 12 (note the repetition of in the valley), it furnishes the setting for the overheard dream. The first (6:6) and last

 Judges 6

125

(7:12) references are detailed and repetitious and stress that the Midianite camp was vast, voracious, and innumerable: camels…locusts…without number. The separate story lines of Gideon and Midian reunite when Gideon goes down to the Midianite camp (7:13–15). The unfolding of Gideon’s character is rhetorically effective. As the narrative progresses, his character is revealed by what he says and does. Gideon is well-rounded, a complex personality like Samson. On the one hand he exemplifies what a proper leader ought to be like as commander and cult reformer. On the other hand, he struggles to come to terms with his commission and Yahweh’s assurance of support. He eventually establishes an apostate cult image. The reader may have high hopes for him, recognizing that his call by Yahweh and somewhat mixed response is similar to that of Moses. The confirming sign of fire also offers a positive indication. However, Gideon’s uncertainly about his mission and standing continues far longer than the reader is likely to be comfortable with. In his battle cry Gideon claims the spotlight with Yahweh (7:22). A positive story about Gideon ought to have ended with Gideon’s recognition of God’s exclusive responsibility for victory in 8:3, but he continues to pursue personal vengeance. In the end, Gideon’s words are appropriate (8:23) but his deeds show his failure (8:27). Yet the narrative’s subtle critique of Gideon’s behavior in the end is summarized by the evaluation in 8:35 that he did good things for Israel. Yahweh too is a story character and one more rounded and articulate than in the stories of Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah. Instead of immediately sending a savior, Yahweh sends a prophet, through whom Yahweh demands loyalty. Because Israel does not obey or turn back, Yahweh goes on to demonstrate Yahweh’s character by sign and deliverance. Yahweh wants the history of saving deeds remembered and the requirement of exclusive relationship obeyed. Yahweh has a penchant for choosing lessthan-perfect heroes, but is willing to promise to be with them (6:12, 16) and to repeat assurances as needed. Yahweh remains the Divine Warrior (6:9; 7:2, 7, 27). [1–6] With Gideon there is a fresh start within the cycle, because v. 1 does not use the language of continued sinning (“again” as in 3:12; 4:1; compare 10:6 and 13:1). Instead the wording returns to the language used for the first judge, Othniel (compare 6:1 with 3:7). Something will be different this time. That the hand of Midian overpowered Israel (v. 2) reverses the formula that described Othniel’s achievement (3:10). These verses represent the book’s longest and most detailed description of harassment. Portrayal of oppression takes up three verses for Ehud and Deborah and

126 Judges

only one verse for Jephthah and Samson, but here it consists of six verses. By stressing the danger posed by Midian, the narrator communicates how necessary and wonderful Gideon’s act of deliverance was. The assonance of minhārôt, məārôt, məṣādôt (rock shelters…caves… strongholds) stresses Israel’s plight (compare 1 Sam 13:6; Isa 2:19). Midian brings their animals and other alien peoples (Judg 6:3, 5). In contrast to sedentary Israel’s economy of grain production, flocks, donkeys, and winepresses, it is tents and camels that characterize nomadic Midianite culture. The negative impact on ordinary life is stressed (vv. 2, 4–6). Utter breakdown is portrayed: people hide, whatever is sown is destroyed, and Israel is very poor (NJPS: “reduced to utter misery”). Intense metaphors of sand and locusts (v. 5) highlight a desperate need for deliverance. Locusts are devastating, swarming, and unstoppable (Joel 1:4–7; Jer 4:23; 51:14, 27; Nah 3:14–15). They descend in uncountable number (Amos 4:9). Locusts serve as a standard image to describe catastrophic destruction (Isa 33:4; Jer 51:14; Joel 1:6–7; Nah 3:15). The locust image will return in 7:12 to emphasize the military odds against Israel. (For uses of the locust image outside of the Bible, see COS 1.102:3 and 34; COS 2.5:34, and COS 2.114E:275.) The narrator increases the threat even further by portraying a coalition of enemies. A roster of three nations (Midian, Amalek, people of the East) appears three times: Judg 6:3, 33; 7:12. A bit of concentric poetry seems to underlie 6:3b (see note on v. 3): And there would come up [wəālâ] Midian and Amalek And the people of the East And would come up against it [wəālû ālāyw]

This list of foes is rhetorical and not historical. Midian is the lead component (6:1, 6, 13, etc.). The Amalekites have already appeared in 3:13 as part of Eglon’s coalition, providing a similar rhetorical effect there. As an ancient, proverbial hated foe (Deut 25:17, 19) and opponents of Moses (Exod 17) and Saul (1 Sam 15), the Amalekite presence raises the level of crisis into the red zone. In this context, the people (Hebrew: sons) of the East is a generic designation for the predatory transient groups in the Syrian and Arabian deserts (compare 1 Kgs 5:10; Ezek 25:4). The threat against Israel is also accentuated geographically in Judg 6:4 with as far as the vicinity of Gaza, which reaches well beyond the limits of the following narrative and describes the threat as one affecting southern tribes as well as central and northern ones. The enemy remains encamped as Gideon is commissioned, seeks assurance, and gathers his army (6:4, 33; 7:1, 8, 12).

 Judges 6

127

Judges 6:6a (because of Midian…the Israelites cried out) repeats language from v. 2a (because of Midian the Israelites made). This closes out the section about oppression and moves on to the next stage of the cycle. Israel’s cry is emphasized by being mentioned twice (vv. 6b and 7a). [7–10] Exposition continues as a reversed repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of the end of v. 6 by v. 7 connects vv. 7–10 to the introduction: because of Midian…Israel cried out…Israel cried out…on account of Midian. Instead of moving directly to provide a deliverer to respond to Israel’s cry (as in 3:9, 15; 4:4), Yahweh changes tactics and now begins by sending a prophet instead. The prophet (îš nābî) of v. 8 is unique in framework sections, but perhaps not completely unexpected, given that he parallels Deborah who is iššâ nebîâ (4:4). Clearly Israel’s cry to Yahweh does not mean they have completely repented or turned back to Yahweh, because Yahweh announces in v. 10, you have not obeyed me (Hebrew: “listened to my voice”) in regard to the gods of the Amorites. Israel cried out simply on account of Midian (v. 7). Yet up to this point in Judges a mere cry of distress had been enough to prod Yahweh into acting (3:9, 15; 4:3). The reader who remembers Yahweh’s refusal to help when Israel was last accused “you have not listened to my voice” (see note on 2:2) might expect this to be the end of Yahweh’s unfailing willingness to deliver. Indeed, after the climatic accusation of v. 10b, the prophet breaks off before uttering the consequences of disobedience, creating reader tension. There are also more subtle hints of judgment. Israel was rescued from the hand of Egypt (v. 9), but is now put into the hand of Midian (vv. 1–2). Yahweh gave Israel its land (v. 9), but also gave them over to Midian (v. 1). Yahweh brought up Israel (v. 8, hiphil), but Midian came up (v. 3; qal of the same verb). The threat of Yahweh’s unwillingness to save will reach an even more serious stage when the Judges narrative reaches 10:14–16. Yet the prophet’s message also shows that Yahweh remains personally involved with Israel and has demonstrated this commitment in speech and action. The first person singular is repeated: “I brought you up…I brought you out…I delivered you…I drove them out…I gave you…I said to you, ‘I am Yahweh…’.” First person subject pronouns are explicit and emphatic at both the beginning and end of this series. Verse 10 is a classic self–identification formula (I am Yahweh) associated with a proclamation of exodus deliverance (compare Exod 20:2–3). These reminders of past liberation and deliverance sound more like divine frustration than absolute condemnation at this point. By commissioning Gideon rather than simply leaving Israel to it fate, Yahweh reveals a desire to continue

128 Judges

the relationship with Israel. Yet this relationship is now fraught with danger because Israel has not listened and worships alien gods, as the upcoming episode of the Baal altar illustrates. In a sense the prophet is providing a preemptive explanation for the questions and laments that Gideon will himself voice in v. 13. [11–16] Gideon’s call story is bracketed and thus cemented together by the repetition of Ophrah and Abiezrite(s) in vv. 11 and 24. Verses 11–24 introduce the complex character of Gideon and announce his mission and divine support and promise. Gideon’s hesitation to trust his vocation and Yahweh’s support, however, introduces another, subsidiary narrative problem in v. 15: how can I deliver Israel? This subplot issue must be settled before the main problem of Midianite invasion can be resolved The Gideon narrative shares with the Samson story a stress on the rise and divine endorsement of the central character. Angelic appearance and a sacrifice involving miraculous elements establishes both in the role of deliverer and does so against the backdrop of their family of origin. There are also parallels between the calls of Gideon and Moses. Both follow an outcry by the people (Exod 2:23–24). Both involve a commissioning and Yahweh’s promise, I will be with you (Exod 3:12). However, parallels between Moses and Gideon are sometimes overemphasized. That both involve fire (Exod 3:6; Judg 6:21) provides an unconvincing parallel, and other perceived similarities stem from the pattern of the shared “call story” genre (for example, Exod 3:11–4:17 and 1 Sam 9:21). Gideon’s behavior in the winepress illustrate the gravity of Israel’s plight described in v. 2. Wheat would normally be beaten or threshed on an exposed windy hilltop, not in the confined pit or depression of a winepress. Gideon is hiding and the situation is so serious that the lack of wind for winnowing is irrelevant. Beating out with stick, instead of using cattle or donkeys, or perhaps dragging sledges, means that only a small amount is being processed (compare Ruth 2:17). The angel of Yahweh has already appeared to deliver a negative message in 2:1, 4. He will play an equally important role in the birth story of Samson. Significantly, he sits under a terebinth, a large tree with cultic connotations (Gen 35:4; Hos 4:13; a pistachio or oak). This important tree is not communal clan property but belongs to Joash, who also possesses or controls a Baal altar with public importance. These facts signal that his son is someone of significance and not the humble nonentity he claims to be (v. 15). If the reader has encountered Deut 7:5 and 12:3, the meaning of Gideon’s name (Hacker) could presage the upcoming destruction of this altar.

 Judges 6

129

The syntax of v. 11b is circumstantial: when the angel first came and sat, Gideon kept on doing his chore. The angel becomes visible in v. 12 to initiate the conversation. The angel’s address could be taken as merely a polite greeting (Ruth 2:4) to a “worthy man” (gibbôr heḥāyil; compare Ruth 2:1; 3:11). However Gideon reacts as though this is a misguided salvation oracle. He understands Yahweh is with you (singular) as a theological assertion (v. 13) and the designation gibbôr heḥāyil in its military sense: “mighty, valiant warrior” (v. 15; compare 11:1). Of course, Gideon’s interpretation of v. 12 will turn out to be correct. In vv. 13 and 15, Gideon responds to the angel in a polite way, using language that acknowledges his interlocutor’s high status (Josh 7:8; 1 Sam 1:26; 1 Kgs 3:17). At the same time Gideon’s words exhibit a certain adversative flavor. This is the way an inferior expresses objection and disagreement to a superior (Exod 4:10, 13; Num 12:11; 1 Kgs 3:26): Excuse me sir, but…. The pronoun you in v. 12 is singular, but in v. 13 Gideon replies about the plight of Israel as a whole: us (six times in v. 13). Gideon’s response exhibits a concentric pattern encompassing past events with his own opinion of present reality: if Yahweh is with us then why has all this happened to us? where are all his wonderful deeds? But now Yahweh has abandoned us.

Typical objections offered in call narratives have to do with the nominee’s own shortcomings, and Gideon pursues this line of reasoning in v. 15 (Exod 3:11; 1 Sam 9:21; Jer 1:6). However, he first focuses his protestations on Yahweh’s supposed failures. Gideon does so using the language of communal lament psalms (why…where…wonderful deeds…ancestors recounted; Pss 44:1, 24–25 [ET 23–24]; 74:1, 11; 77:8–10 [ET 7–9]; 78:3–4; 80:13 [ET 12]; 89:49) and hymns of praise (Pss 9:1; 26:7; 75:1; 96:3). Gideon’s speech to the angel reflects on what has earlier been spoken by the prophet and continues that negative prophetic message with an attitude of despair. Both Gideon and the prophet express that the divine saving acts took place in a bygone era. Note the reversed correspondence between vv. 8b and 13b: I…brought you up from Egypt and (in Hebrew word order) “from Egypt Yahweh brought us up.” From one perspective, Gideon’s skepticism when addressed by the angel seems entirely appropriate. The angel’s address, mighty warrior, appears to be completely at odds with the reality of Gideon hiding in a winepress. Nor is Gideon’s objection to Yahweh is with you unreasonable

130 Judges

in light of the negative message just delivered by the prophet and Israel’s present predicament. As though he has overheard the prophet, Gideon is arguing in effect: “Of course in the past Yahweh brought Israel out of slavery, delivered us from oppression, and gave us the land of promise, just as Yahweh has said and just as our elders have taught us. But now Yahweh has declared that Israel continues to worship the gods of the Amorites. Considering this, the evidence of the present makes it clear that Yahweh is not with us now, for Yahweh no longer does the wonderful deeds of yesteryear. Indeed the exact opposite is the case. The contrast between this current calamity and Yahweh’s past saving acts proves that Yahweh has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian (v. 13; in agreement with v. 1). Both recent experience and prophetic revelation indicate that Yahweh is definitely not with Israel.” The call scene exhibits increasing divine involvement as matters develop. Yahweh’s surrogate angel first merely sits under tree as Gideon works (v. 11), but then appears to him (v. 12). Then in v. 14, when Gideon resists, the text says strikingly, Yahweh turned to face him. For a moment the mask of “angel” slips, and the numinous figure becomes transparent to Yahweh’s direct presence. The reader (but not Gideon yet) sees that this is really Yahweh and no mere messenger (compare vv. 16, 23). An expression that is elsewhere merely a relational metaphor (Lev 26:9; 1 Kgs 8:28; 2 Kgs 13:23) is used here as a dramatic narrative staging. Yahweh blatantly turns to face Gideon and engages in a tête-à-tête with him! Although Yahweh apparently ignores Gideon’s laments in v. 13, so reminiscent of the psalms, Yahweh’s turning to face him echoes precisely what some lament psalms ask God to do (Pss 25:16; 69:17 [ET 16]; 86:16). The reader is likely to wonder what this your might in v. 14 could possibly refer to. Gideon has demonstrated no particular might up till this point. The demonstrative this would seem to indicate something at hand, not just a future quality. Is it Gideon’s resourcefulness in choosing this method of beating out grain? Perhaps the answer may be found in Gideon’s first response to the angel’s words (v. 13), in which he evidences concern for his oppressed nation by converting the angel’s singular you to a plural us. Gideon’s might may reside in his concern for the nation. In v. 15 also, Gideon’s doubts are about the fate of Israel as much as about his own future: how can I deliver Israel? However, as the narrative unfolds, the emphasis seems to change to Gideon’s concern for his own glory. Consider the repeated question of vv. 36–37: whether you will deliver Israel by my hand.

 Judges 6

131

In v. 15, Gideon is both polite and obdurate. Objections are a customary feature of call stories and play a rhetorical function. Objections indicate that the one called did not choose or desire his role, but was elected by Yahweh. Objections also give the narrative a chance to provide the one called with necessary assurance. Here, the reader may well ask whether Gideon is exhibiting positive humility or negative self-doubt. A protest that one’s background is humble is not untypical (1 Sam 9:21), but the Abiezer clan will prove to be more assertive than humble (Judg 6:34), and Gideon’s brothers will turn out to resemble royal sons (Judg 8:18). The motif of being youngest is also expected (1 Sam 16:6–7, 11), but the reader will find out that Gideon actually is old enough to have a youthful son (Judg 8:20). Nonetheless, other elements in the narrative indicate that Gideon is not yet a fully independent person. He is working under his father’s tree, has access to his father’s bull, and fears the reaction of his own father’s house. Ophrah’s citizens call on Joash to bring out your son. Nevertheless, Gideon’s objections eventually start to sound like excuses. Yahweh seeks to move Gideon beyond skepticism to confidence. Yahweh’s assurance in v. 16, I will be with you, repeats v. 12 and responds directly to Gideon’s complaint in v. 13. This promise can be translated as a reflection of or wordplay on the divine name: “I AM (ehyeh) is the one who is with you.” This may be a cross-reference to Exod 3:12–14, but this phrase is also addressed to Joshua (Deut 31:23; Josh 1:5; 3:7). The promise of victory in v. 16 also responds to Gideon’s objections in vv. 13 and 15. From this point on until 7:14, an important narrative theme is Gideon’s uncertainty. Repeated supernatural signs emerge to answer Gideon’s query in v. 13, where are all his wonderful deeds? [17–24] Perform a sign for me. When signs occur in call narratives, they properly come at Yahweh’s instigation (Exod 3:9–12; Jer 1:4–10). So Gideon’s request for a sign (v. 17) seems problematic to the reader and strengthens the theme of his doubt. The grammar of Gideon’s question in v. 17 conveys, “that it is truly you who speak with me (and not some other).” When interpreted in the light of v. 22, Gideon must mean: is my commission authentically addressed to me by Yahweh through Yahweh’s angel? Gideon’s provision of food oscillates between being an act of hospitality and a cultic sacrifice. Gideon sets up groundwork for the sign (vv. 18–19), but the angel gives directions concerning the stone and disposition of the broth (v. 20). The episode involving Manoah and his visitor in 13:15–21 clarifies what this all means. If Gideon’s visitor is a

132 Judges

human guest, the food Gideon offers will be eaten as an ordinary meal (compare Tob 12:19). If this one is truly a supernatural guest, the food will be treated instead as a sacrifice. In several ways, the text hints at, but does not disclose, that this will turn out to be a sacrifice. What Gideon brings is designated as a present (v. 18) using the noun minḥâ, which often signifies a grain sacrifice (13:19, 23; 1 Sam 2:17). Gideon uses an entire ephah of flour to make the cakes (v. 19; estimates range from 10 to 22 liters), something that signals most generous hospitality. The verb present in v. 19 (ngš hiphil) is used in both cultic (Lev 2:8; 8:14) and commonplace contexts (Gen 27:25). The angel’s command to set the food out on a rock (v. 20) suggests a sacrificial offering (Judg 13:19; 1 Sam 6:15). Using these hints, the text reveals to the reader what Gideon cannot know yet. From Gideon’s perspective the issue is still open, but readers have known the true identity of the angel since vv. 11 and 14. Such irony creates narrative interest and tension. The presence of broth means that the meat Gideon brings has already been boiled. Cooked meat as opposed to raw continues to leave open the possibility of either meal or sacrifice. Pouring on the broth (v. 20) points to a sort of libation sacrifice, and also increases the wonder of the fire miracle (compare 1 Kgs 18:34–35). The sign is twofold. First, the visitor does not eat, but instead extra­ ordinary fire jumps upward from the rock and eats (consumed) what is offered. Thus, this is indeed a sacrifice and has been accepted (Lev 9:24; 1 Chr 21:26; 2 Chr 7:1). Moreover, the fire comes up from the rock, not down from heaven (contrast 1 Kgs 18:38), indicating that this angelic apparition is none other than Yahweh on earth. There is no distinction between Yahweh and this visible messenger. The angel’s supernatural nature is verified as he suddenly vanishes, moving (verb hlk) out of Gideon’s sight. This event closes the frame opened by became visible to him in v. 12 and demonstrates that this is indeed a numinous epiphany (13:20–21; Tob 12:21; Luke 24:31). As a result, Gideon recognizes the angel’s identity and properly fears what has occurred (v. 22). Gideon’s fear is a standard reaction (Gen 32:30; Judg 13:21–22; Isa 6:5) and is recounted in order to provide the opportunity for the narrative to again express divine assurance. In vv. 22–23, there is conventional wordplay between Gideon’s seeing (verbal root rh) and fearing (yr; Gen 42:35; Exod 14:31; 1 Sam 28:5). Yahweh is still speaking in v. 23 and thus still present, but there is no longer any mortal danger to Gideon from seeing. Gideon is safe, both from the dangerous presence of Yahweh and in regard to the oppression of the Midianites. The promise of peace (wholeness, prosperity) is the reverse of everything Midian is doing to Israel. By building and naming this new altar Yahweh is Peace, Gideon

 Judges 6

133

demonstrates both recognition of the identity of the One who has appeared and acknowledgment of the comforting promise of peace. This peace will be won through military victory (8:9 and 11:31). [25–32] Israel’s apostasy is built into the narrative itself and not merely asserted in the framework verses. Yahweh commands Gideon to throw down and cut down the holy installations of his home town (v. 25). Moreover, this altar is the property of his father, so that Gideon is being ordered to violate the fundamental cultural demand of loyalty to family. Perhaps this is a private shrine (compare 17:5), or perhaps Joash as a leading citizen is the guardian of the altar for the community. A divine command for a judge to engage in an act of counter-apostasy is unique in Judges. The incident illustrates both Gideon’s modest level of zeal and Israel’s devotion to the gods of the Amorites (v. 10). The reader is reminded that Israel’s cry in v. 7 did not involve a turn back to Yahweh. Gideon obediently attacks his father’s Baal altar, but does so only at night because he was too afraid (v. 27) and even then only with ten helpers. The reader may be surprised to discover that the sign of fire is not enough to set Gideon’s doubts to rest. In spite of vv. 14, 16, 21, and 23, Gideon is still not really convinced and will continue to seek assurance. His ten helpers point to the magnitude of the demolition job, but also Gideon’s hesitancy. Gideon’s commitment and confidence remain ambiguous and uncertain. Gideon succeeds in his assignment and is equipped with a fateful new name that provides commentary on the theological meaning of the events that will unfold. Other gods are powerless. That night in v. 25 ties his first achievement directly to his divine commission. Night in v. 27 contrasts with the morning theme of what follows (vv. 28, 31), which indicates determination and enthusiasm on the part of the adherents of Baal. Night continues to play a unifying role in v. 40 (fleece) and 7:9 (the Midianite camp). In order to highlight Gideon’s dilemma in regard to family values, v. 25 repeats precisely, “bull that belongs to your father…altar of Baal that belongs to your father. The Hebrew word order of v. 25b is a concentric reversal: “throw down the altar of Baal…and the Asherah…cut down.” The sequence take your father’s bull…and throw down hints that Gideon is to use the animal to help pull down the altar. Whatever the precise meaning of second bull (see the note on v. 25), the noticeably full description of the animal seems to emphasize that it will be a worthy sacrifice. The townspeople’s perception of the state of the altar (look!) corresponds almost exactly with Yahweh’s command (compare v. 28 to vv. 25–26) and concretizes Gideon’s exact obedience, which was not

134 Judges

described in detail in v. 27. A pileup of verbs underscores the shocking impact this sight has on them: torn down…cut down…offered…built. One difference from v. 25 is that the townspeople replace the verb throw down (hrs, 1 Kgs 18:30) with tear down (ntṣ) This latter verb echoes Judg 2:2 and is typical Deuteronomistic vocabulary for the destruction of pagan religious sites (Deut 7:5; 12:3; 2 Kgs 10:27; 11:18; 23:12–15). This choice of vocabulary places Gideon’s act into the context of the reform demanded by Deuteronomy. The Asherah pole was a standard element in cult installations and represented the power of divine fertility (Deut 16:21; 2 Kgs 21:3; Jer 17:2). Baal seems to be powerless and humiliated, for the new altar of Yahweh stands right on top of Baal’s destroyed one. The sacred pole has been treated as mere firewood (compare 2 Kgs 19:18; Isa 44:19), an act that would have been understood as insolent desecration. At his point, the narrative emphasis is on dishonor to Baal and not the new altar, given that Yahweh’s new altar is neither named nor reported as being still in existence (contrast v. 23). The wording of the townspeople’s question (v. 29), Who has done this thing? is repeated exactly in the answer, Gideon…has done this thing. Their demand in v. 30 shows that Gideon was still not a fully emancipated adult and still part of his father’s household. It also demonstrates that Gideon’s fear in v. 27 was reasonable. Although they have seen the Yahwistic altar and sacrifice (v. 28), they do not mention those factors in their demand that Gideon die. The outrage from their viewpoint is not Gideon’s worship of Yahweh, but his debasing the honor of Baal. Their issue is not the existence of Yahweh worship, but Yahwistic religion’s intolerance of other gods. A reader with a background in Deuteronomy may catch irony here. Baal’s advocates are following the prescriptions of Deuteronomy 13, seeking death for the apostate who is their neighbor and kin, and even inquiring carefully about the circumstances (Deut 13:15 [ET 14]). In v. 31 Joash delivers a speech delightfully appropriate to his status as sponsor of the Baal cult. He appears to display an even more radical faith in Baal than those who seek his son’s death. He manages to preserve peace with a shrewd and wonderfully ambiguous answer that both saves his son and permits Joash to affirm his own faith in Baal. Joash uses the verb deliver, ironic against the context of Yahweh’s promise to deliver (6:14, 36–37; 7:7). The reader will ask, does a real god require deliverance and advocacy? Joash says in effect: let the gods sort out their own problems and fight their own battles. He seems to support Baal, but also insinuates that the murderous fanaticism of Baal’s devotees actually

 Judges 6

135

serves to question Baal’s power in a way that deserves death. He counters the threat of death against his son with an open-ended evocation of death upon Baal’s supporters. Is Joash declaring that Baal might kill them because the god must be outraged at their insult to his capacity to save himself and contend for himself? Or is Joash threatening them directly? Joash acknowledges that this is a serious situation for Baal and that Baal’s godhood depends on whether Baal can act or not. However, for Joash proper faith in Baal requires that the matter be left in Baal’s hands. Commentators often remind us of Gamaliel’s open-minded advice given in Acts 5:38–39. However, a close reading of Joash’s words reveals that he is actually betraying the truth that Baal’s powerlessness has already been demonstrated, in that Baal needs to be delivered because his altar has been torn down. Indeed, it is hard for the reader to tell just whose side Joash is on. If he is a god is hardly the faith statement of a dedicated Baalist! Gideon’s name is now to be Jerubbaal. Like the assurances and sign he has received, Gideon’s new name is part of a typical hero’s equipment— when taken at face value. The name defines his mission and sets forth the implications of its success or failure for both Baal and Gideon. Yet Jerubbaal is also a deeply ambiguous name. It is being taken to imply “Baal will contend, Baal has brought justice” (compare Jehoiarib, 1 Chr 9:10), or as the text itself indicates, “Let Baal contend [against him].” The central question raised by v. 31 (let him contend for himself) is whether Baal will actually act against Gideon or not. This meaning for the name suggests that failure on Gideon’s part would be a victory for Baal and that Gideon’s success would mean that Baal has been proven powerless to contend for himself or deliver himself. Gideon’s future will reveal Baal’s capacity to defend himself against this man who has humiliated him. Indeed, reading Jerubbaal’s name in light of 8:33 (“made Baal-berith their god”) hints that in the end Baal might have managed to come out victorious, or at least that the question has not yet been completely decided at that point. The story in which this new name is actually given, however, suggests another, completely opposite meaning for the name: “he contends against Baal.” Gideon has successfully done just that by tearing down Baal’s altar. This understanding of the new name makes it something akin to a mission statement for Gideon. In any case, this story of renaming permitted the old folktale champion Jerubbaal to bear that traditional name and still be a legitimate Yahwistic hero. The somewhat off-center etiology in Joash’s speech indicates that the name is older than the folk etymology advanced by this narrative. It is quite likely that the theophoric name Jerubbaal properly derives from the

136 Judges

verbal root rbh/rbb (“may Baal prove himself great”). Baal names were borne by other early Israelite figures (Ishbaal, Meribbaal), but the identity of the “divine lord” in question was most likely Yahweh. [33–35] The circumstantial syntax of v. 33 turns reader attention back to the Midianite crisis. Gideon’s muster of a tribal army initiates a plot framework that overlaps with the issue of Gideon’s protracted uncertainty. Elements of vv. 34–35 will be repeated in reverse order by 7:23–24 (Naphtali…Asher…Manasseh…sent messengers) in order to move the action from static battle to active pursuit at that point. Verse 33 returns to the fundamental problem of the Midianite incursion by picking up language from v. 3. Indeed things have grown worse, for all have joined forces and have now crossed the Jordan. The subject-first word order of v. 34 introduces a new, contrasting topic in the form of Yahweh’s spirit clothing Gideon. The image may derive from the practice of investing office holders with clothing appropriate to their position (Gen 41:42; 1 Kgs 22:10; Dan 5:29). It is a potent image for a theology of dual divine and human causality. The grammar of v. 34 (waw consecutive imperfect) suggests that Gideon musters troops as a consequence of the divine spirit. Judges 6:34–35 describe the mustering of Israel in three ever-widening circles. First Gideon’s own clan. Second, a new grammatical start in v. 35 (direct object-first word order) reports that Gideon calls out his tribe, Manasseh. Third, he seeks to gather a multi-tribal army. A trumpet (compare Ehud; 3:27) suffices to call out the local Abiezrites, but repeatedly mentioned heralds (he sent messengers… he also sent messengers) are required to spread the word more widely. He sent messengers (v. 35) echoes both the messenger (angel) of Yahweh and the sending of Gideon himself (v. 14). All Manasseh means the rest of the tribe in addition to Abiezer, but not necessarily the portions of the tribe east of the Jordan. The tribes summoned fit the setting in the Jezreel Valley. Assembling such a large army sets the stage for reducing that multitude in 7:1–8. Gideon, clothed in Yahweh’s spirit and leading a substantial host, would seem ready to take decisive action at this point. However, military action is postposed and the themes of Gideon’s uncertainty and Yahweh’s status as Divine Warrior are explored next. [36–40] Unexpectedly, Gideon requests a further sign. From a rhetorical standpoint, this delay increases reader interest. The fleece tests reveal something of Gideon’s character and commitment. The motif of Gideon’s uncertainty has already been raised (how can I deliver Israel?, v. 15; give me a sign, v. 17; he was too afraid, v. 27). Nevertheless, Gideon’s

 Judges 6

137

quest for certainty is not actually condemned. In fact, an ancient reader might have considered this an act of prudence rather than a symptom of disbelief. Yet Gideon’s loss of nerve is in a certain sense indefensible, for he is seeking assurance about something that Yahweh has already explicitly promised. In fact, Gideon refers directly to Yahweh’s promise in order to bracket his first request: just as you have said…just as you have said (vv. 36b and 37b, referring to vv. 14 and 16). This episode about a sign may function to strengthen readers’ faith in the divine word. Unlike many popular applications of this text, this business with the fleeces is not a way of discovering Yahweh’s will, for Gideon knows what has already been revealed and promised (just as you have said). Dew is an appropriate choice because in the biblical world dew is more than a weather phenomenon. It is sent by Yahweh as a gift of heaven (Gen 27:28; Deut 33:13). Dew is conceptually connected with manna (Exod 16:13–14) and vibrant life (Ps 110:3; Isa 26:19). Thus, in addition to assuring Gideon, dew demonstrates Yahweh’s power and even providence to readers. The double test is poorly designed, which does not increase confidence in Gideon as leader. An absorbent fleece would naturally be wet on a dewy morning even if the ground remained dry. Thus, the text simply reports about the first night, it was so (v. 38), without explicitly bringing Yahweh into the matter. Gideon had said he would know after the first trial, but he does not. In asking for a second chance, Gideon’s overfull language reveals the inappropriateness of his request: do not let your anger burn…just one more time…please…just one more time…please (v. 39). Gideon’s use of the verb test in v. 39 may cast a negative light on the second procedure (compare Exod 17:2; Deut 6:16; Isa 7:12). However, Gideon is not so must testing Yahweh here as seeking a more certain answer by employing a second procedure with a more effective design than the first. In contrast to the events of the first night, the second episode comprises a true sign. The description of the first sign is from the perspective of what Gideon did and experienced. The second sign is recounted objectively from the narrator’s viewpoint. It is no longer simply a matter of it happened (v. 38), but that God did so (v. 40). A detailed description of the result (dry…only…dew all over) highlights the wonder. Gideon rises early in 7:1, demonstrating determination and enthusiasm (see v. 28), so apparently he is convinced. Following a “flawed hero” approach, it has been suggested that Gideon is portrayed as deliberately setting up a fake first test in order to force Yahweh to confirm the promise through a second one. The idea is that Gideon is seeking to manipulate Yahweh for his own purposes

138 Judges

in order to get a guarantee of victory for his own personal glory. This construal is based on reading vv. 36b and 37bβ with a strong emphasis on my hand and placing these verses in opposition to vv. 14 and 16 with their strong assertion of Yahweh’s role as deliverer. According to this view, Gideon’s concern is over who will get honor as the real savior of Israel. Such an interpretation misreads the psychological and literary context of Gideon’s questions. Yahweh’s call does not devalue Gideon but instead bestows honor upon him (mighty warrior, v. 12; in this your might, v. 14). The fleece test does not seek to diminish Yahweh’s role but to secure self-assurance for Gideon. Gideon’s doubts are focused on himself and on his own role as Yahweh’s instrument. Am I really your agent and will I really succeed? His question is “is it really by my hand that you will deliver?” It assumes the axiom that it is indeed Yahweh who will deliver. At least Gideon’s doubts lead him into a stubborn and protracted engagement with Yahweh. Abraham provides a close parallel in Gen 18:23–32, both in situation and language (compare Judg 6:39 with Gen 18:32). Genre and Composition The core traditions about Gideon were originally tied to locations. Ophrah must have been the home of sanctuary foundation legends (6:11–24 and 25–28; compare 8:27) as well as the location of Gideon’s tomb (8:32), where stories about him would have been told. The core narrative behind 6:11–24 is an etiology for a Yahweh altar in association with a sacred tree in Ophrah. A numinous appearance designates the place as holy. A worthy figure builds the altar, and an initiating sacrifice indicates that offerings at this altar will be effective (Gen 28:11–19; 35:1–7; 2 Sam 24:16–25). Judges 13:15–21 provides a close parallel. The original core of the sanctuary legend would have consisted of the epiphany at the holy tree and the sign of divinely accepted sacrifice that points explicitly to this rock here (v. 20). The circumstantial participle clause in v. 11 portraying Gideon’s activity at the time of theophany, is characteristic of such stories (13:9; Gen 18:1; 19:1). Abraham and Gideon exhibit similar hospitality at their respective trees (Judg 6:19; Gen 18:4–8). Gideon’s request in vv. 17–18 closely parallels that of Abraham in Gen 18:3. Naming the altar as Yahweh Shalom in response to divine promise (Judg 6:23–24) would also have been part of the original core. Recounting this story at the Abiezrite clan sanctuary authenticated the altar at that particular spot and provided an

 Judges 6

139

etiology for its name (compare Gen 22:14; 33:20; Exod 17:15). The name of the altar may once have reflected the divine name Shalom/Shalim. Gideon’s prestige as founder and name-giver (Judg 6:24) underscored the altar’s importance. The text strengthens the credibility of what it recounts by asserting that the altar is still there at Ophrah (compare 1:21, 26; 10:4; 15:19; 18:12). This traditional story has been taken up in a literary context as the foundation for a call or commissioning narrative. This process is most clearly visible in vv. 12–16, where altar etiology aspects are not entirely harmonious with call narrative elements. As part of Gideon’s call, acceptance of his gift as a sacrifice is a sign that supports his call and the validity of Yahweh’s promises. As an element in the sanctuary etiology, however, the fire miracle leads to Gideon’s awestruck recognition that he has seen Yahweh’s angel. Characteristic elements of a call story are commissioning (v. 14), objections (vv. 13, 15), reassurance formula (vv. 16, 23), and sign. A second altar foundation story appears in vv. 25–32. Gideon builds this altar too (vv. 26, 28). This may have been an alternate etiology relating to the same altar built in v. 23. Or perhaps it authenticated another altar in the Ophrah cultic complex, this one erected on the stronghold. The theme of contention with Baal and the name Jerubbaal rather than Gideon are integral to this second altar legend. The use of broth as a libation and second bull, seven years old might be etiologies for distinctive sacrificial practices (vv. 20, 25; see notes on v. 25). In the composition process, legends and folktales connected to Ophrah, the Abiezer clan, and Gideon/Jerubbaal were transformed into a complex narrative story about Israel as a whole. The “all Israel” perspective appears when four northern tribes are mustered and the arena of action expands from Manasseh’s heartland out to distant Karkor east of the Jordan. This broadening of the referential horizon is also illustrated when the victory of the 300 (7:16–22) is followed by a muster of men of Israel (v. 23). Israel as a whole is oppressed by Midian, even as far as Gaza (v. 4). Israel as a whole is visited by the prophet, saved by Yahweh and Gideon, and in the end becomes disloyal to Yahweh. Gideon’s repeated “us” in 6:13 stands for the whole nation. However, this “all Israel” horizon does not appear in the narrative of theophany and altar (6:17–24), contending with Baal (6:25–32), surprise attack (7:16–22), and east of Jordan pursuit (8:4–21). Stresses and tensions within the entire Gideon narrative provide evidence for a layered compositional process. To list the most obvious:

140 Judges

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

the fluctuating names Jerubbaal (6:32; 7:1; 8:29, 35) and Gideon alternation between God (6:20, 36, 39, 40; 7:14; 8:3) and Yahweh two altars (6:24 and 26, 28) tribes mustered (6:35); partially disbanded; then mustered again (7:23) confusion in the staging of the decisive battle (between 7:18–19 and 20) pursuit by the tribes and pursuit by Gideon’s 300 (7:23 and 8:4) Gideon’s location during and after the Ephraim story (7:25 and 8:4) Oreb and Zeeb (7:25; 8:3) versus Zebah and Zalmunna (the rest of ch. 8)

Attempts to describe this compositional process in anything but very general terms have not led to anything like a consensus. Deuteronomistic redaction is clear in the framework materials of 6:1–6 and 8:28 and in the redactional connection to Abimelech provided by 8:30–35. The anonymous prophet of 6:7–10, a unit that breaks off abruptly, is also Deuteronomistic, but many deem it to be later than the first edition of DH. This section is topically connected to similar material in 2:1–5 and 10:10–16, and also stands in some sort of relationship to Josh 24:7a, 8, 12a, 15a, 17a, 24b. The reversed repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of the end of 6:6 by v. 7 may be a scribal signal indicating the later insertion of vv. 7–10. There is also an abrupt break between 6:10 and 6:11, again suggesting vv. 7–10 were added at a later stage. Verses 8b–9a appear to be in a dependent literary relationship with 1 Sam 10:18. Although there is alternation between the divine names Yahweh and God, variations among the textual witnesses undermine attempts to factor this into a theory of composition. Some of the fluctuation may result from rhetorical strategy. For example, the fleece unit (Judg 6:36–40) is marked off distinctively by using God as the source of the sign. The name Gideon is tied strongly to the call story and the battle of Midian. Jerubbaal appears most solidly as the destroyer of the Baal altar and father of Abimelech (also in ch. 9). The two name traditions unite when Gideon is renamed Jerubbaal in 6:25–32 (see also 7:1 and 8:35). It is possible that there were originally two independent strands of tradition. Perhaps DH, who favors Jerubbaal in other texts (1 Sam 12:11; 2 Sam 11:21), united them. Most likely, however, these are different names for the same Abiezrite hero from Ophrah, with one possibly being something like a throne name or nom de guerre.

J u d g es 7

The People Are Too Many Then Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) rose early along with all the people who were with him and camped beside the Spring of Harod. The camp of Midian was north of him by the hill of Moreh in the valley. 2 Yahweh said to Gideon, “The people with you are too many for me to give Midian into their hand, lest Israel boast against me, thinking, ‘My own hand has delivered me.’ 3 Now therefore announce in the hearing of the people, ‘Let anyone who is trembling with fear return home and fly away from Mount Gilead.’ ” So 22,000 of the people returned and 10,000 remained. 4 Then Yahweh said to Gideon, “The people are still too many. Bring them down to the water, and I will sift them for you there. Anyone about whom I say to you, ‘This one shall go with you,’ shall go with you, and anyone about whom I say to you, ‘This one shall not go with you,’ shall not go.” 5 So he brought the people down to the water. Then Yahweh said to Gideon, “You shall separate everyone who laps the water with his tongue as a dog laps, as well as everyone who gets down on his knees to drink.” 6 The number of those who lapped with their hand to their mouth was 300 men, but all the rest of the people got down on their knees to drink water. 7 Yahweh said to Gideon, “With the 300 men who lapped I will deliver you and give Midian into your hand. Let all the other people go, each to his own place.” 8 So they took the provisions of the people in their hand, and their trumpets. Then he sent away every man of Israel each to his tent, but retained the 300 men. Now the camp of Midian was below him in the valley. 1

Gideon’s Fear Resolved That night Yahweh said to him, “Arise, go down against the camp, for I have given it into your hand. 10 But if you are afraid to go down [to attack], go down to the camp, you and Purah your servant. 11 You shall hear what they are saying, and then your hands will become strong and you will go down against the camp.” So he went down, he and Purah his servant, to the outposts of the men organized into combat groups who were in the camp. 12 Now Midian and Amalek and all the people of the East were settled down in the valley like locusts in abundance, and their camels were without number like the sand that is on the seashore in abundance. 13 Gideon approached and 9

142 Judges look, one man was telling a dream to another. He said, “Listen, I dreamed a dream and look, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent and struck it so that it fell and turned it upside down and the tent collapsed.” 14 Then the other responded, “This is nothing other than the sword of Gideon son of Joash, a man of Israel. God has given into his hand Midian and the whole camp.” 15 As soon as Gideon heard the telling of the dream and its interpretation, he bowed low. Then he returned to the camp of Israel and said, “Arise, for Yahweh has given into your hand the camp of Midian.”

The Day of Midian He divided the 300 men into three companies and put trumpets into the hands of all of them and empty jars with torches inside the jars. 17 He said to them, “Look at me and do the same thing. When I come to the outposts of the camp, whatever I do, you do the same. 18 When I blow the trumpet, I and all who are with me, then you blow the trumpets also all around the camp and shout, ‘For Yahweh and for Gideon.’ ” 19 So Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the outposts of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch. They had just then set the watch. They blew on the trumpets and smashed the jars that were in their hands. 20 Then the three companies blew on the trumpets and broke the jars. They grasped in their left hands the torches and in their right hands the trumpets to blow. They cried out, “A sword for Yahweh and for Gideon!” 21 Each one stood in his place around the camp, but the entire camp ran. They cried out and fled. 22 They blew the 300 trumpets and Yahweh set each one’s sword against his fellow and against the whole camp. So the camp fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the edge of Abel-meholah opposite Tabbath. 23 The men of Israel were called out from Naphtali and from Asher and from all Manasseh, and they pursued after Midian. 24 Gideon sent messengers through all the hill country of Ephraim, saying, “Come down to meet Midian and capture the waters against them as far as Beth-barah and the Jordan as well.” So all the men of Ephraim were called out, and they captured the waters as far as Beth-barah and the Jordan as well. 25 They captured the two princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb. They killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb and Zeeb they killed at the winepress of Zeeb. Then they pursued Midian. They brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon on the other side of the Jordan. 16

Notes 1 Spring of Harod] Usually identified as Ain Jalud (“Goliath’s Spring”; 1836 2174) underneath the north slope of Mount Gilboa. Spring of Harod means “trembling spring,” reflecting the verbal root used in v. 3, perhaps from a quivering movement

 Judges 7

143

of the water. Psalm 83:11 [ET 10] identifies En-dor as the site of Gideon’s decisive victory. This would be too far north, but En-dor could have arisen as a corruption of “Spring of Harod.” north of him] The geographical description is awkward and possibly corrupt: “north of him from the hill of Moreh in the valley.” It is unclear whether north is intended to apply to Gideon or “from the hill of Moreh.” Understanding “north with respect to him” and “from the hill of Moreh” as phrases in apposition with one another, one can translate, “in relationship to him northerly, that is, out away from the hill of Moreh, in the valley.” Largely by default, the only reasonable candidate for the Hill of Moreh (“teacher,” implying the site of an oracle) is Jebel ed-Dahi (1845 2243). 3 trembling with fear] Hendiadys. Hebrew: “is fearing and trembling.” fly away] Meaning uncertain. Both context and the ancient versions suggest something like “go away.” The commentary translation follows JPSV, which takes the verb as denominative from “bird” and understands the phrase as a proverbial simile: “turn back, the way a bird flies from Mount Gilead.” from Mount Gilead] All witnesses support MT. The geographic incongruity of Gilead (which is east of the Jordan) and the prospect of consonant transposition between ṣpr (fly away, depart) and ṣrp (screen out, sift) in v. 4 have generated textual uncertainty. LXXAL translates the consonants of MT as past tense indicative: “and he departed (or sprang away) from Mount Gilead,” taking Gideon as the subject. LXXB “let him separate from Mount Gilead” (compare also T), either read in v. 3 the verb found in v. 4 (“sift out,” thus “separate”) or assimilated the rare verb of v. 3 to the better-known verb of v. 4. This move may have been inspired by Deut 20:8. Some interpreters attempt to make sense out of “Mount Gilead” by pointing out that the Galilee tribes (see v. 35) could not go home because they would have been cut off from there by the Midianite encampment in the Jezreel Valley, situated north of their position. Others conclude that “Gilead” is a corruption of “Gideon” and read either “Gideon departed” or “Gideon screened them” (NRSV, HALOT 1:195). Yet another approach connects Gilead to Ain Jalud, the present name of the Spring of Harod. 4 sift] In metallurgy ṣrp means “refine,” thus more generally “sift” or “screen out.” There seems to be wordplay with ṣpr “fly away” in v. 3. The suffix object is third person singular with reference to “people,” but English requires “them.” 5–6 everyone who laps…with their hand to their mouth] Follows MT (supported by T), which when properly understood is reasonably clear. LXXB supports MT and this also seems to have been the text used by Josephus (Ant. 5.216–217), who focuses on the matter of drinking from one’s hand. Two issues in MT have created textual problems. (1) MT has an ellipsis at the end of v. 5 concerning what Gideon is to do with those who kneel to drink. This gap is filled by OG (LXXAL OL) so that wkl-šr ykr l-brkyw lštwt is followed by what can be retroverted as tṣyg wtw lbd “you shall set him off by himself.” The one who kneels is to be isolated into a separate group. This sounds like

144 Judges an explanatory addition that makes explicit what MT expects the reader to assume. Syr and V do the same thing, although their divergent wording suggests that they augmented the ellipses as a translation strategy rather than on the basis of any Hebrew Vorlage. Although words that complete the sense of MT could have accidently fallen out, the ellipsis as it stands does not cause any real problem for the reader. (2) Elements of the textual tradition found it puzzling that MT identifies those who lap as a dog laps in v. 5 with those who lap with their hand to their mouth in v. 6. So in v. 6, OG (LXXAL) reads “with their tongue” (repeated from v. 5) in place of “with their hand to their mouth.” This eases perceived difficulties in MT by clarifying that all lappers belong together in the same group and eliminating any disquiet about how dogs drink (with their tongues? directly from the water surface?). Here Syr V T support the more difficult MT, which should be considered the more original reading. A long history of scholarship has used textual reconstruction or the text offered by LXXAL to achieve a text supposedly earlier and less confusing than MT. Of course, these two goals are not necessarily compatible. Space forbids a complete review of these proposals. What is probably the most popular approach is reflected by NRSV, which moves “putting their hands to their mouths” from v. 6 into v. 5 and adds “you shall put to the other side” at the end of v. 5 (following OG Syr V). Transferring “putting their hands to their mouths” into v. 5 assumes a vertical displacement of the phrase in MT so that it mistakenly ended up in v. 6. In this way NRSV draws an unambiguously sharp distinction between lappers using tongues and kneelers drinking out of hands. It is possible to take this process of disambiguation one step farther by replacing the phrase supposedly displaced from v. 6 (“putting their hands to their mouths”) with “with their tongues,” following LXXA and assuming haplography in MT and LXXB: hmlqqy[m blšwn]m bydm. 8 they took the provisions of the people] Follows OG. The 300 lappers take possession of the army’s supplies. MT (supported by Syr) reads “the people took provisions,” but the word order is peculiar and the direct object marker before “provisions” is difficult. It is possible to construe MT with an implicit relative, “the provisions that the people had in their hands,” which would make “provisions” a definite noun and explain the direct object marker. The path of least resistance is to follow OG and T and convert “provisions” into a construct (ṣēdat-hāām) “the provisions of the people.” Trumpets are mentioned, but where do the jars that appear in v. 16 come from? NRSV solves this supposed problem by picking up a rather desperate conjecture suggested by BHS, “he took the jars of the troops from their hands,” assuming a corruption of kdy into ṣdh. The ultra-fastidious reader who sees a problem here can just assume that some of the provisions came in jars! 9 go down against] That is, “attack” (also v. 11). This sets up the wordplay in v. 10: “if you are afraid to go down [to attack], go down….” 10 servant] Alternative translation given the context: “attendant, armor bearer.” Compare 9:54; 1 Sam 14:1, 6.

 Judges 7

145

11 outposts] The perimeter guard posts. Hebrew: “to the edge of, the limit of.” organized into combat groups] Hebrew: “troops arranged into five companies” (Josh 1:14; 4:12). These five would be front and rear guards, the center, and left and right wings (HALOT 1.331). OG and Syr understood the consonants of MT as a military subdivision: “fifties” (2 Kgs 1:9; Isa 3:3). 12 settled down] Hebrew: “fallen.” They have landed in the valley and rest thickly like locusts. 13 cake] Follows the ancient versions. Josephus has “a barley cake, too vile for man’s consumption” (Ant. 5.219). The word (qere ṣlyl, ketiv ṣlwl) is otherwise unknown. A possible Arabic cognate suggests “dry cake.” The Hebrew verbal root ṣll III (denominative of ṣēl “shadow”) suggests “dark cake,” thus perhaps a griddle cake. so that it fell] Follows MT supported by LXXAB. LXXL lost this due to haplography: wykhw [wypl] wyhpkhw. The adverb ləmalâ (upside down) was not translated as an independent word by OG, but reappears as a Hexaplaric addition in LXXAB. 14 This] The feminine abstract demonstrative refers to the dream as a whole. 15 bowed low] Follows MT. OG adds “to the Lord” to specify that Gideon is performing an act of worship. 18 for Yahweh] Follows MT V and OG (LXXL OL). Syr T and some Greek witnesses read “a sword for Yahweh” to harmonize with v. 20. 19 had just then set] ak is restrictive, and the verbal phrase is emphatic. The middle watch had only barely begun. The commentary translation understands qwm hiphil as “entrust with a task.” The Greek translation approaches the verb from a different angle: “they completely aroused the guards.” They blew] Follows MT. OG (LXXL) converts v. 19b to singular (“he blew…he smashed…in his hand”) in order to harmonize with the instructions in vv. 17–18 and avoid what seemed like an inconsistency with v. 20. According to OG, Gideon gives the signal and sets the example himself in v. 19, which the 300 then follow in v. 20. 20 sword for] The preposition l indicates the dedication of military force (represented by “sword” as metonymy) or of the battle (compare v. 18) for the purposes of the divine and human commanders. For Yahweh’s sword, see Isa 34:6; Jer 12:12; 47:6. 21 ran] Some versions translate as “ran about” (NJPS; compare NJB “thrown into confusion”) in order to leave narrative room for “fled” at the end of the verse. fled] Reading as qal with qere and the ancient versions. Ketiv is hiphil: Israel “caused them to flee” or “put them to flight.” 22 They blew the 300 trumpets] This is the most natural way to read the Hebrew (NRSV LXXB). Translating “the 300 [men] blew the trumpets” (NJB V T) would seem to require a definite article before “hundred.” The translation “the 300 trumpets

146 Judges sounded” (NIV OG) or “were sounded” (NJPS) construes the verb as an impersonal passive. The MT emphasis on the large number of trumpets makes good narrative sense. Terror in the enemy camp was triggered by the deafening sound. and against] Follows MT. OG Syr V omit “and” to read “against his fellow in the whole camp.” The difference resulted from either dittography or haplography involving the last letter of the previous word brhw “against his fellow.” The waw in MT could be taken as emphatic: “even against (or in) the whole camp.” Beth-Shittah] Tell el-Firr (1885 2161) near Shatta (1904 2176). Zererah] Follows MT. This name and the graphically similar Zeredah are confused in the transmission of several biblical texts. The two variants attach to at least two separate locations, one in Mount Ephraim (1 Kgs 11:26) and one in the Jordan Valley (2 Chr 4:17). The latter must be intended here. That site is the same as Zarethan in 1 Kgs 7:46 (compare Josh 3:16). There is yet another Zarethan near Beth-shean (1 Kgs 4:12). edge] Alternative translation: “river bank.” Abel-Meholah] Other references locate this in the west part of the Jordan Valley somewhere south of Beth-shean. It is most often identified with Tell Abu Sus (2030 1978), which guards an important ford. The preposition al suggests that Tabbath was opposite, that is, across the Jordan from Abel-Meholah. It may refer to the landscape feature Ras Abu Tabat (2085 1882). 24 Gideon sent messengers] Object-verb word order breaks the waw consecutive narrative chain of the previous section and signals a new topic. The commentary translation treats v. 23 as the first stage of the muster and v. 24 as a second stage. It is also possible to translate as a past perfect: “Gideon had sent.” against] Treating the preposition l as a dative of (dis)advantage (compare 3:28). “Waters” seems to refer to watercourses providing escape routes down to the Jordan and the places where they debouch into the valley. Beth-barah] Origen, followed by Eusebius and Jerome, knew a local tradition of a Bethabara (probably Qasr el-Yehud 2011 1384) along the Jordan. He (incorrectly) judged that to be the preferred reading instead of “Bethany” in John 1:28. This suggests that Beth-barah could be a corruption of bet-ăbārâ, “house of crossing,” although this location might seem too far south. 25 Oreb and Zeeb] Raven and Wolf. These names probably entered Israel’s narrative tradition from the two landmarks “Raven Rock” and “Wolf Winepress.” pursued Midian] The MT preposition el “unto” is anomalous with the verb rdp, so the ancient versions treated Midian as a direct object. The verbal sequence indicates that the Ephraimites first captured and killed the princes and only then pursued Midian. heads] One noun in construct with two absolute nouns: “the head of Oreb and Zeeb.”

 Judges 7

147

Structure and Rhetoric Chapter 7 (along with the first three verses of ch. 8) encompasses three narrative arcs that are fastened into the overall plot structure by the transitional verses 7:1 and 8. These two verses point back to 6:33 in order to remind the reader that the camp of Midian was in the valley. This reiteration also creates a bracket around the sense unit 7:1–8. The first narrative trajectory concerns the problem of there being too many fighters (vv. 2, 4) for Yahweh to countenance giving Midian into the hand of Israel and Gideon. This difficulty is initiated by v. 2 and resolved by v. 7. The second action unit is vv. 9–15 and deals with Gideon’s uncertainty (if you are afraid, v. 10). This narrative arc begins with v. 9, introduced by the temporal marker that night (compare 6:25 and 40). Judges 7:9 links backwards with a reference to the enemy camp (picked up from 7:8) and the conveyance formula (give…into… hand) from vv. 2 and 7. This subplot concludes when Gideon’s fears are alleviated and he restates the conveyance formula yet again in v. 15. The third story trajectory has two phases: first panicked stampede (vv. 16–23) and then pursuit (7:24–8:3, continuing through 8:12). The stampede theme is initiated by Gideon’s command in v. 16 (picking up the 300 of v. 8) concerning jars, torches, and trumpets. Trumpets are emphasized as the main trigger of enemy terror (vv. 18, 19, 20, and 22aα). The stampede theme concludes in v. 22aβ–b with panic and flight. Midian’s retreat leads into the pursuit sequence. This begins in v. 23 (with reference back to 6:35 again), but it is interrupted and augmented by the delaying Ephraim episode, which is initiated by subject-first word order in v. 24. The Ephraim scene incorporates the motifs of capture in vv. 24 and 25 (compare 8:12) and men of Ephraim in 7:24 and 8:1. It concludes with the cessation of Ephraim’s anger in 8:3, although the pursuit theme is continued in the events of 8:5–12. [1–8] Movement by Gideon and the army institutes a new sense unit. The Spring of Harod is mentioned in v. 1 to set up the impending troop reduction there. The location of the camp of Midian is clouded by geographic difficulties. Judges 7:1 is unclear (see note), but apparently locates the Midianite camp to the north of Gideon’s location in the valley between him and Mount Moreh. Thus, the enemy would be south of Moreh. However, this description does not give an exact location because the hill of Moreh would be about 7 km out to the north. Verses 9–11 place Gideon (and presumably the Israelites) on ground higher than the Midianite camp. The text stages the battle with the Israelites surrounding Midian, but not necessarily entirely on higher ground (v. 21). We are

148 Judges

not reading military history but the literary reflex of a folktale that had to make good strategic and geographic sense to readers who knew the landscape. Judges 7:1 returns the reader once again to the main issue, the camp of Midian (see 6:4, 33). After the delay of 6:36–40, the reader is probably ready for action, but there is yet further postponement. The episode of reducing the army nestles inside the bracket of a resumptive repetition (7:1b and 8b) moving readers away from and then back to the camp of Midian…in the valley. The name Jerubbaal also returns, reminding readers of the hero of the altar of Baal incident. By rising early in the morning he signals eager determination. Israel, however, encamps at the Spring of Harod (“fear, trembling”; the verbal root ḥrd is repeated in 7:3). Gideon initiated the first delay. Now the deity suspends narrative action with a discovery procedure of Yahweh’s own. This screening seems to come in part as a reaction to Gideon’s continued skepticism. Gideon’s concern has been about the question of deliverance “by my hand” (6:36– 37), but Yahweh wants it to be clear that victory is to be achieved by the hand of the Divine Warrior. Sacral war theology means that it is Yahweh who gives the enemy into the hand of human agents (7:2, 7, 9, 14, 15). Reducing the size of Gideon’s taskforce accords with the principle set forth in 1 Sam 14:6: “nothing can hinder Yahweh from saving by many or by few.” The first phase of this force reduction in v. 3 is unsurprising, rational, and “by the book.” It corresponds to the sacral war law of Deut 20:8: “Is there anyone who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him return home.” The second phase of the weeding out process, involving lappers and kneelers, is peculiar and is presented in a notoriously enigmatic fashion. The text-critical issues are complex, but MT represents the earliest recoverable text (see the note on vv. 5–6). Interpreters have created unnecessary trouble by embracing the notion that lapping like a dog means one cannot bring water up with one’s hand. One approach has been to read the episode in its MT form as a two-step process. First v. 5 distinguishes non-kneelers (lappers like dogs) from kneelers. Then v. 6 continues the separation process one step further by dividing 300 kneelers who use hands from kneelers who drink directly from the water. The 300 act like humans, all the others like animals. However, vv. 5 and 6 are not presented as two sequential actions but as first command and then the immediate result: “Yahweh said…. and the number was…300.”

 Judges 7

149

Another approach traces a similar two-stage progression. If one takes the conjunction in v. 5 (commentary translation: as well as) as explicative (meaning “that is”), then all those mentioned in v. 5 may be taken as setting off a single group of kneeling soldiers who might potentially lap like dogs directly from the water. Verse 6 then introduces the operative distinction. The majority of those potential direct lappers do indeed kneel and lap directly from the pool like dogs. However, 300 also kneeled but did not lap like dogs. Instead they used their hands. But the contrastive repetition of everyone…everyone in v. 5 surely intends to make a distinction between two different and mutually exclusive groups. If one sets aside the notion that lapping like a dog means one cannot bring water up with one’s hand, MT makes tolerable sense. In v. 5, Gideon is told to isolate those who lap with their tongues like dogs and then do the same (taking “and” as as well as) for those who get down on their knees. In v. 6 the 300 lappers are retained, but those who got down on their knees are sent home. By specifying the posture of hands up to mouth for the lappers, v. 6 intends to make it clear by contrast that those rejected ones who got down on their knees did not just kneel but actually put their faces down to the water. Those who lap like dogs with their tongues (v. 5) did so by lapping water out of their hands (v. 6). The denominative verb kr (“get down on one’s knees”) refers to laying down the lower legs as one does in kneeling. People put down their lower legs in prayer and reverence, but also in sexual intercourse (Job 31:10) and childbirth (1 Sam 4:19). When on one’s knees, one’s posture may be either upright (1 Kgs 8:54) or bent forward (Ps 72:9; 1 Chr 7:3). The soldiers designated as kneelers bent forward, put their mouths to the surface of the water, and drank directly, without lapping from their hands as the 300 did. The posture of the 300 lappers (standing, crouching, or sitting) is immaterial as far as the trial is concerned and is not specified. The only critical distinction is whether one lapped or kneeled. The text remarks that the lappers used their tongues to lap like dogs (v. 5) and put their hands to their mouths (v. 6). It says nothing additional about the kneelers beyond the fact that they kneeled. Therefore the contrast is between the 300 who lapped doggy style with their tongues, putting their hands to their mouths, and all the rest who knelt down to drink, leaning forward to drink directly from the water. Confusion only arises when readers take the dog lapping simile too literally. Since dogs do not put their paws to their mouths to drink, many have trouble equating the group who lapped with their hands to their mouths in v. 6 with the soldier who laps the water with his tongue as a

150 Judges

dog laps in v. 5. To those readers, the hand-to-mouth posture can only refer to those who drink while kneeling upright and not to those who lap like dogs. However, the intended distinction is between the 300 who lapped with their tongues like dogs and did so out of their hands and the remainder who fell down on their knees, leaning forward to drink directly from the water. The dog comparison is not about using one’s hand or paw, but about lapping with the tongue. For the kneelers, the position of the body is the decisive criterion. For the 300 chosen it is the act of lapping. Perhaps from a rhetorical standpoint the 300 are being associated with the despised status of dogs, so that is a surprise that they turn out to be the ones ultimately chosen. Why are those who lap like dogs with their hands to their mouths chosen? Are they better, more alert soldiers, ready to spring into action? Unlike the careless who put their faces in the water, do they remain attentive, crouched to lap up water with one hand while keeping their weapon in the other? Picking the better soldiers would seem to fit with the trend set by v. 3 in eliminating the fearful. Using the verb ṣrp (sift, refine) in v. 4 suggests that the best are to be isolated. Or are the chosen lappers actually the less qualified ones, so fearful and anxious that they hesitate even to put their heads down to the water? This was the opinion of Josephus (Ant. 5.216–217). The theme of giving Yahweh total credit seems to favor the idea that the most inadequate soldiers were chosen. One problem with this line of thought is that there is no reason to doubt that the text means what it says and that the fearful and cowardly have already been sent home. However, perhaps the test was designed to expose those who were too fearful to admit their fear. Regardless, the bottom line is clear enough. The point is the small number of remaining soldiers, not their military qualifications. The ones chosen, whatever their skill level or state of mind, are such a small contingent that Yahweh’s responsibility for victory will be obvious. It is wrong headed to try to force this into a rational test. It may be a completely arbitrary procedure. In any event, when the critical moment arrived, these troops followed their leader and did what was required of them. A structural relationship exists between Gideon’s test in 6:36–40 and Yahweh’s screening in 7:2–7. There are two fleeces and two groups assessed by behavior. The same verb (yṣg hiphil) appears in 6:37 (as “lay out”) and 7:5 (as “separate”). Wet fleece on dry ground is usual; fearful going home is natural. In contrast, dry fleece is an unnatural sign, and the second screening process seems counterintuitive and is so confusing that the reader has great difficulty untangling who is who.

 Judges 7

151

Verse 8 transitions into the battle. The remaining warriors acquire provisions, although they will run out by the time they get to Succoth (8:5). An abrupt mention of trumpets anticipates vv. 16–17. [9–15] The text returns again to the main action by once again pointing toward the camp of Midian (7:8; compare 6:4, 33; 7:1). Yahweh has assured Gideon repeatedly with the conveyance formula (7:2, 7) and does so again in v. 9. However, yet again there is a postponement based on Gideon’s lack of confidence, which turns up the dramatic tension yet another notch. This time Yahweh volunteers a sign to Gideon. That same night in both 6:25 and 7:9 introduces Yahweh’s command to take action, first against Baal and now against Midian. Just as this phrase temporally (and theologically) linked the desecration of Baal’s altar to Gideon’s call experience, so here it links the upcoming battle directly with the reduction of Gideon’s army. Both of these nighttime episodes highlight Gideon’s fear (6:27; 7:10). Modern readers tend to see Gideon’s fear as a weakness, a flaw in his heroic character. Without denying the effect his fear has on the reader’s opinion of him, it is worth pointing out that overcoming fear is an element in the theology of sacral war (Deut 20:8). The repeated injunction “do not be afraid” is characteristic of the theme (Josh 1:9; 8:1; 10:8; Isa 7:4, etc.). The fearful in the army have already been sent home (Judg 7:3), and now Gideon, like Joshua (Josh 2:24) or Barak (Judg 4:8–9, 14), finally receives a level of confidence that he can in turn share with his army (7:15). The encouraging conveyance formula is proclaimed three times in this episode (vv. 9, 14, 15): by Yahweh to Gideon alone (second person singular), by the foe with reference to Gideon (third person singular), and ultimately by Gideon himself to the army (second person plural). Gideon’s experience in the Midianite camp is bracketed by a resumptive repetition in the Hebrew word order of vv. 9b and 15b: “arise…against the camp, for I have given it into your hand // arise, for Yahweh has given into your hand the camp.” Yahweh’s words to Gideon in vv. 9–11 form a pleasing concentric pattern: go down against the camp for I have given it into your hand if you are afraid to go down go down to the camp… then your hands will become strong and you will go down against the camp

152 Judges

The prepositions of vv. 10–11 are worth noting. If Gideon is afraid to go down against (adversative b) the camp, he can simply go down to (el) it. So he goes down to (el) the outposts of the men in (locative b) the camp. The command to take along a servant may be a concession to Gideon’s fear, but it also provides a proper second witness to what will be overheard. This is not to be a private experience for Gideon alone. For a fourth time the enemy threat is described in v. 12 (compare 6:3, 33; 7:1). Indeed the treat is ever-increasing: “all the people of the East…like locusts in abundance…camels…in abundance.” This description of the Midianite horde, using the metaphors of innumerable sand and voracious locusts, contrasts sharply with Gideon’s band of 300. This disparity gives a rationale for Gideon’s skepticism. It also retards the flow of action between v. 11 (went down…to the outposts) and v. 13 (approached). The dream sign operates on several levels. First, what Yahweh predicted in v. 11 takes place: the dreamer is right there so Gideon can hear what they are saying. Second, the Midianites reveal their apprehension in their conversation (v. 14). For the second Midianite, Gideon himself embodies the whole Israelite fighting force (îš yiśrāēl “man of Israel”; see 7:8, 23). Third, properly interpreted dreams are divine revelations and reliably predict the future. Verbal correspondence in v. 13 shows that the interpretation offered is correct. The barley loaf tumbled (hpḥ hithpael) and turned the tent upside down (hpḥ qal). It thus comes down unpredictably and unexpectedly, which corresponds to Gideon’s mode of attack. The text separates the three elements of what happens to the tent in order to emphasize the catastrophe for Midian: struck it—turned it upside down—the tent collapsed. Some interpreters connect the barley bread to the deprivation caused by Midian (compare perhaps 2 Kgs 4:38–44). It is more convincing to take barley bread as representative of Israelite farmers and tent as an image for nomadic Midianites. However, the interpretation of the dream (v. 15; Hebrew: “breaking,” compare English “solution” as dissolving) fills in no details. The reader must do this. Sword in v. 14 is a metonymy for military leadership and heroism (compare v. 20; Josh 5:13; 8:18). The upshot is that Gideon can now announce publicly and confidently the promise he has heard privately in vv. 7 and 9. The dream sign initiated by God finally gets military action moving. Up until this point, Gideon has been an insecure doubter. After this, Gideon never expresses doubts again. Gideon’s question in 6:13 (where are all his wonderful deeds?) has been answered three times by wondrous fire, dry fleece, and overheard dream. Yet even now Gideon’s reaction remains ambiguous. He bowed low, but whether this was in worship or merely in happy acceptance remains unclear (see note on v. 15).

 Judges 7

153

[16–23] The staging of the battle is awkward and led earlier generations of commentators to divide the narrative into two sources. The reader may feel that there are too many things for the soldiers to do with too few arms! How exactly is one to picture holding torches covered by jars in one hand—while the other hand held a trumpet—and then smashing those jars? There is definitely tension between Gideon with his one division of a hundred (vv. 18–19; compare v. 16) and the three divisions who follow Gideon’s lead in v. 20. The division with Gideon blows the signal at his instigation in v. 19, and then what would seem to be all 300 soldiers blow together in v. 20. Verse 20 seems overfull with both trumpet blowing and a war cry. Verse 22 repeats elements of vv. 20–21 in order to launch the theme of pursuit. Appropriately, however, the overall impression is one of confusion and uproar. The narrative emphasizes Gideon’s leadership and personal example. This is not explicitly Yahweh’s plan; presumably it is Gideon’s. The principle of dual causality is at work. In dividing his command into three units (v. 16) Gideon follows accepted military strategy (9:43; Josh 8:13) and makes it possible for these subdivisions to surround the camp (as in Judg 7:18). Torches remain inside the jars to maintain the element of surprise (v. 16). He pre-arranges the signal for action, one appropriate for units out of direct contact with each other in the dark. The beginning of middle watch is a psychologically appropriate time, near midnight (v. 19). Gideon’s stratagem causes Midian to flee (v. 21). How huge an army must this be, urged on by hundreds of trumpeters and guided into battle by hundreds of torches! Yet at another level, Yahweh is the one who sets one sword against another so that the camp fled (v. 22). Gideon’s clever tactics lead to the panic conventionally associated with the onslaught of the Divine Warrior. This dual causality concept is concretized in the battle cries of 7:18 and 20. In some ways Gideon reflects the best traditions of sacral war. His appropriately tiny army receives food and trumpets, but there is no mention of weapons (7:8). Indeed with a trumpet in one hand and a torch in the other (7:20), no Israelite soldier could draw a sword. Each stands in his place (v. 21) and does not directly engage the enemy. “Be still, and know that I am God” (Ps 46:11 [ET 10]). “Yahweh does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is Yahweh’s” (1 Sam 17:47). Yet some details in the unfolding battle cause the reader to suspect Gideon’s altruism. Do his orders in Judg 7:17–18 represent an admirable style of leading by example or an inappropriate focus on himself (“Look at me…do as I do”)? In the battle cry that he prescribes, Gideon claims the spotlight alongside Yahweh (v. 18), and his troops seem to have the same idea (v. 20). Perhaps when they add sword to the slogan, they insert

154 Judges

an inappropriately human element into a victory won by divine power. The only swords around belong to the Midianites and they use them on themselves (v. 22). However, the cry could mean, “We dedicate our participation in this battle to our commanders Yahweh and Gideon” (see note on v. 20). The tribal muster of 6:34–35 is repeated in 7:23–24 in order to complete the sacral war pattern with pursuit of the enemy. Pursuit and mopping up are the concluding stage of sacral war (20:45; Josh 10:11, 19). This assembly recreates the large army that was dismissed before the decisive battle, but the later mention of Gideon’s 300 as a sort of personal regiment (Judg 8:4) suggests that the tribes are pursuing on their own, outside of Gideon’s direct command. The geography of Midian’s flight path traces a rational escape route east and south down the Jezreel Valley, then southward along the west side of the Jordan Valley, crossing over in the neighborhood of Abel-Meholah (7:22). Two reference points are given, each with the further specification of a nearby place. At Beth-Shittah near or toward Zererah, the fugitives are still at some distance from the Jordan. At Abel-Meholah near or opposite Tabbath, they have moved farther south and have reached the Jordan in order to cross. [24–25; 8:1–3] The incident with Ephraim spills over into ch. 8. A subject-first word order in 7:24 indicates the shift of perspective. This little narrative is somewhat parallel to the controversy between Jephthah and Ephraim in 12:1–6. Each narrative takes place in a context of fords and quotes a tribal aphorism (8:2 and 12:4). A muster of the men of Ephraim leads to a complaint (not call us), to which the judge replies (Gideon with appeasement, Jephthah with hostility). This narrative spotlights Gideon’s altruistic leadership qualities. He calls on Ephraim, either as a second stage in his mustering or at some earlier time (see note on v. 24), and they follow his instructions to the letter (notice the exact repetition of v. 24a by v. 24b). Beth-barah marked the southern limit of Ephraim’s responsibility to blockade the water courses leading down to Jordan. The capture of Oreb and Zeeb has been placed out of strict chronological order, since Gideon is already west of the Jordan in v. 25, yet does not cross it until 8:4. They seem to break off pursuit in order to bring the trophy heads to Gideon, perhaps looking for approval.

 Judges 7

155

Genre and Composition The story of Gideon’s midnight descent into the Midianite camp parallels the heroic tales told about the exploits of Jonathan (1 Sam 14) and David (1 Sam 24), but has been taken up in this literary context to speak of Gideon’s fear rather than his courage. Gideon’s visit to the Midianite camp incorporates a dream report. This genre is a description of a dream with images and action (v. 13), followed by interpretation in which the dream’s entities and actions are analogies for future events (v. 14). Examples may be found in Genesis 37, 40, and 41; Daniel 2 and 4. The phrase of Judg 7:13, I dreamed a dream (ḥălôm ḥalāmtî), is common to this form (Gen 37:9; 44:15; Dan 2:3; compare Gen 40:5). In the Assyrian period, Isa 9:3 [ET 4] and 10:26 cite a generalized tradition of deliverance from Midian as a template for future divine rescue. In contrast, Ps 83:10–12 [ET 9–11] is dependent on the presentation of the book of Judges. Reference to the Rock of Oreb in Isa 10:26 suggests these place names and the alternate characters Oreb and Zeeb represent a distinctive Judahite or Benjaminite version of the Zebah and Zalmunna tradition. This would explain its moderately anti-Ephraim flavor. Numerous Arab topographic features incorporating the words for raven and wolf make the designations Rock of Oreb (Raven) and Winepress of Zeeb (Wolf) entirely believable, even though we cannot locate them. Compare the Rock of Etam (Raptor) in Judg 15:8. These would have been landmarks known to readers. Possibly the personal names are etiological derivatives from the toponyms, and Zeeb may be an alternative designation for Zebah.

J u d g es 8

Gideon Takes Revenge Then the men of Ephraim said to him, “What is this thing you have done to us, not calling us when you went to fight against Midian?” So they accused him vehemently. 2 He said to them, “After all, what have I accomplished compared to you? Surely the gleanings of Ephraim are better than the vintage of Abiezer? 3 It is into your hand that God has given the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb. What have I been able to accomplish compared to you?” Then their fury against him calmed when he spoke this word. 4 Gideon came to the Jordan. Now he and the 300 men who were with him were crossing over, exhausted and pursuing. 5 So he said to the men of Succoth, “Please give loaves of bread to the people who are following me, because they are exhausted, and I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian.” 6 The officials of Succoth said, “Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hand, that we should give bread to your army?” 7 So Gideon said, “Well then, when Yahweh gives Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, I will thresh your flesh along with the thorns of the wasteland and with briers.” 8 Then he went up from there to Penuel and spoke to them in the same way. The men of Penuel answered him just as the men of Succoth had answered. 9 So he said to the men of Penuel, “When I return victorious, I will break down this tower.” 10 Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor and their camp was with them, about 15,000 men, all who remained of all the camp of the people of the East. Now those who had fallen were 120,000 men armed with swords. 11 Gideon went up by the way of the tent dwellers east of Nobah and Jogbehah and struck the camp, for the camp felt secure. 12 Then Zebah and Zalmunna fled, and he pursued them and captured the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna, and he terrified the whole camp. 13 Then Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle by the Ascent of Heres. 14 He captured a youth of the people of Succoth and questioned him. He wrote down for him the officials of Succoth and its elders, seventyeven men. 15 He came to the men of Succoth and said, “Here are Zebah and Zalmunna, about whom you taunted me, saying, ‘Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hand, that we should give bread to your exhausted men?’ ” 16 Then he took the elders of the city and he took thorns of the wasteland and briers and with them threshed the men of Succoth. 17  Then he tore down the tower of Penuel and killed the men of the city. 1

 Judges 8 Then he said to Zebah and Zalmunna, “Where are the men whom you killed at Tabor?” They said, “As you are, so were they. Each one resembled the son of a king.” 19 He said, “They were my brothers, the sons of my mother. As Yahweh lives, if you had let them live, I would not kill you.” 20  So he said to Jether his firstborn, “Arise. Kill them!” But the youth did not draw his sword, because he was afraid since he was still a youth. 21 Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, “Arise yourself and fall upon us, for ‘as a man is, so is his strength.’ ” So Gideon arose and killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and he took the crescents that were on the necks of their camels. 18

Gideon as Ruler Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us—you yourself, also your son, also your grandson—because you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.” 23 Gideon said to them, “I myself will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. Yahweh will rule over you.” 24 Then Gideon said to them, “Let me make a request of you. Each of you give me the earrings from his booty.” (Now they had golden earrings because they were Ishmaelites.) 25 They said, “We will certainly give them.” So they spread a cloak, and everyone threw the earrings of his booty on there. 26 The weight of the gold earrings that he requested was 1,700 shekels of gold, in addition to the crescents and the ear pendants and the purple clothing worn by the kings of Midian and in addition to the collars that were on the necks of their camels. 27 Gideon made it into an ephod and installed it in his city, in Ophrah. All Israel prostituted themselves after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his house. 28 So Midian was subdued before the Israelites and they no longer lifted up their heads. The land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon. 29  Jerubbaal son of Joash went and lived in his own house. 30 Now Gideon had seventy sons who came from his own loins, because he had many wives. 31 His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech. 32 Gideon son of Joash died at a good old age and was buried in the tomb of Joash his father in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. 33 As soon as Gideon died, the Israelites again prostituted themselves after the Baals and made Baal-berith their god. 34 The Israelites did not remember Yahweh their God, who had delivered them from the hand of all their enemies on every side, 35 and they did not deal loyally with the house of Jerubbaal (Gideon) in return for all the good that he had done for Israel. 22

Notes 1 The men…said] Plural verb with the collective subject yš. 3 fury] Hebrew: “spirit” (Qoh 10:4).

157

158 Judges 4 were crossing] The participle introduces a circumstantial sentence. It is possible to vocalize it as a perfect verb (“he crossed over).” The ancient versions reflect a waw consecutive imperfect: “and he crossed over.” exhausted and pursuing] Follows MT as a hendiadys: “wearily giving chase.” OG (LXXAL OL) has “hungering” instead of pursuing, perhaps through graphic confusion between wrdpym and wrbym. Clearly “hungering” is the easier reading in that it corresponds with the request for bread that immediately follows. LXXB corrects OG in the direction of MT with “hungering and pursuing.” The two verbs of MT reappear in v. 5. 5 Succoth] Deir Alla (2088 1772). Zebah and Zalmunna] Perhaps meaning “slaughter” and “refuge denied.” 6 said] Follows MT. The singular verb is corrected to plural by the ancient versions. 7 along with the thorns of the wasteland and with briers] MT likely intends t as a direct object marker. Flesh, thorns, and briers will all be threshed together, (bare) flesh being tramped down upon the thorny plants (compare NRSV NJPS). Nearly the same sense can be achieved by treating t as the associative preposition “together with.” OG translated with the verb kataxainō “comb, card [wool]” and the preposition en used instrumentally, “by means of thorns and briers” (followed by NIV NJB, see HALOT 1:101). This is a translation strategy and does not witness a Hebrew text with an instrumental beth. MT portrays trampling the victims down onto the thorns. Translations that take the instrumental route envision them being whipped with thorns. 8 Penuel] Somewhere near Succoth near a ford of the Jabbok. Most opt for Tell edh-Dhahab esh-Sharqi (2153 1772). 9 victorious] Alternative translation for bəšālôm: “safe and sound.” 10] Two circumstantial sentences mark the start of a new episode. Karkor] The site cannot be identified. It is described here as somewhere east of a north–south line running from Nobah down to Joghbehah. Nobah is in Gilead and identical with Kenath (Num 32:42; Qanawat [3020 2411]). Jogbehah is in Gad (Num 32:35) and most likely at or near Jubeihat (2319 1594). those who had fallen] Alternatively: “those who were the attackers,” that is, those who had “fallen on” Israel in the initial raid (compare Josh 11:7; Job 1:15). 11 the way of the tent dwellers] The definite article with a qal passive participle in the construct state is anomalous. The passive participle has an active meaning. See HALOT 4:1458–59. This could mean “the way to the tent dwellers,” since derek normally denotes the way to or by a place. Here it is more likely intended as “the way used by tent dwellers,” which is to say, a route from the Jordan Valley up eastward to the highlands used for the annual pastoral transhumance. It would have started up the Jabbok Valley past Succoth and Penuel, then turned south via the Wadi Haggag to Tell Haggag (2154 1732) and onwards to the south and west.

 Judges 8

159

Nobah] Reading MT. LXXA follows Nobah with “opposite Zebah,” which arose as a fragment of the long reading of LXXL: “opposite Zebah and Zalmunna, and the camp of Kedmi was at Nobah [omitting Jogbehah], the camp was secure and Gideon struck the camp when it was secure.” This seems to have been the result of accidental duplication. felt secure] Noun as an adverbial accusative. Compare 18:7. 12 terrified] Follows MT and OG (LXXB). The verb is hiphil: “cause to be frightened.” LXXA reads exetripsen “ravage, devastate, extirpate,” and Josephus uses diaphtheirō “lay waste, wipe out” (Ant. 5.228). On this basis, some suggest replacing the verb in MT with ḥrm hiphil “put to the ban” or kḥd hiphil “blot out.” However, the Greek tradition never uses ektribō to translate either of these verbs. LXXA is an inner-Greek corruption of OG exestēsen “he confused.” 13 by the Ascent] The compound preposition min plus l focuses on Gideon’s movement away from the ascent toward Succoth: “via the Ascent and from it” or “to the ascent and then on from there.” LXXB, “[down] from above Heres,” highlights the compound preposition. Although OG (LXXAL) “from the ascent of Heres” does not reflect the element l, it still translates MT. T interprets the place name Heres (sun) literally: “before the setting of the sun.” Presumably this is the route followed by the Roman road from Tell Haggag, a more direct way of reaching the Jabbok at Penuel. 15 exhausted] Here yp. In v. 5 the adjective was yp. 16 threshed] Follows OG V, reading the verb dwš/dyš (compare the threat in v. 7). This is preferred by BHQ. MT reads the hiphil of yd “taught, disciplined” (compare 1 Sam 14:12). MT resulted from a graphic confusion of ayin for shin. OG (LXXAL) offers “threshed” (translated “carded” as in v. 7) twice, probably in order to clarify the procedure on the basis of v. 7: “and he took the officers and the elders of the city and he carded them with the thorns of the desert and the briers and he carded with them the men of Succoth.” Syr (“torture”) and T (‘‘drag”) are interpretations of MT. Another possibility is that MT lost “and threshed them” after “elders of the city” in v. 16a (where LXXAL has “and he carded them”) and that “taught” is to be retained in v. 16b. The earliest recoverable text would then be, “and he took the elders of the city and threshed them with the thorns of the wasteland and briers and taught with them the men of Succoth.” 18 Where] Follows MT. OG (LXXL) translated freely and assimilated the question to the answer that follows: “what are?” or “how are?” This was corrected back to the MT by LXXAB. Modern translations almost always do the same thing: NJPS, “what were they like?” NRSV, “what about?” NIV, “what kind of men?” Gideon’s question “where?” perhaps calls mocking attention to the fact that they are not anywhere now. Zebah and Zalmunna cannot give them back.

160 Judges Each one] Translating as distributive, although prefixing “one” with the preposition l would be expected. The ancient versions struggled with or simply failed to translate this expression. The word eḥād is omitted by Theodotion and Syr. OG (LXXL) captures the sense of MT with an idiomatic “like you one of them.” T and V (“every one of them”) suggests reading a more emphatic, distributive ḥd ḥd “one by one.” 21 his strength] Follows MT OG (LXXAL OL). LXXB reads a more pedestrian “your strength,” that is, “your strength is that of a (grown) man.” 22 and your grandson] Omitted by LXXAB, either to harmonize with Gideon’s answer in the following verse or by haplography: gm bnk [gm bn bnk]. 31 called his name] In other passages this expression with the verb śym refers to changing a person’s name (2 Kgs 17:34; Neh 9:7; Dan 1:7). 35 (Gideon)] Presumably a gloss incorporated into the text at a very early date, present in one form or another in almost all witnesses. for Israel] The preposition of accompaniment or association im is unusual but is the oldest recoverable text. For similar expressions, see Gen 20:9; 31:7.

Structure and Rhetoric Sacral war reports usually incorporate a notice of pursuit (Josh 8:24; 10:10; 11:8; Judg 3:28; 4:16; 20:43), but here the theme grows in length and complexity and takes on the color of personal vengeance. Between 7:23 and 8:17, repeated notices of pursuit provide a framework and backdrop for Gideon’s clashes and controversies. Pursuit is described in 7:23–25 (tribes and Ephraim); 8:4 (Gideon and his 300), and 8:10–12 (Gideon). Successive conflicts are interleaved with these pursuit units: 8:1–3 (Ephraim); 8:5–9 (Succoth and Penuel), and 8:3–17 (Succoth and Penuel). The episodes in 8:18–26 are not tied down geographically. However, 8:27 and 32 (Ophrah; the Abiezrites) return the reader to the place and clan that began Gideon’s story in 6:11 and 24. Narrative movement tends to prevail over divisions between sense units, which are distinguishable for the most part by topic. The end of [7:24–25] 8:1–3 closes the problem with Ephraim when their anger subsides. Gideon’s movement in v. 4a begins vv. 4–9, which repeat the sequence of request, denial, and threat for Succoth and then for Penuel. A subject-first sentence reintroduces the two Midianite kings to begin vv. 10–12. Movement on the part of Gideon in v. 13 leads into revenge on Succoth and Penuel (vv. 13–17) and the death scene for the two kings (vv. 18–21). The latter episode is driven by dialogue. The booty of crescents from v. 21b connects forward to v. 26 within the next unit

 Judges 8

161

of vv. 22–27. Verse 28 summarizes Gideon’s achievements as judge. His final transfer to home in v. 29 introduces items that link ahead to the Abimelech story (vv. 30–31). Gideon’s death and burial in v. 32 is similar to notices for the minor judges (10:2, 5, 7; 12:10, 12, 15) and leads into a distinctively formulated apostasy cycle phase, described in harmony with 2:17 and 19 (prostituted themselves; as soon as…died…again). In contrast with the preceding judges, Gideon is still alive when Israel resumes its apostasy (v. 27), but more serious apostasy continues after his death (vv. 27, 33–35). Leadership that leads to deliverance is a clear theme in chs. 6–8. Gideon and Yahweh interact to highlight values important to faithful leadership. These values cluster around three concepts: religious commitment, confidence, and altruism. (1) The value negotiated most obviously in the Gideon story is that of Israel’s commitment to Yahweh as its exclusive God. Deliverance through Gideon demonstrates that Yahweh is the one effective god, not Baal. This theme runs from 6:10 (“the gods of the Amorites”) through the destruction of Baal’s altar (6:31, if [Baal] is a god let him contend for himself) and Yahweh as victorious Divine Warrior (7:22; Yahweh set each one’s sword against his fellow) to conclude with Gideon’s ambiguous ephod and the recidivist apostasy of Israel (8:27, 33–34). (2) Successful leaders must possess the virtue of courage and confidence in their calling. The story of Gideon spends an extraordinary amount of time on his reaction to his call and the various tests that counter his skepticism with reassurance. (3) Gideon begins as an altruistic leader, but becomes more and more autocratic. The final evaluation may be that Gideon did “good” for Israel (8:35), but there are subtle critiques of his behavior. Although in 6:13 he seems concerned with the tragedy facing the whole nation, from 7:15 onward his motives appear to be inconsistent, oscillating between the needs of the nation and his own agenda. Gideon’s personal vendetta dominates 8:4–21. Then ambiguity returns. He declines kingship (8:22–23), but appropriates some facets of royal prestige (8:30). Gideon’s story begins with oppression and apostasy (6:1–10). The narrator makes it clear that deliverance happened because of the deity’s support (6:12, 16, 36–37; 7:7, 9, 14), spirit (6:34), and direct action (7:2, 22). Repeated signs (sacrifice fire, fleece, the dream) and archetypal situations (a tiny army, enemy panic and flight) demonstrate Yahweh’s power. Yet Gideon’s story does not end with the peace he made possible (8:28), but with Israel’s apostasy after his death. Israel makes Baal-berith its god (8:33), forgetting both Yahweh’s deliverance and the good Gideon did for them (8:34–35).

162 Judges

The story of Gideon marks a change in the book of Judges. Up until him, the saviors sent by Yahweh were positive heroes. Gideon is followed by the more problematic figures of Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson. Gideon himself is a combination of both positive and negative leadership qualities. He harasses Baal, liberates Israel, and speaks wisely to Ephraim. His rule was long and stable (8:38) and he did “good” to Israel (8:35). But his story also illustrates the destructive effects of a leader driven by personal motives. In the last analysis, the result of Gideon’s rule was that Israel did not remember Yahweh (v. 34; compare Deut 8:18). It is not a complete surprise that Gideon becomes father to Abimelech, the failed tyrant king. [1–21] Gideon talks the Ephraimites out of their resentment over what they see as an affront to their honor. This contretemps comes somewhat inappropriately right in the middle of the pursuit phase of the action (7:23, 25 and 8:4–12). The pursuit motif invites a comparison between Gideon’s dealings with Ephraim and with Succoth and Penuel. In contrast to those two cities, Gideon does not use violence with the Ephraimites. Instead he employs a rhetoric of persuasion by complimenting them. He allows them the glory they crave. Speaking as a wise leader, Gideon minimizes his own contributions and uses what must have been a proverbial saying to praise his jealous followers on theirs. He is saying in effect: the least worthy (gleanings) of Ephraim are better than the very best (vintage) the Abiezer clan can offer. In this context, gleanings allude to those of vineyards (compare Mic 7:1) and may refer particularly to the capture of Oreb and Zeeb out of the wider “harvest” of warfare. You have not been shamed, for God has given you the honor of apprehending these princes. Results are what matters, not at what stage of the battle you were called out to fight. The Ephraimite confrontation in vv. 1–3 forms a pleasing concentric pattern, with Ephraim’s achievements sandwiched at the center point: this thing [dabar] you have done they accused him vehemently what have I accomplished compared to you? Surely the gleanings of Ephraim… God has given the princes what have I accomplished compared to you? their fury against him calmed when he spoke this word [dabar]

 Judges 8

163

In contrast to what will follow, Gideon here reflects the attitude he exhibited in 6:13, putting national welfare above personal concerns. This incident parallels the challenge presented by the citizens of Ophrah. The accusatory questions in 6:29 and 8:1 are similar, and both incidents use the verbal root ryb “contend/accuse”; 6:31–32; 8:1). This time Gideon, rather than his father, plays the role of the astute speaker who defuses the situation. Yet the careful reader will observe that in pacifying Ephraim, Gideon refers only to what he himself has done (what have I…what have I) and says nothing about Yahweh’s involvement. He mentions God in regard to the achievements of Ephraim, but not in regard to his own. The episodes in 8:4–21 describe two plot movements, one involving Succoth and Penuel (vv. 4–9, 13–17) and one reporting the capture and execution of the Midianite princes (vv. 10–12, 18–21). These two plot sequences are interleaved. They are linked together by a logical geography of pursuit and the paired names Zebah and Zalmunna, which appear eleven times in these verses. The arena of action shifts to east of the Jordan, and the motive for war changes from communal defense to Gideon’s personal retribution against recalcitrant cities and for the death of family members. Gideon is the grammatical subject of most of the verbs in 8:4–21. The 300 troops now sound like his personal contingent (v. 4). Gideon’s movement in v. 4a and the circumstantial sentence of v. 4b introduces a new episode. The pursuing forces pass Succoth and Penuel on their way east. The narrative hints, but does not specify, that these were Israelite towns, although the ambiguous status of Shechem in ch. 9 should give one pause. Of course, whatever the historical political situation might have been at this time is beside the point. Gideon’s repeated attempts to get support communicate a grave state of affairs to the reader. The narrative reveals something of Gideon’s motivation and attitude when his description of the situation in v. 5 (they are exhausted and I am pursuing) takes apart the collective grammar of v. 4 (he and the 300…exhausted and pursuing). This way of putting things highlights his own role at the expense of his soldiers. According to v. 5, Gideon announces that he specifically is pursuing Zebah and Zalmunna and does not mention Midian as a whole. This also suggests that his intentions are personal rather than corporate. In v. 6, when Succoth and Penuel refuse him supplies, they appear to recognize that he is engaged in a private expedition: are the hands…already in your [singular] hand? Nevertheless, Gideon’s request is polite and supported by a reasonable argument, which highlights the unreasonable and brusque refusals of the two cities.

164 Judges

The response of Succoth is not just a rebuff, but an insult (compare Nabal’s words in 1 Sam 25:10–11), as Gideon will later point out (v. 15). Their taunt might refer to cutting off hands as evidence of capture or death, although cut-off heads would seem offer more conclusive proof (7:25). Perhaps the formula instead implies that, if the two kings were now captives, their hands (Hebrew kap) would be grasped by Gideon’s hand (yad). Gideon responds in a way that ignores the contribution of others to the war effort: into my hand (v. 7); when I return victorious (v. 9). In Hebrew this last word is “in peace,” perhaps a reference back to the altar name and divine promise in 6:23–24. Gideon’s threshing threat of v. 7 takes on a certain ironic flavor when compared with Gideon’s clandestine threshing in 6:11. This gruesome execution procedure most likely derives from the language of treaty curses. Were earlier readers likely to think of an actual treaty between Gideon and these two towns requiring them to provide food in a military campaign? The modern reader sees emerging tyranny. Perhaps the ancient reader would have had more sympathy, or even admiration, for Gideon. He defends his honor and dignity as leader against insult. He does not react immediately in hot anger, but waits wisely until he can demonstrate his success and show his detractors they are wrong (v. 15). In any case, the text does not overtly criticize Gideon’s actions. In vv. 10–12, pursuit continues far to the southeast into territory east of the Dead Sea. Far-off and little-known Karkor, on a route associated with nomads, signals Gideon’s dogged persistence to the reader. He pursues to the extreme edge of Israel’s mental map. The suggestion that this is an oblique reference to Ahab’s engagement at Qarqar far to the north has nothing to recommend it. Verse 10 as a circumstantial sentence introduces a brief battle report. The summative death total for Midian in v. 10 is a conventional figure (twelve times ten thousand; compare 1 Chr 12:37; 2 Chr 28:6; Jdt 2:5; 2 Macc 12:20). Armed with swords may be ironic here; the last time any Midianite swords were drawn they were used against compatriots (Judg 7:22). This expression is more literally “men who could draw a sword” and refers to potentially active fighters (2 Sam 24:9, etc.). The enemy camp felt secure (Judg 8:11) as doomed Laish would in 18:7 or Shechem in Gen 34:25. When Gideon does capture the two kings (Judg 8:12), he does not deal with them immediately, but first pursues his retaliation against Succoth and Penuel (vv. 13–17). Returning by a more direct route of the Ascent of Heres (see note on v. 13), he bypasses Penuel in order to deal with Succoth first. In v. 14, he uses the stratagem of captured intelligence against the city (compare Judg 1:24). One can hardly theorize about the

 Judges 8

165

general level of ancient Israelite writing skills on the basis of this verse. The youth either wrote the names himself or had them written down by a scribe (factitive verb). Perhaps the reader is to think of him as a sort of junior administrative clerk, since he can call to mind seventy-seven names and (apparently) distinguish between officials and elders. Seventy-seven represents a number conventionally associated with vengeance (Lamech’s vengeful song in Gen 4:24 and Matt 18:22). Gideon’s exhibition of the two kings and his accusation taunted me indicates that he is more interested in punishing an affront to his personal honor than a failure to support his expedition. In v. 15, he restates the speech of the leaders of Succoth (v. 6) in order to form his own taunt, adding words that emphasize their refusal to help his exhausted troops. Gideon expands the scope of his vendetta beyond the officials he had threatened in v. 6 by punishing the elders and men of Succoth also. He also goes beyond tearing down Penuel’s tower to killing citizens of the city (contrast v. 9 and v. 17). Gideon, who once broke down the altar of Baal (6:31), now breaks down the tower of Penuel (v. 17; the same verb is used). Gideon’s blood revenge in vv. 18–21 was a family obligation, a positive virtue (Num 35:19–21). Early readers would have disparaged him if he were to have shirked it. Delayed exposition only now reveals the existence and death of Gideon’s brothers. The question and answer session makes the case for blood retribution by identifying the slain as Gideon’s full brothers, sons of his mother. Full brothers constituted a most important relationship in a polygamous society (Deut 13:7 [ET 6]; Pss 50:20; 69:9 [ET 8]). However, the narrative is told in such a way that readers view Gideon’s approach to his bounden duty unfavorably. You look like royalty as they did, say the Midianite kings. The reader may wonder whether this is flattery. Or perhaps it is bravado, taunting Gideon that they killed his brothers because they had the look of leadership. Is this even an oblique insult? We are kings but your brothers merely looked like the sons of a king. Gideon’s introduction of the option of sparing the two Midianite kings in v. 19, had they not killed his brothers, is another indication that their execution is a matter of personal retaliation and not public policy. Of course, ancient kings often did not, and were not expected to, separate the two realms, as the saga of David’s family makes clear. Gideon attempts to give the task of execution to his untried oldest son, Jether. Perhaps the reader is to understand this as a way of training and hardening the youngster into warrior status, to “make him a man” as one might say. Unquestionably this delegation of responsibility to a family member is another signal that the death sentence is a matter of personal, family retribution. Zebah and Zalmunna take Gideon’s intention for them

166 Judges

to die at the hand of a mere youth as a grave insult. They are, after all, kings and should die like kings. It would also possibly result in greater suffering. The ancient reader would likely agree with them. The two go on to use a proverbial aphorism to return Gideon’s insult, as a man is, so is his strength (v. 21; JPSV: “strength comes with manhood”). In effect they are saying both, “we would be dishonored by a death at the hand of anyone less than you” and “only a coward would fail to do his own killing.” Gideon’s proposal would violate the code of warrior honor (compare 1 Sam 17:43; 2 Sam 2:21–22). This depreciation of Gideon’s warrior dignity (gəbûrâ, “strength”) reflects on the angel’s initial address in 6:12: mighty warrior (gibbôr hehāyil). By raising the issue of royal appearance, Zebah and Zalmunna introduce for the first time the possibility of kingship for Gideon himself. This points forward to the people’s offer in v. 22. That Gideon’s concern is personal not national is again highlighted by his confiscation of the royal pair’s crescents for himself. These moon-shaped ornaments were probably amulets or images representing a lunar divinity (compare Isa 3:18, 20). The reader may also see Gideon’s confiscation of royal personal property as a subtle claim to kingly status (compare perhaps 2 Sam 12:30). Verse 26 will indirectly associate the royal booty Gideon appropriates here with his problematic ephod. [22–35] Verses 22–23 come abruptly, breaking the connection between vv. 21 and 24, where the topic is the disposition of Midianite booty. The men of Israel suddenly reappear from 7:23 (contrast the 300 of 8:4). It is as though the question of divine and human kingship must be dealt with immediately. The circumstances of v. 22 basically set the stage for Gideon’s response in v. 23, which is the vital point. The theme of the ambiguous quality of Gideon’s leadership reappears as the people offer permanent rule to Gideon and his descendants. In their request, the people attribute their deliverance directly to Gideon without any reference to Yahweh: you have delivered us. This fulfills Yahweh’s misgivings expressed in 7:2. Even the Midianite soldier in 7:14 knew better. Gideon does not correct this theologically dubious statement. The request uses the verb mšl (rule) and not mlk (reign as king). Yet although the explicit, concrete verb is not used, this is still effectively an offer of kingship in the sense of permanent, personal dynastic rule. The offer is to one son and one grandson at a time, so that a monarchical rule of a single person alone is envisioned. Insofar as DH is responsible for this response, the avoidance of royal lexical terms may be a technique of periodization in the sense of drawing a sharp distinction between the period of the

 Judges 8

167

judges and the time of the kings that only arrives with Saul (compare 1 Sam 12:10–11 and 12–15). Gideon’s words in v. 23 sound almost like a theological confession. Israel’s time-honored rejection of human monarchic rule must have grown out of negative experiences with kings among the economically disadvantaged (1 Sam 8:11–17), perhaps with deep roots in past antagonisms between the kings of Canaanite cities and Israelite pastoralists and highland subsistence farmers. Local power structures naturally resisted royal centralization policies. Such resistance was characteristic of certain religious groups (Deuteronomists, 1 Sam 8:7; 12:12; prophets, Hos 13:10–11). Gideon’s statement of faith hardly represents some sort of doctrinaire “anti-monarchic” principle, but rather practical resistance to infringements on local economic and social structures by royal prerogatives. In context, Gideon is rejecting the sort of kingship portrayed in Jotham’s fable and the despotism of Abimelech. In the Deuteronomistic view, legitimate kingship had to be a matter of divine designation, not just popular acclamation (Deut 17:14–15). Although Gideon’s refusal in v. 23 sounds like a model of piety, his actual behavior creates ambiguity about his approach to governance. Just like a typical king, Gideon acquired multiple wives, gathered treasure, and fathered seventy sons (v. 30; compare Deut 17:17; 2 Kgs 10:1). He names one of his sons Abimelech, an originally theophoric name that the reader may hear as “my [human] father is king” (v. 31). Gideon is buried in a way reminiscent of a king (v. 32; 2 Kgs 9:28; 12:21; although Judg 16:31 is the closest parallel). Both the vocabulary and content of this episode prepare the reader for Abimelech. The topic of Gideon’s son in v. 22 is picked up in vv. 30–31 and the verb rule returns in 9:2. Gideon request for captured earrings to make an ephod highlights another ambiguity in his commitment to Yahweh. Ishmaelites (v. 24) sounds like a designation of a cultural life-style featuring camels, tents, and earrings. The point is that Ishmaelites and Midianites were similar in their nomadic culture. The reader is to be impressed by the inventory in v. 27. Gideon gathers 19 kg of gold. There is also a long list of other booty, not all of which is used to make the ephod. (The direct object it in v. 27 refers only to the gold of v. 26, as NJPS and NIV explicitly recognize.) The huge amount of gold collected has the effect of assigning honor to Gideon. A thematic connection between this ephod and the offer of kingship is bridged by a tight pattern of dialogue in vv. 22–25 (they said/he said/he said/they said). The connection is also made by the link between v. 21 and v. 26 established by the royal crescent ornaments acquired by Gideon personally.

168 Judges

Gideon’s request in not presented as unambiguous tyranny. He asks courteously; let me make a request is essentially “may I ask a favor.” The emphatic grammar of the answer in v. 25 (nātôn nittēn) communicates that the response of the people is willing and enthusiastic. Gideon does not use these gifts for himself, but for a public religious installation. An ephod was normally a priestly vestment, but is a paradoxical item in many biblical texts. An ephod as sacral garment could be used to robe a divine image (compare 17:4–5) as well as a human cultic functionary. An ephod could be a vehicle for divine oracle in time of war (1 Sam 14:18; 23:9–12; 30:7–8). The verb nṣg (set down, place) in v. 27 makes it clear that Gideon’s ephod was something more static than a priestly robe. There is a close parallel between the wording of 8:27 and 2 Sam 6:17a, which describes David’s installation of the ark in Jerusalem. Gideon’s ephod is made of gold, so perhaps it is to be thought of as a metal cuirass or breastplate symbolizing the divinity and having an oracular function. Aaron’s gold head plate and the symbolic crown(s) put in the temple by Zechariah (Zech 6:11, 14) provide helpful background for the ritual logic behind this ephod. Readers could have easily considered an ephod made from the spoils of sacral war to be a positive reminder of Yahweh’s victory and exclusive rule. This may have been considered a proper way to dedicate precious metals and fabric seized in sacral war and treated as ḥērem (compare Josh 6:19, 24). It is not surprising that Deuteronomistic circles would convert this originally positive ephod into a focus of apostasy and evaluate it negatively (v. 27). Similar evaluative reversals of inherited cult symbols took place in regard to Moses’ serpent (Num 21:9; 2 Kgs 18:4), Dan’s silver Yahweh image (Judg 18:30), and the gold bull image at Bethel (Exod 32:2–3). In fact, Gideon’s request here for “earrings” to make a sacred object is a cross-reference to the golden calf of Aaron and Jeroboam (Exod 32:4; 1 Kgs 12:28). Again the reader is confronted by ambiguity. Fabricating an ephod may have been a positive act, but because of it, the people prostituted themselves (v. 27; compare v. 33 and 2:17), and it became a snare (compare 2:3) for Gideon and his house. The vocabulary of house, when read against the offer of v. 22, again hints at a potential for royal dynasty, as does the evocation of covenant loyalty to the house of Jerubbaal (v. 35). Even the phrase wayēšeb bəbêtô, lived in his own house (v. 29), may not be innocuous. The reader made suspicious by Gideon’s behavior may wonder whether he merely dwelt at home or “sat enthroned in his palace.” Setting the ephod up in his home town suggests a claim on Gideon’s part

 Judges 8

169

to honor and authority. The text emphasizes that, whatever it was that Israel did that constituted prostituting themselves, the act was performed at the town of Ophrah (there; v. 27). Verse 28 completes the cyclical framework with subdued (as a divine passive) and rest. The rest formula (3:11, 30; 5:31) occurs here for the last time in Judges. The transitional statements that follow divide between the remainder of Gideon’s life (vv. 29–32) and the problematic period that followed his death (vv. 33–35). As the story of Gideon wraps up, details and vocabulary in vv. 30–31 and v. 35 accomplish a transition to the following Abimelech story. Seventy sons, concubine, Shechem, Abimelech, Baal-berith, and house of Jerubbaal connect forward into ch. 9. Israel’s failure of loyalty to Gideon’s house (v. 35) points to Jotham’s application in 9:16–17, 19 of the fable he tells. In the last analysis, Gideon did good for Israel (8:35b) and he enjoyed a long life (8:32; compare Gen 15:15; 25:8). However, he appears as a mixture of virtues and flaws. Israel was delivered from Midian, but Baal and Israel’s penchant for apostasy seem to have triumphed once again. Judges 8:34 and 35 draw a parallel between Israel’s faithlessness toward both Yahweh and Gideon: The Israelites did not remember Yahweh their God who had delivered them… and they did not show loyalty to the house of Jerubbaal… for all the good that he had done for Israel

Genre and Composition The core traditions about Gideon were originally tied to locations. Ophrah must have been the home of folktales recounted at his tomb (8:32) and the two altar-foundation legends (6:11–24 and 25–28; 8:27). Possibly the tale of the massacre of Gideon’s brothers was told at the holy site of Mount Tabor (8:18). Several short traditional sayings play a role in the rhetoric of ch. 8. Gideon quotes a tribal aphorism in v. 2 as part of his rhetoric of persuasion. Replicating an important use of aphorisms in real life, he uses it to deflect anger in a tense situation (compare 2 Sam 11:25). This sort of proverbial saying depends on contrastive evaluation. One thing is better than another (compare Prov 12:9; 15:16, 17; 16:32; 22.1; Qoh 7:1). Originally the proverb would have referred to the comparative prosperity or agricultural

170 Judges

yield of the two groups. Verse 6 is a taunt saying in the form of a rhetorical question (see 1 Sam 25:10). Judges 8:21 is also a proverb, implying that a real man’s character is shown by his heroic deeds. There is a taunting flavor as well: “If you are a man, you ought to have the courage to do the job yourself. Only a coward would fail to do his own killing.” Verse 10 is a very brief battle report, but one still displaying the characteristic features of one: a bigger enemy force (15,000 verses 300), going up, striking down, flight, pursuit, and panic. Probably Gideon’s ephod was an element in the sacral installation at Ophrah, along with a sacred terebinth tree and the altars alluded to in Judg 6:24, 26. This was likely the collective shrine of the Abiezer clan. Perhaps the story of the “Day of Midian” was retold at that spot as an etiological foundation legend for the ephod, the gold for which was supposed to have been acquired as booty in that renowned victory (Ps 83:10 [ET 9]; Isa 9:4; 10:26). Verse 32 forcefully highlights Gideon’s burial place (tomb of Joash his father in Ophrah of the Abiezrites), which raises the likelihood that heroic folktales told about him were preserved at his grave. There is a good deal of evidence pointing to tombs as places of pilgrimage and kinship solidarity, where stories about group ancestors were retold. One may think of the tombs of Rachel (1 Sam 10:2), Joseph (Josh 24:30), Joshua (Josh 24:30), Saul (2 Sam 21:12–14), Abner (2 Sam 3:32), Elisha (2 Kgs 13:20– 21), and the man of God from Judah (2 Kgs 23:17–18). Judges reports on the tombs of Jephthah, Samson, and several minor judges. Sirach 46:12 remarks about the judges “May their bones send forth new life from where they lie, and may the names of those who have been honored live again in their children!” This may provide evidence for grave veneration honoring certain judges right down into the second century BCE. The killing of Gideon’s brothers at Tabor and the name of his son as Jether provide evidence of folktales that have not been preserved. Separate folktales were coordinated into a complex composition centering around the character of Gideon and the narrative problem of the Midianite invasion. This authorial process united separate traditions, some of which named their hero as Gideon and others as Jerubbaal. Deuteronomistic activity is visible in the framework language and evaluative materials at the end of the chapter: kingship (v. 23), violation of Deut 17:17 in the matter of many wives and much treasure (v. 30), Israel prostituting itself over the ephod (v. 27) and the Baals (v. 33), Midian subdued, and rest for forty years (v. 28). The cautionary narrative about Abimelech was attached. The Abimelech story actually has remarkably

 Judges 8

171

few connections to Judges 6–8 (the name Jerubbaal) and so likely circulated independently. To attach Abimelech to Gideon, the compositional process pulled details and vocabulary out of the Abimelech narrative in order to create a transition to it in 8:30–31, 33, 35: seventy sons (9:2, 5), concubine (the mother of 9:1, 3), Shechem, Abimelech, Baal-berith (9:4, 46), the house of Jerubbaal (9:16, 18, 19). Israel’s failure of loyalty to Gideon’s house, noted in 8:35 but not defined there, was taken up from Jotham’s application in 9:16–17, 19 of the fable he tells.

J u d g es 9

Abimelech Becomes King of Shechem Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother’s brothers. He said to them and to the whole clan of the father’s house to which his mother belonged, 2 “Speak into the ears of all the citizens of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that seventy men rule over you, all the sons of Jerubbaal, or that one man rule over you?’ Remember that I am your own bone and your flesh.” 3 So his mother’s brothers spoke all these words on his behalf into the ears of all the citizens of Shechem. They decided to follow Abimelech, because they thought, “He is our relative.” 4 They gave him seventy pieces of silver out of the temple of Baal-berith. With this Abimelech hired unprincipled and reckless fellows and they followed him. 5 Then he went to his father’s house at Ophrah and killed his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men on a single stone. But Jotham survived, the youngest son of Jerubbaal, because he hid himself. 6 All the citizens of Shechem and all Beth-millo came together. They went and made Abimelech king by the terebinth of the pillar at Shechem. 1

Jotham Objects with a Fable When it was reported to Jotham, he went and stood on top of Mount Gerizim. He called out to them in a loud voice and said to them, “Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you. 8 Once the trees set out to anoint a king over themselves. They said to the olive tree, “Be our king.” 9 But the olive tree said to them, “Shall I give up my luscious fatness, by which through me they honor gods and humans, and go to sway over the trees?” 10 Then the trees said to the fig tree, “You come be our king.” 7

 Judges 9 But the fig tree said to them, “Shall I give up my fruit, so sweet and good, and go to sway over the trees?” 12 Then the trees said to the vine, “You come be our king.” 13 But the vine said to them, “Shall I give up my sweet wine that makes gods and humans happy and go to sway over the trees?” 14 Then all the trees said to the bramble bush, “You come be our king.” 15 The bramble bush said to the trees, “If you are anointing me king over you in good faith, then come, take shelter in my shade, but if not, may fire come out from the bramble bush and eat up the cedars of Lebanon.” 11



“Now, if you acted in good faith and honorably when you made Abimelech king, and if you have acted properly concerning Jerubbaal and his house and have treated him as his deeds deserve— 17 considering that my father fought for you, risked his life, and delivered you from the hand of Midian, 18 and yet today you have risen up against my father’s house and killed his sons, seventy men on a single stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his servant woman, king over the citizens of Shechem, because he is your relative— 19 if you then have acted in good faith and honorably concerning Jerubbaal and his house today, then rejoice in Abimelech, and let him rejoice in you as well. 20 But if not, then may fire come out from Abimelech and eat up the citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo; and may fire come out from the citizens of Shechem and from Beth-millo and eat up Abimelech.” 21 Then Jotham ran away and fled. He went to Beer and lived there, because of his brother Abimelech. 16

Abimelech’s Rule Abimelech ruled over Israel three years. 23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem. The citizens of Shechem betrayed Abimelech. 24 This happened in order that the violence done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might come—and in order that their blood might rebound—upon their brother Abimelech who killed them, and upon the citizens of Shechem who encouraged him to kill his brothers. 25 To oppose him, the citizens of Shechem set up men in ambush on the mountain tops. They robbed all who passed by them on that road. It was reported to Abimelech. 26 Then Gaal son of Ebed came with his relatives and moved 22

173

174 Judges into Shechem. The citizens of Shechem put their faith in him. 27 They went out into the countryside, gathered grapes from their vineyards and crushed them. They celebrated a vintage festival at the temple of their god. They ate and drank and cursed Abimelech. 28 Gaal son of Ebed said, “Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should serve Abimelech? Isn’t he Jerubbaal’s son? Isn’t Zebul his deputy? Serve the men of Hamor, Shechem’s father! But why should we serve Abimelech? 29 If only someone would put this people under my command! Then I would get rid of Abimelech. One would say to Abimelech, “Increase your army and come out!” 30 Zebul the governor of the city heard the words of Gaal son of Ebed, and he was angry. 31 He sent messengers to Abimelech secretly, saying, “Watch out! Gaal son of Ebed and his relatives have come to Shechem. Watch out! They are stirring up the city against you. 32 So now set out at night, you and the people with you, and set an ambush in the countryside. 33 In the morning as soon as the sun comes up, get up early and attack the city. Look. When he and the people with him come out against you, you may do to him whatever you find an opportunity to do.” 34 Abimelech and all the people with him set out at night. They set an ambush against Shechem in four detachments. 35 Gaal son of Ebed went out and stood in the entrance of the city gate. Abimelech and the people with him rose out of ambush. 36 Gaal saw the people. He said to Zebul, “Look. People are coming down from the mountain tops!” But Zebul said to him, “You are mistaking the shadow of the mountains for men.” 37 Then Gaal spoke again, “Look. People are coming down from Tabbur-erez, and one detachment is coming from the direction of Diviner’s Oak. 38 Then Zebul said to him, “Where is your boast now, that you said, ‘Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him?’ Aren’t these the people you despised? Go out now and fight them.” 39 So Gaal went out leading the citizens of Shechem and fought with Abimelech. 40 But Abimelech chased him and he had to flee before him. Many fell slain, right up to the entrance of the gate. 41 Abimelech lived at Arumah. Zebul drove out Gaal and his relatives, so they could not continue to live at Shechem. 42 The next day, when the people went out to the countryside, it was reported to Abimelech. 43 He took his people and divided them into three detachments. He set up an ambush in the countryside. When he saw the people going out of the city, he rose up against them and struck them down. 44 Abimelech and the detachment that was with him attacked. They took a stand at the entrance of the city gate. The other two detachments attacked all who were in the open countryside and struck them down. 45 Abimelech fought against the city that whole day. He captured the city and killed the people in it. He tore down the city and sowed it with salt. 46 All the citizens of the Tower of Shechem heard of this. They went into the underground room of the temple of Baal-berith. 47 It was reported to Abimelech that all the citizens of the Tower of Shechem had gathered together. So Abimelech went up to Mount Zalmon, he and all the people

 Judges 9

175

with him. 48 Abimelech took an axe in his hand, cut down a tree branch, and lifted it onto his shoulder. Then he said to the people with him, “Hurry and do the same thing you have seem me do.” 49 So every one of the people cut down his branch. They followed Abimelech and put it against the underground room. They set the underground room on fire over them. So all the people of the Tower of Shechem died as well, about 1,000 men and women.

Abimelech’s Just Deserts Then Abimelech went to Thebez, and encamped against Thebez, and captured it. 51 But there was a strong tower in the city. All the men and women, all the citizens of the city, fled there. They shut themselves in and went up on the roof of the tower. 52 Abimelech came up to the tower and fought against it. He came right up to the entrance of the tower to burn it with fire. 53 But a certain woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and crushed his skull. 54 He called quickly to the young man who carried his weapons. He said to him, “Draw your sword and kill me, so they will not say of me, ‘A woman killed him.’ ” So his young man stabbed him and he died. 55 When the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead, everyone went home. 56 So God returned the evil of Abimelech, which he had done to his father in killing his seventy brothers, 57 and all the evil of the men of Shechem God returned onto their heads. So the curse of Jotham son of Jerubbaal came on them. 50

Notes 2 citizens] baalîm (owners), that is, free citizens who possess land (compare 20:5; Josh 24:11; 1 Sam 23:11; 2 Sam 21:12). In this chapter they operate as a decisionmaking group, perhaps as an assembly, and as a military force (Judg 9:39). The baalîm of Thebez are a group distinct from the mass of men and women. The baalîm of the Tower of Shechem (vv. 45–46) are treated as another, distinct faction (see commentary). Alternative translation: “leaders.” rule over you] Infinitive constructs used as subjects in verbless clauses: “the ruling over you be seventy men…or the ruling over you be a single man.” 3 our relative] Hebrew: “our brother.” See also vv. 18, 26, 36, 41. 4 unprincipled] Hebrew: “empty.” 5 single stone] Because this evokes the slaughter of animals (1 Sam 14:33–35) the phrase implies a notorious crime. 6 Beth-millo] That is, “house of the earth-filled (or terraced) structure.” This would be a structure or neighborhood for elites, perhaps on the perimeter of the acropolis. The structure or area serves by metonymy to signify the dominant social class that resided

176 Judges there. The expression occurs in close association with citizens of Shechem in both v. 6 and v. 20. These two would be Shechem’s dominant groups (property owners and elites), although the possibility of a hendiadys referring to a single aristocratic group cannot be excluded. The Beth-millo faction may be the same as the citizens of the Tower of Shechem (vv. 45–46). pillar] Pointed as a hophal participle, “something set up.” This is often corrected to hammaṣṣēbâ “sacred pillar” (NABRE: “memorial pillar”). See Josh 24:26. The MT form occurs in Isa 29:3 as a substantive, “siege wall,” so “the terebinth of the wall [of the sacred enclosure] at Shechem” is a possible translation. The Greek tradition refers to a “tree set up” and construed it the sense as “the oak that stood near Shechem,” presumably understanding the word in question as the noun maṣṣāb. 9 give up] Alternative translations here and vv. 11 and 13: “shall I stop producing… and go” or “have I stopped producing…that I should go.” by which through me] Follows MT and OG: bî. Most translations adjust this to an impersonal third person bô, simply “by which.” LXXB, which has “by which men honor God,” sought to avoid what seemed an unorthodox idea and does not necessarily witness to a different text. They honor is the impersonal equivalent of the passive voice. NJPS captures the sense well: “Have I, through whom God and men are honored, stopped yielding my rich oil…?” It is more likely that the inherited poetic fable intended gods (as most modern versions) rather than “God” (NJPS). go to sway over] The verbal root nw suggests shaking or quivering, an appropriate way of imaging how a tree would dominate others by waving above them. Go to underscores that the tree cannot be king and still continue in its usual role. 11 my fruit, so sweet and good] Hebrew: “my sweetness and my good fruit.” 13 sweet wine] New wine that is foamy and extra sweet. gods and humans] Follows MT V Syr. OG and T translate in ways that avoid the idea that God might be cheered by wine. OG: “the cheerfulness of humans from God.” 15 from the bramble bush] Follows MT and the ancient versions. LXXB reads “from me,” adjusting to what would be expected in direct discourse. 17 risked his life] Hebrew: “threw his life forward.” 21 Beer] Possibly brym in the Samaria Ostraca. The prevalence of the name (meaning “well”) thwarts any more exact identification. 24 might come—and…might rebound] The occurrence of two infinitive constructs creates a discordant syntax, but the sense is clear enough. The noun governing the infinitive lābô (come) as subject is violence. The noun governing the infinitive lāśûm (translated here as rebound) is their blood, which expression summarizes the atrocity described in v. 24a. The active voice, intransitive translation rebound follows the approach of NJPS (“recoil”). Most translations employ a passive verb, “be placed on, be laid on.”

 Judges 9

177

25 Set up men in ambush] The piel stem of the participle indicates habitual or professional ambushers (contrast the qal of v. 32; IBHS 24.5c) used to undermine Abimelech’s rule. They were not intended to attack Abimelech personally. NRSV expresses this “dative of (dis)advantage” as “out of hostility to him.” The verb translated ambush throughout the chapter denotes “take up a concealed position; be in concealment.” 26 Gaal son of Ebed] Ebed may be an insulting spelling (servant) in scribal tradition for Obed (compare some Greek witnesses). Many Semitic theophoric names featured this verbal root: “servant of [divine name],” compare Obadiah. Gaal (gaal) could also be a disrespectful name, “dung beetle.” Josephus vocalized this as though Goal, “loathing, defilement” (Ant. 5.241–246) 27] crushed them] Hebrew: “trod on them.” vintage festival] hillûlîm implies the clamor of praise and exultation, in this case when the new wine is made (21:20–21; compare 9:13). 28] serve Abimelech] The commentary translation understands the object suffix in the expression naabdenû in v. 28aα and 28bβ (“serve him”) as a reference to Abimelech and makes this explicit. The subject pronoun we in v. 28bβ is emphatic: why should we, of all people, serve Abimelech? Serve the men] The MT vocalization is ambiguous (imperative or perfect), but the position of the athnah indicates that masoretic tradition construed the verb as imperative. Modern translations (NRSV NJPS) often treat the consonants as a perfect: “they [Abimelech and Zebul] served.” LXXAB V construed the consonants as “his servant.” Gaal addresses serve the men of Hamor either to the citizens of Shechem (as the commentary translation) or, in his drunken state, to the absent Abimelech and Zebul. 29 If only someone would put] Hebrew: “and who will put?” an unreal wish. One would say] Follows MT wymr (“he said,” treated impersonally) and the translation strategy of NJPS. The Greek translator and most modern versions include this as part of Gaal’s speech, as though the reading were wmr “I would say.” 1QJudg (apparently) and V seem to treat this as advice given by Abimelech’s supporters and reflect wymrw: “then they said.” These variant readings can be explained as derivations from MT, attempting to adjust a difficult text to its context. MT “he said” could also be understood with Gaal as subject and as an element of his reviling address to an absent Abimelech (see v. 27). 30] angry] Follows MT. V and 1QJudg expand into “very angry.” 31 secretly] Retaining MT and following the lead of T V and LXXB, as though from an otherwise unwitnessed verbal root trm. Lexicons associate this substantive (a hapax legomenon) with the verb rmh II “betray” (compare Syr). OG read btrwmh, “with gifts.” NRSV emends MT btrmh to brwmh, “Arumah,” on the basis of 9:41. Either OG or MT could easily be an error for “Beth-arumah.” NJPV takes MT as a different and unattested place name, “Tormah.”

178 Judges Watch out! They are stirring up] Follows MT (supported by Syr T OL LXXB) as a more difficult reading: wəhinnām “behold, they.” 1QJudg and OG have wəhēmmâ “they indeed.” stirring up] Follows MT (OG V S T) ṣrym “pressing on, laying siege to.” The use of the direct object marker after ṣwr is anomalous. 4QJudg softens this awkwardness by including the supplementary preposition l “against,” but should be treated as a witness to MT. MT is often unnecessarily emended to a hiphil participle, mrym “exciting, stirring up.” However, the meaning “stir up” for the verb ṣwr with a direct object is entirely possible: “to push, to pressure.” 33 attack] Verbal root pšṭ, carrying the implication of “rush upon unexpectedly, raid.” It is used again in v. 44. you find an opportunity to do] Hebrew: “your hand finds to do.” 37 coming down from] Follows MT V. OG “coming down by the sea (that is, westward)” originated from a misreading of ywrdym as ywrd ymh. Tabbur-erez] A place name with rich mythological associations, meaning “navel of the earth” (compare Ezek 38:12; Josephus, J.W. 3.3.5). “Navel” is how V and OG translated ṭabbûr. This most likely designates the location of a mountain-top shrine near Shechem considered to be the world’s midpoint and an axis of contact between heaven and earth. (For a sharp repudiation of this hypothesis, see TDOT 3:437–38.) Identification with Ras Tabur on the southwest slope of Jebel el-Kabir (1812 1833) is a possibility. Diviner’s Oak] Elon-meonenim. This may be the same as the oak of the pillar in v. 6 and/or the landmark oak mentioned in Gen 12:6 and Deut 11:30 (“oak of Moreh,” perhaps “of one who engages in divination”). 38 boast] The Hebrew word for “mouth.” NIV captures this with “where is your big talk?” 40 slain] Alternative translation: “wounded.” entrance of the gate] Follows MT as more difficult. 1QJudg V and (probably) OG expand to “entrance of the gate of the city,” conforming to the less obscure turn of phrase in vv. 35, 44. 41 lived at Arumah] Follows MT V Syr T. As part of a double translation, LXXL understands the consonants of the verb as wayyāšāb from šwb: “Abimelech returned to.” Arumah is probably Khirbet el-Urmah (1805 1727) southeast of Shechem. 42 it was reported] Treating MT wayyaggidû “they reported” as an impersonal expression, equivalent to a passive. 1QJudg OG V witness wayuggad, an impersonal hophal “it was reported” as in vv. 25 and 47. The meaning is the same in either case, although BHQ prefers hophal.

 Judges 9

179

44 detachment] Follows OG (LXXL) Syr T in witnessing a collective singular. This the BHQ preferred text. MT improves agreement with the following verbs by reading plural (Hebrew: “heads”), but in so doing confuses the arithmetic. 46 underground room] A subterranean grotto or crypt in the inner part of the temple (compare 1 Sam 13:6 and NJPS “tunnel”). Cognates in other languages suggest “temple hall” or “stronghold” (NRSV LXXA) as other possibilities. Baal-berith] Follows OG as the more difficult, that is to say offensive, reading. MT (and thus V Syr T) corrected to “El-berith” for theological reasons. BHQ prefers “Baal-berith.” 48 Zalmon] That is, “the dark one,” probably Mount Ebal, the mountain of covenantal curses (Deut 27:11–26; Josh 8:30–35). Alternatively, this could denote the shaded northern exposure of Mount Gerizim. axe] The ancient versions found the plural of MT difficult and translated it as singular. It may denote a double-bladed axe. 49 his branch] Follows MT, which uses a rare third person masculine suffix: śôkōh. The OG (compare V) read the same consonants as śôkâ “a branch,” the choice of BHQ. Alternative translation, “his bundle of twigs.” 50 Thebez] Location unknown, although Tubas (1850 1920) is sometimes suggested. Perhaps early readers would think of the later royal capital, Tirzah. 57 on them] Follows MT. OG V Syr apparently read lyhm “upon them” instead of lyhm.

Structure and Rhetoric Variations on the expression it was reported to (to Jotham in v. 7; to Abimelech in vv. 25, 42, and 47) help mark off the narrative episodes and keep the somewhat disparate elements of this chapter unified into a connected plot. Six episodes may be defined as vv. 1–6, 7–21, 22–41, 42–45, 46–49, and 50–57. Another unifying factor is God (never Yahweh), who overhears in v. 7, sends an evil spirit in v. 23, and is responsible for retribution in vv. 56–57. The repeated theme of brother also creates cohesion. Abimelech is a brother (vv. 1, 3a; translated relative in vv. 3b, 18) to the Shechemites. He has his own brothers killed (vv. 5, 24, 56). He is Jotham’s brother (v. 21). In his opposition to Abimelech, Gaal is supported by his own relatives (Hebrew: “brothers,” vv. 26, 31, 41). The verb hrg (kill) also appears repeatedly and concretizes the tit-for-tat connection between acts and consequences: vv. 5, 18, 24 (twice), 45, 54, 56. Countryside (Hebrew: “field[s]”) provides the locus of action in vv. 27, 32, 43, and 44.

180 Judges

The major themes are divine and human revenge and the atrocities attributable to illegitimate or incompetent kingship. Revenge is God’s action, but is also based on “natural” principles about loyalty, fairness, and the proper equilibrium of the cosmos. The compositional process has left gaps and irregularities in the final text form, tempting interpreters to fill in what is not present. The critical reader may feel that some commentators tend to over-moralize and overtheologize the text to a degree beyond what the narrative and the text’s own authorial commentary do. For example, the context of the book of Judges as a whole hints at competition for Israel’s religious loyalty between Yahweh and Baal-berith (see 8:33), but ch. 9 does not develop this direction at all. Yahweh appears there as a transcendent God, who works in the world to achieve moral balance, rather than as the national god of Israel. The temple of Baal-berith is handled in a completely neutral manner (vv. 4, 46; compare v. 27). Similarly, commentators sometimes seek to uncover a conflict between Israelite (Jotham) and Canaanite (Shechem, Abimelech) cultural and religious norms. However, in the book of Judges, Canaanites feature only in the introduction and the Deborah/Barak materials. In ch. 9 Abimelech rules over Israel (v. 22) and his military force is defined as men of Israel (v. 55). Such questions are raised not by the text itself, but by modern interpreters “knowledge” about Israel’s pre-monarchic history. [1–6] The exposition portion of the Abimelech story is interleaved with the conclusion of the Gideon narratives. Information at the end of ch. 8 about the offer of kingship to Gideon and his refusal, his seventy sons, and Israel’s lack of loyalty (ḥesed), provides background for ch. 9 (8:22–23, 30, 35). More specifically, Judg 8:31 introduces Abimelech and establishes his parentage. Judges 8:33 introduces Baal-berith as an object of Israelite apostasy with the unusual expression “set up for themselves as god,” as though referring to a physical idol (Deut 27:15; Judg 18:31; Jer 7:30). The name of this god Baal [or El]-berith (“divine lord of the covenant”; 8:33; 9:4, 46) seems significant. He sounds like a god who witnesses and guarantees covenants in general or one who guaranteed some particular convent involving Shechem. The concept of covenant agreements and Shechem appear together frequently (Gen 33:19; 34:15–18; Deut 27:2–4, 8; Josh 24:25; 1 Kgs 12:1). Yet the blood money to violate the inherent relationship between Jerubbaal and Shechem, as described by Jotham in v. 17, is appropriated from the treasury of this covenant god.

 Judges 9

181

Exposition proper begins with the movement of Abimelech to Shechem (v. 1). This leads into two persuasion dialogues (vv. 2–3) and then murderous action and king-making (vv. 4–6). Narrative problems that must be resolved present themselves: betrayal, despicable violence, and illegitimate kingship. Abimelech appeals to the whole clan to which the bet-ab headed by his mother’s father belonged. Going to his own maternal uncles for help would be a natural move to oppose the competing claims of his halfbrothers by other mothers. Accordingly, Laban as Jacob’s maternal uncle supplied him with wives (Gen 29:10). Because he grounds his coup on his maternal line, Abimelech’s actions might have been judged negatively by the early readership as undermining the traditional norm of patrilineal descent. Presumably the men of Hamor, to whose prestige Gaal appeals (Judg 9:28), represented a different clan possessing traditional authority in Shechem (Gen 33:19; 34.6). Abimelech’s rhetoric in Judg 9:2 referring to Gideon’s seventy sons shows that he is claiming not just Shechem but something wider, that is, the rule over Israel that had been offered to his father in 8:22. His argument is that one ruler is better than seventy and that Shechem should not be ruled by aliens but by kinfolk. Seventy is a politically significant number; compare Abdon’s seventy sons and grandsons (12:14) and Jehu’s political assassinations in 2 Kgs 10:1, 7. Abimelech’s appeal to bone and…flesh is a claim based on close kinship (Gen 2:23). He is our relative in Judg 9:3 shows that it was successful. This is much the same rationale that motivated Israel to select David (2 Sam 5:1). Speaking into the ears implies a significant utterance to which the hearers are to pay close attention (1 Sam 25:24; Isa 49:20; Jer 26:15) and also suggests the secrecy of a conspiracy. The circumstance that Abimelech’s mother was a concubine proves immaterial because her brother’s argue on the basis of kinship, not social status. The Hebrew for decided in Judg 9:3 is “their hearts inclined after”; this will be reversed by betrayed in v. 23. To follow (aḥărê) Abimelech makes a bracket with the same phrase in v. 49. In v. 3, the request is addressed to and the decision is made by the baalîm (translated citizens; see note on v. 2) of Shechem. This is one of Shechem’s high-status groups (along with the Beth-millo group, vv. 6, 20) and distinguished from the ordinary people (vv. 42–45). This social group has access to the treasury of the temple. Later, Abimelech loses their support (v. 23). This group may or may not overlap with the citizens [baalîm] of the tower of Shechem (vv. 46–49).

182 Judges

The number seventy (or seventy-seven) in v. 5 was a cultural marker for the subject of divine or human retribution (8:14; 9:24, 56–57; Matt 18:22). In the final form of Judges, the vignette about God’s retribution on Adonibezek (Judg 1:7) prepares the reader for this. Abimelech receives one piece of silver per victim, enough for him to hire a band of unprincipled and reckless fellows. These are literally “empty and unstable persons,” those of low social status without much stake in stable society (11:3; 2 Sam 6:20; 1 Kgs 11:24; 2 Kgs 13:21). The earliest readers probably assumed that they would already have been gathered into a raiding band (2 Sam 4:2) and that they served as the core for Abimelech’s later army (compare David: 1 Sam 22:2). The expression on one stone in Judg 9:5 sounds like a parody of sacrifice (1 Sam 14.33–34), but in any case it indicates that the mass slaughter was calculated and brutal. It implies killings not done as a slaughter in the heat of an attack, but performed deliberately, one by one. With this atrocity, Abimelech horrendously turns against his own bet-ab, once headed by his father. No doubt early readers would have traced some kind of propagandistic relationship to Jehu’s slaughter of Ahab’s seventy sons or Athaliah’s revolt (2 Kgs 10:1–11; 11:1). The eighth-century Panamuwa Inscription (COS 2.37:158) recounts a similar slaughter of seventy royal brothers in comparable circumstances. Jotham’s survival from total slaughter is a typical plot device (1 Sam 22:20–21; Job 1:15; 2 Kgs 11:3) that permits a commentary on events from him. The oak of the pillar at Shechem (Judg 9:6) seems to have been a well-known holy site (compare Gen 35:4; Josh 24:26), a sacred tree associated with a standing stone. The telling phrase made Abimelech king will be repeated twice by Jotham (Judg 9:16, 18). [7–21] Following the exposition section, the Jotham episode calls attention to the narrative problems of betrayal, violence, and illegitimate kingship. Jotham was introduced by v. 5b, and his sense unit begins with his movement out of hiding to Gerizim in v. 7. Being without family protection, Jotham choses to give his speech from a safe vantage point outside the city. He begins with an appeal for attention (listen) that implicitly expects a verbal response from the Shechemites, one that God would be witnessing. This rhetoric signals a sort of juridical setting. Although Jotham’s indictment goes unanswered, the reader is now aware that God is involved. Jotham’s speech divides into fable and application (vv. 8–15 and 16–20). From a structural standpoint, Jotham’s fable helps connect the story of Abimelech with that of Gideon. The fable is tied into the narrative by a three-fold repetition of made Abimelech king (vv. 6, 16, 18). The offers

 Judges 9

183

made to the trees and their refusals link back to the offer of kingship made to Gideon to rule over us (8:22) and his proper response I will not. Ironically, the virtuous or reasonable refusals of Gideon and the three trees lead in both cases to bad kings, Abimelech and the bramble. The bramble points to the shortcomings of Abimelech’s kingship. Reciprocal fire is an image of the upcoming rebellion against Abimelech and his lethal reaction. Audiences would have certainly appreciated the sardonic connection between the olive’s production of oil and the mention of anoint in vv. 8, 15 and between the vine’s ability to make people happy and the raucous scene at the vintage festival in vv. 27–29. Verse 8a sets the agenda with the grammar of infinitive absolute and finite verb, providing a rhythmic introduction as though to say “once, one day.” Verses 8b–15 describe four successive proposals. The first three and the responses to them are almost completely formulaic. Olive, fig, and grape were all vital to the Palestinian economy and the enjoyment of human life. They provided oil, sweetness, and alcohol to the diet. Psalm 104:15–16 provides a parallel to this images of the good life (wine, oil, and bread), going on to include the cedars of Lebanon that the bramble references in its response. It is not surprising that the first offer would be to the olive tree, because it provided the anointing oil (compare Judg 9:8a and v. 15a). Anointing honors humans as guests (Ps 23:5) as well as persons initiated into high-status positions. Oil honors gods through ritual activities (Gen 31:13; Exod 29:36; 30:26; 35:15; etc.). The first offer is rejected, so the supplicant trees in the other three offers use the emphatic pronoun and an intensified imperative: You come be our king. Highlighting benefits for gods and humans in Judg 9:9 and v. 13 creates a structural sandwich: olive / fig / vine. There is no association made between figs and the gods. Moving from actual trees to the vine (v. 12), which is only a quasi-tree, signals that the quest for a king has become increasingly difficult. The vine is not really a tree and is too low to sway over the trees. Still, after the fig tree, the vine seems to be an expected follow-up for the olive tree as something else which makes human life worth living and cheers the gods as a libation offering (Pss 46:5; 104:15; Mic 6:15; Qoh 10:19). In Ugaritic literature, wine makes gods merry in mythic banquets. After three failures, Judg 9:15 takes a somewhat more emphatic approach in that this time all the trees make the offer. The lexicons offer “buckthorn” or “blackberry” for this bramble, a thorny climbing plant with canes that arch downward. As brushwood it supplied kindling and cooking fires (Isa 64:1 [ET 2]). The bramble picks up the verb anoint from Judg 9:8, but seems itself to acknowledge that this is an irrational proposal by raising the possibility that the trees are not really doing this in good

184 Judges

faith. It offers its shade, a common metaphor for protection (Hos 14:7; Isa 4:6; 16:3; 25:4–5; 30:2; 32:2; Ezek 17:23; Dan 4:12; Pss 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 63:7; 91:1–2; for an Egyptian example, see COS 2.7:45–46). This sounds sarcastic, for any possible shade would be both scant and prickly. If the trees’ offer is not in good faith, the bramble threatens, the reign of the bramble will be dangerous even for the noblest and tallest of trees (1 Kgs 5:6; Ps 29:5; Isa 2:13). For the image of destructive fire, compare Num 21:28 (Heshbon). The rhetoric of balanced if and if not conditional and contrasting results has a covenantal flavor, in harmony with texts like Lev 26:3–4, 14–16 and Deut 30:16–18. The particle wəattâ at the start of v. 16 signals a change in perspective from fable to application (“now the moral of the story is”). Jotham’s interpretation of the fable divides into Judg 9:16–19, an attack on the integrity of the Shechemites, and v. 20, which functions as a curse (and is actually called a curse in v. 57). Jotham does not employ the fable in an unequivocally anti-monarchic way, but rather uses it to comment on the illegitimacy of the actions of the Shechemite citizens. He focuses on the disloyal slaughter instigated by Shechem’s leaders and the moral bankruptcy of Abimelech’s usurpation. For the concept of equilibrium in the reckoning of retribution, see 1 Sam 15:33 and 1 Kgs 2:32. A fire of mutual destruction will be the result. Indeed real fire will appear repeatedly in the incidents that follow (Judg 9:48–49, 52). Jotham has already noted ominously that God is listening to what is being said (v. 7). The expression in good faith in vv. 16 and 19 picks up an item of the bramble’s speech (v. 15) and provides a bracket around Jotham’s accusations. But for Jotham this expression refers not to the sincerity of those who are offering kingship, as in the fable itself, but to the trustworthiness and fidelity of the Shechemites in the context of what they owed his father (compare Isa 48:1, Jer 4:2). Fair dealing is defined specifically by what a properly balanced payback should be with respect to what Jerubbaal had done for them. By coordinating it each time with honorably (tāmîm signifies “morally unblemished”), Jotham makes in good faith into an almost covenantal term (see Josh 24:14; Ps 15:2). It points to the absence of expected loyalty and integrity displayed by Shechem. Jerubbaal had risked his life for them; in return they slaughtered his sons. Abimelech’s kingship is founded in bloodshed and treachery (compare Hos 1:4; 8:4). In Judg 9:17–18, Jotham becomes more personally involved and more passionate in his rhetoric: my father, a single stone, and son of his servant woman (not just a concubine; compare Gen 21:10; Exod 23:12). There can be no ambiguity about the crime. Judges 9:18 quotes the description of the atrocity in vv. 5–6 word for word: father’s house…killed…sons…

 Judges 9

185

seventy men on a single stone…made Abimelech…king. Jotham reveals his own point of view and own dynastic interests by repeatedly referring to his father’s house (vv. 16, 18, 19). Jotham seems to be reflecting the pattern of blessing (v. 19) and curse (v. 20) that would characterize a covenant ceremony at the accession of a new king (2 Sam 5:3; 2 Kgs 11:17; 23:3). The if sentences of Judg 9:16 and 19 describing good faith shown to Jerubbaal and his dynasty introduce what are obviously unreal conditions. Sarcasm can be the only way to characterize Jotham’s call for reciprocal rejoicing between his audience and Abimelech (v. 19). Any joy that Abimelech could have to offer is comparable to the bramble’s scant shade when contrasted with the beneficial production of honor, sweetness, and good cheer by the other trees. The vine really does give joy (makes gods and humans happy; hiphil of śmḥ), but rejoicing between Abimelech and Shechem (the same verb in qal) can only be a mockery. In v. 20, Jotham moves into the modality of curse, quoting exactly the bramble’s if not, then may fire come out from… and eat up (v. 15). But unlike the bramble’s fire, the fire that originates from Abimelech is only the first step of a reciprocal burning destruction that will consume both parties. Fire is an image for the deadly conflict that is soon to develop between Abimelech and Shechem, and its reciprocity is the direct opposite of the unachievable reciprocal joy derisively portrayed by Jotham in v. 19. Jotham’s fable and commentary are framed and cemented into the narrative by Jotham’s movements: went and stood…ran away and fled… went (vv. 7 and 21). Jotham provides authorial comment in a way similar to the prophet of ch. 6. The narrator will comment again directly at the end of the story in v. 57. Jotham’s speech has the rhetorical effect of sharpening the narrative problems and raising narrative tension. How will the elements of the fable, including the bramble’s threat of fire, unfold? How will Jotham’s anticipation for reciprocal destruction in v. 20 work out? What role will God play? [22–49] Israel in v. 22 and reference to men of Israel in 9:55 form an outside frame around the military actions of Abimelech. These are the only two occurrences of Israel in the chapter. The reader will naturally take the successive reports of vv. 22–49 as sequential events, although the historical critic may judge that vv. 25–41 and 42–45 are two different traditions. These two sections seem to report parallel events that have been placed back to back. In the present form of the text, however, the resumptive phrase it was reported to Abimelech in vv. 25, 42, and 47 (with slight variations in grammar) divides Abimelech’s military actions into

186 Judges

three attacks: vv. 25–41 against the citizens of Shechem, vv. 42–45 against the people working in the fields, and vv. 46–49 against the Tower of Shechem group. This threefold repetition, of course, signals Abimelech’s complete triumph. In the first conflict, Abimelech moves against the citizens of Shechem. The extended episode (vv. 22–41) restarts the action after Jotham’s fable and commentary by allowing three years of narrative time to pass (2 Sam 13:38; 1 Kgs 22:1, etc.), highlighted by a rare verb (śrr; translated rule over). The use of this unusual denominative verb (from śar, conventionally “prince”) could reflect authorial opinion that Abimelech’s kingship was not legitimate. The question of God’s involvement raised in v. 7 is answered when God initiates the action in v. 23. An evil spirit from God describes a psychology of mutual distrust (1 Sam 16:14). Goaded by this spirit, the plot now takes its first steps toward resolution. The spirit triggers the treachery that starts in v. 25 (marked by the expression it was reported to Abimelech), but the retribution theme will only reach its conclusion when the violence and blood threatened by the narrator’s comment in v. 24 finally comes to pass (v. 57). Verse 24 interprets what will follow. The books are being balanced. The ancient reader, schooled in the relationship between act and consequence, would know that savagery and bloodshed would predictably rebound on those who commit such acts. The resulting conflict reflects what readers would have seen as likely scenarios: political instability (vv. 26–31, 41), standard military tactics (vv. 32–45), and typical siege techniques (vv. 46–49). Verse 25 reports that the elite citizenry take to plundering the caravans (compare 5:6–8), something that would undercut Abimelech’s authority and weaken his ability to collect taxes on goods in transit. Shechem’s strategic location at the intersection of trade routes would make such an operation especially effective. The men in ambush seem to be lookouts placed on high ground in order to spot victims for these attacks. When this situation is reported to Abimelech, the first of three military actions is about to begin. But first there is an unexpected twist in v. 26. A new character appears suddenly. Perhaps the reader will assume that this Gaal moves in to take advantage of the breakdown in relationship between Abimelech and Shechem. Perhaps the relatives who accompany him are supporters rather than actual kin (compare 1 Sam 23; 2 Sam 1:26; 2 Kgs 9:2; Mesad Hashavyahu Ostracon, lines 10–12 [COS 3.41:78]). Gaal is joined by another unanticipated new character, Zebul. These two bracket the first instance of armed conflict (vv. 31–41). Gaal and Zebul come on stage in vv. 26 and 30 respectively, and Zebul expels

 Judges 9

187

Gaal at the end of v. 41. The narrative uses Gaal to intensify the hostility reported in v. 23 by means of his threats and derision, which have the effect of motivating Abimelech to act decisively. For his part, Zebul stimulates Abimelech with commentary and tactical advice (vv. 31–33). Internal unity for this episode is provided by ambush (vv. 25 and 34), who is Abimelech…serve (vv. 28 and 38), at night…ambush (vv. 32 and 34), and mountaintops (vv. 25 and 36). The overall thematic of balanced payback is underscored when Gaal’s taunt of v. 29 is quoted and nullified by Zebul’s response in v. 38. Celebration of the wine harvest (v. 27) creates a narrative setting for loose talk and volatile emotions. The Shechemites eat and drink and then, as the last item of the verbal chain, curse Abimelech. Ugaritic literature offers evidence that the autumn grape harvest festival was observed as a temple ritual (COS 1.95:299). Gaal’s speech in vv. 28–29 objects to Abimelech’s questionable family status in Shechem and appeals to local pride and tradition. Shechemites should serve the city’s age-old pattern of leadership, the men of Hamor, Shechem’s father, rather than Abimelech, the parvenu son of that outsider, Jerubbaal. The two-part rhetorical question calls attention to the respective merit of the two choices. Who is Shechem? harks back to the legendary founder of the city (Gen 34), although this could be translated “what is Shechem?” The question who is Abimelech? subtly demeans Abimelech as an unknown stranger (compare 1 Sam 25:10). In this way Gaal advances a negative spin on the very situation of kinship that buttressed Abimelech’s appeal in Judg 9:2 and supplements Jotham’s objection to Abimelech’s lowly origins as son of his servant woman (v. 18). In v. 29 Gaal puts himself forward as the answer to Shechem’s dilemma and, rhetorically imagining Abimelech as present, challenges him to build up his armed force and fight. His call for Abimelech to come out contrasts with the events that follow in that, from this point on, only Abimelech’s enemies come out (yṣ; vv. 33, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43) and never Abimelech himself. Abimelech’s deputy Zebul appears in the narrative just as abruptly as Gaal has (v. 30), and the reader learns, somewhat belatedly, that Abimelech is not in Shechem (v. 31). Would a culturally competent reader assume that Zebul would take Gaal’s characterization of him as a pāqîd (commentary translation: deputy) in v. 28 as an insult, since he is really the śar (governor) of the city? Through a courier, Zebul warns his overlord and advises a dawn attack, presuming that Gaal will be drawn out of the city to meet the onslaught. At this point, the reader will likely wonder why Zebul thinks Gaal would be likely to expose his troops

188 Judges

in this manner rather than sensibly waiting behind the city walls. This reader question is answered by the persuasive force of Zebul’s rhetorical and mocking questions in v. 39, which balance those uttered by Gaal in vv. 28–29 both in content and in form. Dividing his troops into four companies (v. 34) means that Abimelech can approach unobserved in smaller units from different directions (v. 37) in order to set up his surprise attack (there are three companies in the somewhat parallel v. 43). Our ignorance of toponymy prevents us from reconstructing these maneuvers. In v. 38, Zebul’s taunting goads Gaal to abandon the safety of the city to sally forth. Gaal is forced to flee back to the city gate where he began (v. 35) and his fighters die (or suffer wounds) right up until they reach it. Verse 41 summarizes the results of the first conflict as two contrasting events. Abimelech remains headquartered outside Shechem at Arumah; expelled by Zebul, Gaal and his kinship group no longer reside in Shechem. The expressions Abimelech lived and they could not continue to live are both formed with the verb yšb. At this point, Gaal and Zebul disappear from the narrative scene, leaving several unanswered questions in their wake. The chief puzzle concerns why Abimelech continues to assault Shechem in spite of the circumstance that its governor has proven loyal to him. Abimelech’s thirst for vengeance seems out of control. Next day at the start of v. 42 holds together the first and second attack as sequential efforts that are part of a single overall military process. It was reported to Abimelech initiates the second assault, directed this time against the people (vv. 42, 43, 45). This group contrasts with aristocratic groups whose episodes come before (citizens of Shechem) and after (citizens of the Tower of Shechem). These appear to be ordinary agricultural laborers whose movement out into the surrounding fields has been set up for the reader by v. 27. This is the everyday life situation reflected in 2 Kgs 4:39 and Ruth 2 (for example, v. 2). That such a common, probably daily occurrence should be the content of an intelligence report demonstrates that the phrase it was reported to Abimelech operates as little more than a structural (and no doubt, redactional) sense-unit marker. Narrative time is compressed in vv. 42 and 43 in a confusing series of waw consecutive verbs: people went out…reported…set up an ambush… saw the people going out. The difficulty of the struggle is signaled by that whole day in v. 45. The contingent directly under Abimelech’s command blocks off the safety of the city walls, while the other two detachments massacre the field workers. Abimelech captures the city, or at least the lower part below the acropolis. Abimelech wages total war, killing the population, pulling down buildings, and sowing Shechem with salt as the visible

 Judges 9

189

sign of a curse intended to prevent resettlement. Salt that destroyed the soil’s fertility was both a natural catastrophe and a curse (Deut 29:22 [ET 23]; Jer 17:6; Zeph 2:9; Job 39:6; COS 2.82:214; 3.89:21). Compare the destruction of the productivity of the land waged against Moab in 2 Kgs 3:25. The numerous verbal parallels with vv. 34–41 (see “Genre and Composition”) have the effect of making the first two attacks seem part of same overall strategic effort. When one reaches v. 46, it is revealed that Abimelech has still not eliminated every faction of the city’s population, and the third phase of military action commences. Heard of this in v. 46 connects the episode of vv. 46–49 to the previous one. The structural marker it was reported to Abimelech in v. 47 identifies this episode as Abimelech’s third onslaught. The episode begins with the movement of a third group, the citizens (baalîm) of the Tower of Shechem (vv. 46–49). The designation presumably describes a high-status group who, as the very last holdouts, seek safety in the city’s last refuge. The text, as a product of a composition process that joined together originally independent narratives, creates numerous puzzles. Are these aristocrats who occupied the city acropolis and so survived to hide themselves away? Are they to be identified with the Beth-millo group, who themselves completely disappear from the narrative after vv. 6 and 20? Is the Tower that identifies them part of the temple of Baal [MT: El]-berith where they take refuge (as some commentators blithely assume)? If so, is one to think of it as a shrine tower outside the city, since Shechem has supposedly already been razed? Are vv. 46–49 to be understood as a flashback to the time between vv. 45a and 45b (in spite of the waw consecutive beginning v. 46)? Is this temple the same as the one mentioned in v. 27? The meaning of the ṣerîaḥ (underground room) of the temple is disputed (see note on v. 46). It could refer to a stronghold tower associated with the temple or a funerary crypt under it. Abimelech leads his troops to gather and set combustible branches against or on top of the refuge. An ancient reader might assume that his use of fire rather than bloodshed was intended to kill without violating sacred space. In any case, skeletons found in caves at Wadi Daliyeh (the period of Alexander) and near Nahal Hever (Bar-Kokhba revolt) provide sobering evidence of this practice from later periods. The theme of balanced retribution is carried forward by the circumstance that this massacre takes place at the very same temple from which the blood money to murder the sons of Jerubbaal was appropriated (v. 4). In v. 49b the designation citizens is replaced by people in order to tally the total casualties of both sexes, baalîm status being only appropriate to males. The description of some of the dead as women subtly points forward to the exploit of v. 53. As well (gam) signals that all elements of

190 Judges

Shechem’s population have finally been dealt with. The metaphorical fire threatened by Jotham (v. 20a) has repeatedly come out from Abimelech against the Shechemites, and this third time literal fire from Abimelech devours them. Now the other part of the reciprocal action of v. 20b must unfold in order to complete the narrative arc. It is time for Abimelech to experience his just deserts. [50–57] The narrative climax is reached as Abimelech moves to Thebez and dies in dishonorable circumstances. Abimelech attempts a siege tactic, again involving fire, after the population of Thebez retreats to a defensive tower with a roof and door. This time fire is intended to destroy the entrance door of the city’s defensive tower. An upper millstone could be easily picked up in two hands and thrown from the roof. A woman would find one conveniently at hand, and the reader will be reminded of Jael’s tent stake. Such a death is a typical narrative move. Pyrrhus of Epirus, for example, was supposedly killed by a roof tile thrown down by a woman (Plutarch). Like the original readers, Abimelech is a product of a culture of honor and shame and so seeks to avoid the dishonor of being killed by a woman (compare 4:9; 1 Sam 31:4). Ironically, but not surprisingly, tradition remembered him for this nevertheless (2 Sam 11:21). As the saga of Abimelech concludes in v. 55, the narrator notes that his followers are men of Israel (yš yśrl), those very men who had fought under Gideon (Judg 7:8, 14, 23) and offered him the kingship (8:22). Verses 56–57 provide denouement and a summary that declares to the reader that all narrative problems have been resolved. God’s retribution for violence and evil has run its course, the curse of Jotham has been fulfilled, and Abimelech’s kingship is as dead as he is. Jotham’s curse (v. 20) and the norm of retributive justice (v. 24) have worked together to achieve an appropriate moral balance. It was God who, having overheard Jotham (v. 7), effected this outcome by sending an evil spirit in v. 23. From this divine spark, a chain of human decisions and violent actions emerged that returned the moral universe to its proper balance. What moderns would call “poetic justice” is effected when Abimelech’s murder of his brothers on a single stone (vv. 5, 18) is punished by a stone dropped on his head. One might reference Prov 26:27 at this point. That initial killing (Judg 9:5, 18, 24, 56; verb hrg) is balanced out by the use of the same verb in v. 45 and again in v. 54. In vv. 56–57a, a concentric rhetorical scheme communicates the equilibrium of reciprocal retribution:

 Judges 9

191

God returned the evil of Abimelech…. and all the evil of the men of Shechem, God returned on to their heads

Genre and Composition Like the Gideon narrative, the Abimelech story was assembled from several traditional narrative units, namely a traditional fable and four battle reports. These inherited items (vv. 8–15, 25–41, 41–45, 46–49, and 50–54) were prefixed with an exposition section with contacts to ch. 8 (vv. 1–6) and provided with authorial evaluation and summary (vv. 22–24, 55–57). The fable itself was encompassed by further authorial evaluation in the form of Jotham’s reported speech (v. 7 and vv. 16–21). All these items were shaped to form a lucid single plot movement, although coherence slips somewhat as the first three battle reports are recounted. Throughout ch. 9, Gideon is only called Jerubbaal and the divinity is only labeled God, so presumably the inherited materials about Abimelech shared these conventions. Irregularities left unsmoothed by the redactional process include the early disappearance of Beth-millo, the abrupt introductions of Gaal, Zebul, and the citizens of the Tower of Shechem, and vocabulary and content parallels between the first and second battle reports. The whole text complex is shaped by a good deal of reported speech and dialogue (vv. 1–3, 7–20, 28–29, 31–33, 36–38, 54). In the final form of the text, Abimelech rules over Israel and Israelites (vv. 22, 55), but in the story proper, Abimelech’s rule is pictured as a local affair limited to Shechem and nearby areas. It was only the later authorial process that converted him into one who ruled over Israel (v. 22). His term of three years (v. 22) is also redactional and correlates with the chronological schema of DH. The fable genre represents an illustrative story in which animals or plants have speaking parts, as evidenced in the imagery and literary form of 2 Kgs 14:9. Only the worthless bramble (Abimelech) is willing to accept royal power, but its shade would be meager and its potential for fire threatens disaster. The Dispute between the Tamarisk and the Date Palm (ANET, 592–93) provides a good comparative example. Telling a subversive proverb or parable is a way for someone endangered by power to claim a voice. (Thompson, Motif Index, J411.7 and J461.1.) Using the fable genre, Jotham does not directly attack Abimelech, but gives an oblique analysis of the situation from the perspective of some trees seeking a king. This rhetorical strategy draws in the addressees,

192 Judges

who have the same point of view as the trees. The fable is not a perfect match to the narrative situation in that the trees are seeking a king, while Abimelech put himself forward, and in that there are several nominees for the office of king, not just one. This non-correspondence to the narrative situation shows that the base form of this fable already existed before it was taken up into the Abimelech story. The conclusion of the original fable has been adjusted to fit the context and Jotham’s use of it. The bramble’s words at the end of the fable change the angle of approach. The first three candidates refuse on the basis of their socially beneficial production. The bramble shifts the argument to questioning the trees’ motivation (in good faith, which is to say “if you really want to”), offers a rather dubious shade, and threatens with fire. Jotham picks up the issues of good faith and fire. For him, good faith looks backward to the Shechemites’ treatment of his brothers, not to their attitude or motivation when choosing Abimelech, and the one-way consuming fire of the fable is converted into a reciprocal fire of mutual destruction. How the fable originally moved and what exactly it communicated cannot be recovered, although the bramble’s inadequate and prickly shade is certainly original to it as a contrast to the good things provided by the first three trees. The inadequacy of the bramble’s shade protection is only implied, however. Thorns and fire are sometimes associated with brambles (Pss 58:10; 118:12; Qoh 7:6), so a general warning about the danger of fire could easily also have been part of the inherited fable. But the bramble’s threat (may fire come out) is a new item that seems unmotivated in the fable and a product of its new context in the narrative. Modern readers tend to understand the point as an attack on all kingship, as a parable of the parasitism of the ruling classes. Monarchy is problematic because of the low quality and lack of usefulness of those who are willing to accept the office. Those who cannot do anything beneficial become rulers. However, several possibilities for the function of the fable are more in synch with ancient attitudes: 1. An attack on those who are too busy with their own concerns and so thoughtlessly cause a bramble ruler to be designated by default 2. Criticism, not of all monarchy, but only against inadequate or tyrannical monarchy 3. A condemnation of humans choosing a monarch instead of relying on divine designation 4. Propaganda directed against a specific Northern Kingdom monarch or dynasty

 Judges 9

193

Actually the prototype fable may not have been primarily concerned with kings and kingship at all. The three refusals may be nothing more than a plot device designed to introduce the circumstance that drove the search committee to ask the bramble out of frustration. Certainly the bramble should be the center of gravity for interpretation. Perhaps originally this was a cautionary wisdom fable that warned about the dangers inherent in bad choices in general, ranging from silly choices (useful trees will not accept and it would be foolish to suffer the loss of their products) to a fatal choice that ignores character and reality. Another possibility is that this fable served as an instructive story about pride and presumption (similar to 2 Kgs 14:9). The useless and worthless thorn bush (2 Sam 23:6; Prov 26:9) suffers from excessive self-regard. It offers its ridiculously inadequate shade and protection. It boasts that the fire that often consumes its own kind will come out from it, as though the bramble itself produces the blaze. This fire will destroy even the noble cedars of Lebanon, who would be much better candidates for kingship (2 Kgs 14:9; Ezek 31:3). The battle episode reported in vv. 42–45 evidences many connections to the first one reported in vv. 34–41. These are no doubt parallel traditions about Abimelech’s attack on Shechem. This alternate version was taken up in the compositional process to become the next event in Abimelech’s complete, threefold annihilation of Shechem and its population. The parallels are set an ambush [in the countryside] (vv. 32 and 34 with v. 43); detachments (v. 34 with v. 43); one detachment acting independently (v. 37 with v. 44); rose [from ambush] (v. 35 with v. 43); the rare verb pśṭ [attack] (v. 33 with v. 44); and entrance of the gate (vv. 33 and 40 with v. 44). Somewhere behind the battle reports about Shechem lies an etiological impulse seeking to explain a popular memory that this ancient and important city, so significant for the life of the kingdom of Israel, had once been a ruin. According to 1 Kgs 12:25, Jeroboam I had to rebuild it to serve as his capital. Archaeologists often point to the destruction of Shechem’s Stratum X, presumably during the incursion of Shishak about 925. Specific references to locales (vv. 6, 7, 37, 47) and institutions (vv. 4, 20, 27, 46) associated with Shechem make it nearly certain that these stories circulated in the neighborhood of that city. As an ancient religious center and the first capital of the Northern Kingdom, Shechem would be an obvious place to recount stories of early kingship (compare Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 12).

J ud g es 10

Tola and Jair After Abimelech, Tola son of Puah son of Dodo, a man of Issachar, arose to deliver Israel. He lived in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim. 2 He judged Israel twenty-three years. Then he died and was buried in Shamir. 3 After him, Jair the Gileadite arose. He judged Israel twenty-two years. 4 He had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys. They had thirty cities. They are called Havvoth-jair right up until today, which are in the land of Gilead. 5 Then Jair died and was buried in Kamon. 1

Oppression by the Ammonites Once again the Israelites did evil in Yahweh’s judgment. They worshiped the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines. They abandoned Yahweh and did not worship him. 7 So Yahweh’s anger ignited against Israel. He sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Ammonites. 8 Beginning that year they crushed and oppressed the Israelites and continued this for eighteen years—all the Israelites who were on the other side of the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, that is, Gilead. 9 The Ammonites crossed the Jordan to fight also against Judah, Benjamin, and the house of Ephraim. It was very distressing for Israel. 10 Then the Israelites cried out to Yahweh saying, “We have sinned against you, because we have abandoned our God and worshiped the Baals.” 11 But Yahweh said to the Israelites, “I delivered you from the Egyptians and the Amorites, from the Ammonites and the Philistines, did I not? 12 The Sidonians, the Amalekites, and the Maonites oppressed you, and you cried out to me. Then I delivered you from their hand. 13 It is you who have abandoned me and worshiped other gods. Therefore I will no longer deliver you. 14 Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them deliver you in the time of your distress.” 15 But the Israelites said to Yahweh, “We have sinned. Treat us in whatever way seems good to you. Only please save us today.” 16 They put away the foreign gods from among them and worshiped Yahweh. He became impatient with the Israelites. 6

 Judges 10

195

Then the Ammonites were called out and they made camp in Gilead. The Israelites gathered together and made camp at Mizpah. 18 Then the people, the leaders of Gilead, said each other, “Who is the man who will be first to fight against the Ammonites? Let him be leader over all the inhabitants of Gilead.” 17

Notes 1 Tolah] Meaning “Worm.” Unlike what moderns would assume, this name is honorific and refers to the high-status red cochineal dye made from a scale insect (Isa 1:18; Lam 4:5). Shamir] Follows MT V Syr T. Shamir cannot be identified with certainly. One possibility is Shimron (Khirbet Sammuniyeh 1700 2344), which was allotted to Zebulun (Josh 19:15) but represented a clan of Issachar (Gen 46:13; Num 26:24). However, the MT version of the name, Shimron, is properly Shimon (Josh 19:15 LXXB, Egyptian sources). OG (LXXAL) replaced the obscure Shamir with the royal capital Samaria. 4 cities] Follows OG V Syr T, as preferred by BHQ. The principal MT tradition reads yrym, apparently “donkeys,” unless an unusual spelling of “cities” is intended. The ancient versions read “cities” (rym), as does the eastern masoretic tradition. Adopting this reading uncovers wordplay between “donkeys” and “cities.” NJPS cleverly translates this wordplay with “burros” and “boroughs.” 5 Kamon] Most likely Qamm in Gilead (2184 2217; name preserved in nearby Qumem [2190 2196]). A second possibility is Kammona in the Esdraelon Valley, mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (and perhaps Jdt 7.3). This is Tell Qeimun (1605 2300), identical with Jokneam in Zebulun (Josh 19:11). Yet a third possibility is Jokmeam, located in the southeast portion of Manasseh between Ephraim and the Jordan (1 Kgs 4:12). According to Num 32:41, Jair captured the village association of Havvoth-jair as part of the conquest. 8 Beginning that year] A dynamic equivalent translation that follows MT: “in this year, eighteen years.” The Hebrew is difficult but understandable. The enemy oppressed that initial year and also continued to do so for a total of eighteen years. The ancient versions struggled with this, translating freely (LXXB OL) or omitting it (LXXL V Syr), but what is probably OG (LXXA) translated MT closely. 10 because] The waw before kî is explicative, explaining and expanding on the sinning confessed at the start of the verse. 11 the Amorites] Translating the singular gentilic of MT: “the Amorite.” The ancient versions also used the plural (T OG V) as a translation strategy to match the other plural forms. OG expanded Ammon (“sons of Ammon”) with “and Moab.”

196 Judges I delivered you] These words are added to the translation as something clearly implied by the repeated use of “from,” although no verb is actually present in MT. The text is either corrupt or exhibits an ellipsis. Some English translations (NABRE NIV REB) delete the four prepositions “from,” following OG (LXXAL) Syr V, and join v. 11b to v. 12: “The Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you and you cried to me for help. I delivered you from their hands, didn’t I?” However, it is hard to envision any scribal impulse or text error that could have led to the insertion of these prepositions. MT must be accepted as the more difficult text. The omissions of the ancient versions reflect an attempt to smooth out the sense, either as something already present in the Hebrew text they used or as a translation strategy. 12 Maonites] Follows MT. This mysterious name is explained as “Midian” in OG (NAB NJB REB) or “Canaan” by other Greek witnesses and V. The Meunites of 2 Chr 20:1 and 26:7 may refer to the same group. 13 It is you] Emphatic pronoun communicating a sharp contrast between Israel’s apostasy and Yahweh’s fidelity. I delivered…you…abandoned me. 16 He became impatient with the Israelites] Follows evidence offered by OG, in agreement with BHQ. MT reads wtqṣr npśw bml yśrl, “he became impatient over Israel’s misery,” Hebrew: “his soul was shortened (compare 16:16; Zech 11:8) with the trouble of Israel.” “The trouble of Israel” could also be construed as the trouble Israel was causing Yahweh. The commentary translation opts for the reading “people” rather than “trouble”: wtqṣr npśw bm yśrl. This is preserved as a doublet in OG, where it is translated to avoid anthropomorphism as “he was not well pleased with the people Israel”). This reading corresponds with Yahweh’s attitude in vv. 13–14. MT modified the earliest recoverable text out of theological sensitivity, so that Yahweh reacts not negatively to Israel but positively to Israel’s predicament (NJPS: “He could not bear the miseries of Israel”). All major English versions follow MT.

Structure and Rhetoric Judges 10:6–12:7 hold together as a single narrative constructed of several interconnected episodes. The first narrative problem is Israel’s abandonment of Yahweh and Yahweh’s resultant anger. Divine anger leads to oppression by the Ammonites, which is the main, overarching narrative crisis (10:8) and which is intensified by invasion, about which the reader is reminded repeatedly (10:9, 17; 11:4). The disobedience and divine anger problem is seemingly resolved at 10:16. The first attempt to undo the invasion crisis leads to a subplot involving the search for a leader (10:18). Achieving this end is blocked by difficulties in installing

 Judges 10

197

Jephthah until resolution is reached with 11:11. The next sub-plot has to do with Jephthah’s attempt to use diplomacy to resolve the invasion crisis. This fails when the enemy king does not heed the messengers sent by Jephthah. This episode is bracketed by 11:12 and 28. Finally the main plot resumes as Jephthah moves toward the theater of action (11:29). But this is sidetracked for a moment when yet another narrative problem is introduced in the shape of a vow in 11:30–31, which raises the tense question of how this oath will work out. The main action resumes as Jephthah crosses over to fight (11:32a as a response to 10:9), and the central crisis is finally resolved (11:32b–33). Yet the vow subplot still looms and is not sorted out until 11:39–40. One more subplot emerges out of Jephthah’s victory in the shape of Ephraimite disaffection in 12:1, which is nullified by a massacre in 12:6. Chapter 10 on its own falls into three sense units: vv. 1–5 (Tola and Jair), vv. 6–16 (a supplemented version of the recurring cycle), and vv. 17–18 (exposition for the following Jephthah story). [1–5] Tola and Jair belong to what has long been recognized as an earlier list of minor judges, the other portion of which is 12:7–15. Structurally, this minor judges list forms a contrasting frame around the Jephthah story, who is both a member of the list (12:7) and a hero judge. The five minor judges judged Israel in an orderly succession in a context of peace, prosperity, and positive family life. Jephthah by contrast had to struggle for his leadership position and ruled in a situation of war and family dysfunction. The structure and rhetoric of 10:1–5 is best explained in the context of the entire list. Elon (12:11–12) contains all the elements that structure the six units of the list. A narrative-like core structure forms a common formula and consists of four verbs: he judged (or arose)…and he judged… and he died…and he was buried. The fullest form of the parallel structure consists of five elements: 1. Introductory phrase: “And after him PN judged Israel” Tola is modified to: “And after Abimelech Tola arose to deliver Israel” Jair is modified to: “And after him arose Jair” 2. Identification: By genealogy: Tola, Abdon By gentilic: Jair, Elon, Abdon By city: Tola, Ibzan

198 Judges

3. Information about status and honor: Jair: offspring and towns (between tenure and death/burial) Ibzan: offspring and marriage practices (before tenure and death/burial) Abdon: offspring (before tenure and death/burial) 4. Tenure: “And he judged Israel x years” 5. Death and burial: “And PN died and PN was buried in [place name]” Tola: no second use of the personal name Jephthah, Elon, and Abdon supplement the personal name with a gentilic Abdon also supplements the personal name with genealogy The formula for Jephthah (12:7) only includes the tenure and death and burial elements. The repetition of judged Israel in the formula is striking (usually used twice, modified to “deliver” for Tola, used only once for Jair and Jephthah). Repetition emphasizes that each person in turn served by performing this particular activity. In the full pattern, the first phrase including judged Israel identifies the judge by name and other features (genealogy, gentilic, location city). Then a second occurrence of judged Israel follows and declares his term of service. The concluding verbs of the formulaic structure (he died…was buried) express the termination of his tenure and convey his significance as a publicly recognized luminary. Rhetorical features of the list call attention to an increasing level of fecundity and to kinship relationships between generations. The notice about Tola encompasses three generations and looks back in time exclusively. Jair reflects only two generations, but looks forward in time to his sons. Ibzan also reflects two generations, but adds the potential for a third by referring to marriage (12:9). Abdon’s notice (12:13) takes a further step in that three generations are present (father, sons, and grandsons) and his own father is mentioned as a fourth. The enumeration of descendants increases from thirty (Jair) to sixty (Ibzan) to seventy (Abdon, 12:14). The list reflects socio-political affiliations conceived of in terms of kinship. Its horizons are regional rather than national, in spite of the use of the term Israel. Several of these figures appear elsewhere as eponymous ancestors of clans and village groups. Both Tola and his father Pu(v)ah are listed as sons (clans) of Issachar (Gen 46:13; Num 26:23; 1 Chr 7:1–2). Jair son of Manasseh is the eponymous founder of Havvoth-jair, a village association in Gilead (Num 32:41; 1 Kgs 4:13; 1 Chr 2:21–23). Jair’s name identifies the clan of Ira, one of David’s priests (2 Sam 20:26).

 Judges 10

199

Elon represents a clan of Zebulun (Gen 46:14; Num 26:26). It has been suggested that the wording of Judg 10:1, Tola son of Puah…lived (yōšēb) in Shamir originated as a scribal rewording of the clan list in Num 26.23– 24: “Tola…Puvah…Jashub…Shimron.” Four individuals are described in terms of tribal affiliation: Tola as a (displaced) man of Issachar, Jair and Jephthah as Gileadites, and Elon as a Zebulunite. Ibzan and Abdon are identified only by their town, which is to say, their clan. Ibzan’s hometown of Bethlehem connects him to Zebulun (Josh 19:15). Abdon is from Pirathon, which was in the territory of Manasseh because it was located north of Wadi Kanah (Josh 16:8; 17:9). References to numerous offspring and exogamous marriage also point to clan and kinship concerns. The list of the minor judges features a rhetoric of status and honor involving children, donkeys, marriages, and burial. Jair, Ibzan, and Abdon have numerous offspring, indications of blessing and high status (1 Sam 2:21; Job 1:2; 42:13). Progeny in multiples of ten communicate the prestige of a ruler (Judg 8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1). Daughters (Judg 12:9) are important as a means of extending alliances (2 Chr 11:21; 13:21). Jair’s thirty donkeys and Abdon’s seventy indicate wealth and nobility. Donkey riding was a high-status activity, a sign of wealth (Judg 5:10; 1 Sam 25:20), and a symbol of royalty (2 Sam 13:29; 16:2; 1 Kgs 1:33, 38; Zech 9:9). Ibzan is represented as building networks of affinity through marriage outside his (normally endogamous) clan, the sort of thing expected of formidable rulers (Deut 17:17; 2 Sam 3:2–5; 1 Kgs 11:1–4). Finally, each minor judge is buried in his hometown, communicating an atmosphere of stability and peace. This factor is so important that Jephthah and Elon, for whom genuine grave traditions were apparently lacking, are provided with nonspecific or invented burial locations. Appropriate burial is sometimes a rhetorical signal for a full and blessed life (Gen 15:15; 35:29; Josh 24:29–30, 33; 1 Sam 25:1). [6–18] Verses 6–18 resume the framework cycle, but Yahweh’s relationship with Israel is showing signs of strain. The framework section is different from others in that it so closely specifies the nature of the evil and in that the cry for help is rebuffed even though Israel has demonstrated apparently exemplary repentance. There is no assurance of divine deliverance. Yahweh’s attitude remains ambiguous The expected framework portrayals of apostasy (v. 6), divine anger (v. 7), oppression (vv. 8–9), and crying out (v. 10) are shockingly interrupted by an unexpected objection from Yahweh (vv. 11–14). Yahweh’s statement of reluctance to deliver Israel is bracketed by repentance in vv. 10 and 15 (we have sinned). Israel’s repentance here is more explicit

200 Judges

and more categorical than anywhere else in Judges. It consists not just of words, but actions (v. 16a; put away foreign gods…worshiped Yahweh). In MT Yahweh relents because of Israel’s suffering or trouble. But Yahweh’s reaction in the earliest recoverable text is impatience or annoyance (see note on v. 16). In v. 6, the cycle starts with again, communicating, like 3:13; 4:1; and 13:1, that apostasy has become a habitual thing for Israel. This assertion is then backed up by an exhaustive list of seven groupings of gods, reviewing the flagrancy of Israel’s betrayal. This is the most intense description of apostasy in the book. As the interchange between Israel and Yahweh unfolds, these alien gods are characterized as other, chosen, and foreign (10:6, 13, 14, 16). Later in vv. 11–12, the seven divine groups are balanced by seven oppressing nations from which Yahweh had delivered Israel. The ethnic names in v. 6 are a conventional catalog and are not specifically connected to the story told by Judges. Baals and Ashteroth relate to 2:11, 13; 3:7 (with Asheroth instead). Abandoning Yahweh (10:6, 10, 13) is paralleled in 2:12 and 13. It was very distressing for in v. 9 finds a parallel in 2:15 and I will no longer in v. 13 find a counterpart in 2:21. The movement of the complete cycle is nicely framed by did not worship him (v. 6) and worshiped Yahweh (v. 16). Verse 7 offers the first expression of Yahweh’s anger since 3:8, and the two verses are in fact almost identical. Mention of hand of the Philistines seems to lay groundwork for the career of Samson. In v. 8, there is a pleasing assonance relating the two verb wayyirăṣû (crushed) and wayərōṣəṣû (oppressed) and thereby communicating a most serious crisis. That year (bāššānâ hahî; compare Jer 28:1, 17) could be an imitation of annalistic language that has the effect of achieving an aura of reliability. With other side the text not only reveals its west-of-the-Jordan perspective, but introduces the thematic verbal root br that will occur as preposition and verb fourteen times in the Jephthah story (10:8, 9; 11:17, 18, 19, 20, 29 [3×], 32; 12:1 [2×], 3, 5). Verse 9 converts the crisis from a local, Gilead problem into a more widespread predicament involving three significant west of Jordan tribes. Unlike Ephraim (see 12:1–6) however, Judah and Benjamin will play no part in the story. Verses 10–14 interrupt the cyclical pattern to describe a third confrontation between Israel and Yahweh (along with 2:1–5 and 6:7–10). Now, instead of employing a heavenly or earthly messenger, Yahweh responds directly to Israel. Israel’s confession in v. 10 admirably owns up to the two important issues of v. 6: abandoned and worshiped. But Yahweh responds with an unprecedentedly negative diatribe. Even though I delivered you from many foes, I will no longer deliver you…. let other gods

 Judges 10

201

deliver you. This plays out against the background that Tola had arisen in order to deliver Israel some fifty years before. Yahweh employs a review of a history of reliable divine deliverance from the exodus onward to justify a refusal to do so any longer. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, positive rehearsals of divine acts serve as prologues to or justifications for Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel. Using this rhetoric for a negative purpose represents a shocking reversal. The Ammonites had been part of the Eglon coalition, Shamgar dealt with Philistines, and Gideon and Ehud confronted Amalekites. However, deliverance from Sidonians and Maonites must refer to events outside the book. The key language of abandoned and worshiped, picked up from v. 6, is explored first from the perspective of Israel in v. 10 and then from Yahweh’s perspective in v. 13. In v. 14, Yahweh sarcastically points out what is the logical conclusion of Israel’s behavior with other gods: let them deliver you. On time of your distress in v. 14, see Neh 9:27; Job 38:23; Ps 37:39; Isa 37:39; Jer 14:8. Israel responds with exemplary repentance in vv. 15–16, picking up their own we have sinned confession from v. 10. Treat us in whatever way seems good to you is a statement of unconditional surrender (Josh 9:25; 1 Sam 11:10.) To put away the foreign gods may be meant quite concretely, reflecting a ritual in which idols were ceremonially buried (Gen 35:2–4; Josh 24:14, 23). Whatever text-critical decision one makes about v. 16b, the omniscient narrator’s observation represents an amazing psychological anthropomorphism, comparable to Hos 11:8 and Jer 31:20. According to the earliest recoverable text, Yahweh is frustrated with Israel, apparently because of their inadequate efforts to repent. According to the more orthodox MT, Yahweh is indignant over Israel’s suffering (or less likely, impatient with the trouble Israel has caused). Israel’s repentance sounds legitimate, using correct vocabulary. At this point, readers (and commentary writers) tend to become impatient with Israel, however, and are ready to second guess Israel’s motives and the genuineness of their penitence. In doing so, readers are following the lead of Yahweh’s I will no longer deliver you. Yahweh, however, points not to the quality or inner motivation of Israel’s repentance, but solely to their repeated outward behavior. Israel has worshiped and chosen other gods, the sin to which they have already confessed. As Yahweh points out, the problem is a relational one. You have created a worship affiliation with those gods, meaning that you have abandoned your relationship with me as your reliable deliverer. It is only reasonable that you should seek deliverance from those gods and only logical that I should stop fulfilling the terms of our (apparently lapsed) relationship. However, Israel’s answer and actions in response to Yahweh’s rebuff is in every way exemplary

202 Judges

both in word and deed. Israel surrenders unconditionally and by its actions shows that it puts its faith in Yahweh. One ought not psychologize the text in order to try to discover more than what the words of the narrator say about Israel’s inner attitude. In striking contrast, the text does indeed explore Yahweh’s inward viewpoint. There is no explicit mention of Yahweh raising up a deliverer. Instead, Israel’s repentance is followed directly by the first element in the Jephthah narrative, which unfolds in chs. 11 and 12. Verses 17–18 set forth the first elements of that narrative’s exposition. These two verses lay out the principal narrative problem as the Ammonite military threat, which is resolved in 11:32–33. They also introduce the problem of the first subplot in the Jephthah story with the question Who is the man…to fight? This is resolved in the narrative of 11:1–11. In v. 17, Ammonites were called out employs technical military language of mustering (ṣq / by-form zq). This verb is often used in Judges to report the marshaling of Israel for battle (4:10; 6:34–35; 7:23–24; 12:1–2). In contrast, here the leaderless Israelites merely gathered together and encamped, but nothing else happens. The encampment geography is vague. Neither in Gilead nor one of many examples of Mizpah (Lookout Point) provides a definite location. This particular Mizpah is a cultic site (11:11). Whether this is also intended to be identical with the Mizpeh [sic] of Gilead mentioned in 11:29 or the Mizpah where Jephthah had his house is unclear. First to fight in v. 18, recalls Israel’s initial question to Yahweh in 1:1. From v. 17 on, Yahweh disappears as an active participant from the narrative picture until 11:29. Jephthah’s emergence as leader is reported as a human development only. Here, the theology of “dual causality,” balancing divine and human action, shifts radically to a completely human realm. Genre and Composition With respect to genre, earlier scholarship treated the list of the minor judges as an annalistic source and used it to reconstruct pre-monarchic institutions and settlement patterns. However, this opinion has become increasingly difficult to maintain. The closest parallel to this format are the phrases used to describe the succession of kings in Samuel and Kings. Although these formulas vary, the verb “to reign” tends to be repeated in each example, with the second occurrence of the verb indicating the years of the king’s rule. Death, and on occasion burial, signals the end of a given king’s reign and the accession of his successor. To cite an example: “Jehoshaphat the son of Asa reigned over Judah…and twenty-five years

 Judges 10

203

he reigned in Jerusalem…. Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers…and he was buried in the city of David” (1 Kgs 22:41–42, 51 [ET 50]). The catalog of the kings of Edom (Gen 36:31–39) provides another point of comparison. A list of Tyre’s suffets (equivalent to Hebrew šōpēṭ, judge), preserved in a source used by Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.156–158), describes the succession and tenures of interim civic rulers during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre at a time when there was no king. Presumably this is a document of genuine historical value. However, it lacks the personal details characteristic of the biblical list of minor judges. In summary, the form of the minor judges list is similar to the way ancient writers described royal succession. The random length of the tenures of the minor judges is sometimes cited as evidence that this is a historically valuable source document. Unlike the schematic round numbers found elsewhere in Judges (3:11, 30; 4:3; 5:31; 8:28; 13:1; 16:31), the numbers 23, 25, 6, 7, 10, and 8 have the appearance of authenticity. However, “appearance of authenticity” may be precisely the point. If the author of the list was imitating a literary pattern used to describe royal succession, then inventing random lengths of tenure rather than round or schematic ones, would be more persuasive. The burial place of each figure plays a significant role. This suggests that these traditions may have been preserved and transmitted in the context of observances at the tombs of these eponymous clan founders or leaders. The Hebrew Bible provides substantial evidence for a commemoration of important figures at gravesites (Gen 35:8, 19–20; Josh 24:29–33; 1 Sam 10:2; 2 Kgs 13:20–21; 23:17–18). As literature preserving clan traditions, the list of minor judges is analogous in some ways to the tribal blessings of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. However, the list is prose not poetry, celebrates status and prosperity in a way different from that presented in the tribal blessings, and focuses on items of individual biography rather than group characteristics and fortunes. The closest parallels remain the royal succession formulas in the book of Kings. Descriptions of official succession (whether literary or inscriptional) in all probability provided the model for the minor judges list. Because the Tola entry, like all the others, presumably began with the temporal preposition after, it seems that the original list was longer than what has been preserved. What appear to be fragments of the list come into view in 8:30 and 32: Gideon had seventy sons…and Gideon son of Joash died…and he was buried…in Ophrah). Samuel’s presence on the original list could be suggested on the basis of 1 Sam 7:15–17; 25:1: “Samuel judged Israel…year by year…and he judged Israel…. And Samuel died…and they buried him in his house at Ramah.”

204 Judges

Most likely, the list is an artificial scribal construction that was created by gathering elements of inherited tradition about clan structures, chronology, and geography. Perhaps the minor judges list functioned as a school text to be copied by practicing scribes. The influence of descriptions of royal succession suggest an origin in the monarchy period. Scribal activity presupposes a centralized monarchic government. The list of the minor judges was reused and manipulated as part of the compositional process that resulted in the book of Judges. As an inherited source document, these verses differ in character and language from their surrounding context, but are still linked thematically and structurally to that context. The rest of Judges is concerned with issues of leadership in war and fidelity in religion. This list instead reports on prestige, burial cities, and clan and tribe identifications. In the chronological pattern of the book of Judges, the years of tenure for these six worthies replace the periods of oppression (3:8, 14; 4:3; 6:1; 10:8; 13:1) and rest (3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28) reported for the other judges. The list presents an uninterrupted succession of leadership without gaps, in contrast to the other judges, whose tenures are interrupted by periods during which there are no judges. Most strikingly, the list judges are portrayed without reference to the cyclical pattern. Abimelech can be read as a period of apostasy and calamity. However, Tola abruptly materializes to deliver Israel without any plea on Israel’s part. Then Jair arises directly after him without any intervening apostasy, enemy oppression, or cry to God. The pattern only begins to cycle again with apostasy and repentance in 10:6–16 and Jephthah’s appearance in ch. 11. But then after Jephthah, the cyclical pattern disappears again. Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon judge Israel in uninterrupted sequence (after him; 12:8, 11, 13). The author divided an inherited six-item list into two parts (10:1–5 and 12:7–15). For Tola, the regular after him used for the other minor judges was changed to after Abimelech (10:1) in order to link Tola to ch. 9. That Tola arose to deliver Israel connects him to the hero judges (deliver in 2:16–18; 3:9, 15, 31; 8:22; 13:5) and portrays him as a response to the Abimelech crisis. Elsewhere in Judges, the hiphil of qwm (transitive, “raise up”) describes God’s provision of a deliverer (2:16, 18; 3:9, 15). The verb qwm used for Tola and Jair appears in qal stem (intransitive, “arose”), implying that their rise was a result of human events rather than divine activity. Jair’s location in Gilead fits well with the following Jephthah story, although 10:4b is most likely a supplementary gloss on the word cities (compare Josh 13:30). The first part of Jephthah’s formula was dropped in favor of narratives about his rise to office and his accomplishments. Only the last part of Jephthah’s list unit was retained (12:7),

 Judges 10

205

linking him to the following three minor judges and leading into the apostasy and oppression that precede Samson. The phrase judged Israel is applied to every one of the minor judges. This phrase is also used for Othniel (3:10), Deborah (4:4), and Samson (15:20; 16:31). The nominal form “judge” is used in the summary outline of 2:16–19. The most cogent explanation for this circumstance is that the author (that is, DH) adopted the phrase judged Israel and the concept of leadership in terms of judging from the minor judges list and applied it to the local heroes in order to turn them into national leaders. That the term “judge” was applied to civil rulers and administrative officials at Mari and Ugarit, as well as in Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, makes this development easier to understand. In a second authorial move, the chronological tenures that were part of the minor judges list were used by the author (DH) as part of the comprehensive chronology from the exodus to Solomon that reaches its culmination in 1 Kgs 6:1. Judges 10:6–10 contains usual elements of the cyclical framework. Supplemental materials in the framework conveyed in vv. 11–15 might represent a later addition to the core DH version of Judges. The resumptive repetition of we have sinned (vv. 10 and 15) may be an indication of such a later insertion. The pessimistic tone of these verses is somewhat similar to that of 2:1–5 and 6:7–10, although there are no striking linguistic connections. Certainly not all the nations mentioned in vv. 11–12 are present in the story Judges tells. Whether a somewhat later addition or not, vv. 10–15 are an extension of the concerns of v. 6. The total of seven nations in vv. 11–12 coordinate with the seven god groupings in v. 6, and those gods serve as the thematic subject of vv. 10, 13, and 14. Yahweh refers to Israel’s distressed state of v. 9 (impersonal verb) in v. 14 (noun), as does Jephthah later on in 11:7.

J u d g es 11

You Will Be Leader over Us Jephthah the Gileadite was a valiant warrior, but he was the son of a prostitute. Gilead was Jephthah’s father. 2 Gilead’s wife had also borne him sons. The wife’s sons grew up, and they drove Jephthah out. They said to him, “You shall not have an inheritance in our father’s house, because you are the son of another woman.” 3 So Jephthah fled from his brothers. He lived in the land of Tob. Men of low character flocked to Jephthah and went out marauding with him. 4 Some time later the Ammonites went to war against Israel. 5 When the Ammonites went to war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to bring Jephthah from the land of Tob. 6 They said to Jephthah, “Come and be our commander so we may fight against the Ammonites.” 7 But Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “You hated me, didn’t you, and drove me out from my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?” 8 The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “That is why we have turned to you now. So go with us and fight against the Ammonites. You will be leader over us, over all the inhabitants of Gilead.” 9 Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you bring me back to fight against the Ammonites, and Yahweh gives them up to me, I am the one to be leader over you.” 10 So the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “Yahweh will be a witness between us, if we do not do as you say.” 11 So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead. The people made him their leader and commander. Then Jephthah declared all his terms in Yahweh’s presence at Mizpah. 1

Negotiations with the Enemy King Then Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites, saying, “What quarrel do you have with me that you have come to me to fight against my land?” 13 The king of the Ammonites said to Jephthah’s messengers, “Because Israel took my land when it came up from Egypt, from the Arnon as far as the Jabbok and as far as the Jordan. Now give it back voluntarily.” 14 Again Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites. 15 He said to him, “Thus says Jephthah: Israel did not take away the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites. 16 When they came 12

 Judges 11 up from Egypt, Israel went through the wasteland to the Red Sea and came to Kadesh. 17 Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom saying, ‘Let me pass through your land.’ But the king of Edom did not listen. They also sent to the king of Moab, but he was not willing. So Israel remained at Kadesh. 18 Then they went through the wasteland and bypassed the land of Edom and the land of Moab. They approached from the east side of the land of Moab and camped on the far side of the Arnon. But they did not come into the territory of Moab, because the Arnon is the boundary of Moab. 19 Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, king of Heshbon. Israel said to him, ‘Let us pass through your land to my own place.’ 20 But Sihon did not trust Israel to pass through his territory, so Sihon gathered all his people together and camped at Jahaz. Then he fought against Israel. 21  Yahweh God of Israel gave Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel. They struck them down. So Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites who lived in that country. 22 They took possession of the whole territory of the Amorites from the Arnon as far as the Jabbok and from the wasteland as far as the Jordan. 23 So now, Yahweh God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites for the benefit of his people Israel. Are you the one to take their place? 24 You should possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess, shouldn’t you? But we will possess everything that Yahweh our God has given us to possess. 25 Now are you better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he contend against Israel? Did he go to war with them? 26 Why didn’t you recover Heshbon and its daughter villages or Aroer and its daughter villages or any of the cities on the banks of the Arnon during the 300 years that Israel has been living in them? 27 I certainly have not sinned against you. You are the one doing me wrong by making war on me. Let Yahweh the Judge decide today between the Israelites and the Ammonites!” 28 But the king of the Ammonites did not listen to the words of Jephthah that he had sent to him.

Jephthah’s Reckless Vow Then Yahweh’s spirit came upon Jephthah. He passed through Gilead and Manasseh and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead. From Mizpah of Gilead he moved against the Ammonites. 30 Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh. He said, “If you really will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then when I return safe and sound from the Ammonites, no matter what comes out of the doors of my house to meet me shall belong to Yahweh. I will offer it as a burnt offering.” 32 Then Jephthah moved toward the Ammonites to fight against them. Yahweh gave them into his hand. 33 He struck them down from Aroer to the approaches of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim. It was a powerful attack. So the Ammonites were subdued before the Israelites. 29

207

208 Judges Then Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah. There was his daughter coming out to meet him with tambourines and dances. She was his only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 Just as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes. He said, “Alas, my daughter! You have driven me to my knees. You have become one of my troublers. I have opened my mouth to Yahweh and cannot take it back.” 36 She said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh. Do to me in accord with what has gone out of your mouth, since Yahweh has worked vengeance for you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Let this be done for me. Allow me two months, so I may go with my companions and go down the mountains and weep for my status as a virgin.” 38 He said, “Go.” So he sent her away for two months. She and her friends went about and wept for her status as a virgin on the mountains. 39 At the end of two months, she returned to her father. He did to her as he had vowed. She had never had intercourse with a man. So it became a custom in Israel. 40 Year by year for four days each year, the daughters of Israel go to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. 34

Notes 1 prostitute] A woman socially marginalized because of sexual intercourse outside accepted norms (marriage, concubinage), usually for pay but not always (Deut 22:21). This status would put the paternity of any of her children under suspicion. Family association with a prostitute was a matter of shame (Gen 34:31; Amos 7:17). The sons born of Gilead’s marriage did not consider Jephthah part of their bet-ab (father’s house) and drove him away to protect their inheritance. 3 Tob] Not the city itself, but the region around et-Taiyibeh (2672 2190), far to the northeast of the narrative action. marauding] Hebrew: “went out with him,” but the bellicose implications are clear from context. For a similar situation, see 9:4; 1 Sam 22:2. 6 commander] qāṣîn, “sub-commander” (Josh 10:24) rather than the more lofty office of leader over the inhabitants of Gilead that Jephthah eventually achieves (rōš 10:18; 11:8–9, 11). Qāṣîn may denote a temporary role as field commander, with rōš referring to a permanent post. 7 father’s house] The Greek tradition follows with “and you sent me away from you,” no doubt on the basis of Gen 26:27. 8 That is why] This expression is usually translated as “therefore.” Possibilities in this context include “even so,” “nevertheless,” and “honestly.” Alternative translations of v. 8b are “If you go with us and fight, then you shall be” (compare NJPS) or “so that you may go with us and fight and become” (NRSV). OG (LXXAL) may have read (or interpreted as) lō ken “not so.”

 Judges 11

209

9 I am the one to be] The pronoun I is emphatic. The commentary translation represents Jephthah as conditioning leadership upon a successful campaign. It is possible to translate this as a challenging question, “If you bring me back to fight…and Yahweh gives them up to me, will I really be leader over you?” (Compare NIV.) 11 the people] Follows MT. OG (LXXL OL) Syr omitted this because the elders, not the people, had announced their intention to do this in v. 8. Terms] Hebrew: “words.” Context indicates the stipulations of his agreement with the elders. 12 What quarrel do we have with each other?] The lamed of interest (IBHS 18.3b). Translated more neutrally: “What have we have to do with each other?” For this idiom, see 2 Sam 16:10; 19:23; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chr 35:21. The expression creates distance between the parties and puts the one addressed on the defensive. 13 it] Hebrew has a plural feminine pronoun, either because v. 15 indicates that two territorial entities are under consideration or as a reference to plural cities. Some Greek witnesses and V unsurprisingly leveled this to singular. Voluntarily] Hebrew: “in peace.” Context requires this meaning (HALOT 4:1509). OG (LXXAL OL) follows with “and the messengers returned to Jephthah” in order to let them be sent out again in v. 14. 19 let us] Follows MT. OG Theodotion V and some Hebrew manuscripts flatten out the text to “let me” (compare v. 17 and my own place in this verse). Perhaps Num 21:22 influenced the Greek textual tradition. 20 did not trust] Follows MT as the more difficult text, the verbal grammar being anomalous. Verses 19–21 exhibit a compositional relationship with Num 21:21–24 and Deut 2:26–37. Judges 11:20 has wl hymn, “and he did not trust.” Numbers 20:21 has hymn piel “and he refused.” One suspects that Judges is dependent on Numbers here and that a transposition of letters has taken place. OG has kai oak ēthelēsen, that is wəlō ābâ “he was not willing.” This looks back to Judg 11:17 and harmonizes with the OG translation for “refused” in Num 20:21. Jahaz] Evidence from the Bible and the Mesha Inscription suggest a location on the eastern edge of the tableland and northeast of Dibon. Khirbet el-Mudeiyineh (2362 1109) is usually suggested. 23 to take their place] Follows the translation strategy of NRSV in construing the verb yrš qal as “be heir to someone” (as Gen 15:3, 4). The Hebrew uses the gentilic “the Amorite” in v. 23a so the singular object suffix “him” is used in v. 23b. 24 gives you to possess] The second person suffix is part of a double accusative. OG, as is proper in good Greek style, treats the suffix as an indirect object. BHS suggests that “you” may be a dittography of next letter: ywryš[k] kmwš, although this is hardly the OG reading as indicated by the misleading note in BHS. The commentary translation renders the hiphil of yrš as “cause you to possess it” in v. 24a and as “dispossess before us” (and so “give us to possess”) in v. 24b.

210 Judges 26 Aroer] The masoretic vocalization is not the standard one; contrast v. 33. 29 from Mizpah of Gilead he moved against the Ammonites] Follows MT, which is unusual in reading the verb br without a following preposition to complete its meaning. OG supports the consonantal text of MT, but reads the verb as the preposition ēber “to the other side (of the Ammonites).” 30 really] Jephthah used an infinitive absolute plus finite verb syntax to express doubt (IBHS 35.3.1g). 31 no matter what comes out] Or else “who.” The Hebrew is ambiguous. Modern translators prefer to use “whatever” (NRSV NABRE have “whoever”). OG and V fail to witness the participle hywṣ as a matter of translation strategy, but both clearly indicate that the vow involves a person. The OG translator may show knowledge of the Iphigenia story. Josephus (Ant. 5.263) and LAB 39.11 opt for a non-personal referent. In the latter, God becomes angry because an unclean animal such as a dog might have been sacrificed. The Hebrew grammar of the vow is emphatic: “the coming out one that comes out.” safe and sound] Hebrew: “in peace.” 33 Aroer…Minnith…Abel-keramim] The first place is not the more commonly mentioned Aroer on the banks of the Arnon (v. 26), but another one located “before” (that is west of) the Ammonite capital (Josh 13:25). Minnith must be the Maanith of Eusebius, four milestones from Heshbon toward Amman. Abel-keramim is the Abila of Eusebius, six milestones in some direction from Amman. Aroer (and probably Abel-keramim) are thus located in territory west of the Ammonite capital, and Minnith is to the southwest. None can be located with certainty, but many identify Minnith as Umm el-Basatin (2329 1366). 34 except for her] Follows OG Syr T. MT “except for him” is the result of corruption caused by the immediately preceding lw “his” or the following bn “son.” 35 driven me to my knees] Intensive expression with an infinitive absolute. In v. 35a, the verbal root kr forms a wordplay with kr “to trouble, thwart achievement of a goal.” The ancient versions had difficulty with this text and tended to level to the same verb (“trouble”) in both clauses. You have become one of my troublers.] The syntax focuses on her status as troubler, not her troubling actions. Compare NJB: “You have joined those who bring misery into my life!” If the preposition is taken as a beth of identity (essentiae), she is acting in the character of those who trouble him (the participle is plural). If one thinks of a beth of accompaniment (comitantiae), she has associated herself with those who trouble him. IBHS 11.2.5 d, e. She is like Elijah and Achan, who are each “the troubler of Israel” (1 Kgs 18:17; 1 Chr 2:7), or like “the troubler of one’s house” (Prov 11:29; 15:27). In v. 35aβ–bα, the subject pronouns are emphatic and contrastive: “you have become…I have opened.”

 Judges 11

211

36 My father]. Follows MT ābî. The OG reading, preserved as a doublet, is hăbî, “if through me.” 37 go…and go down] This is awkward with “upon the mountains.” The geographical implications of yrd are complex, and the verb sometimes seems to indicate ascent rather than descent (15:8; Ruth 3:3; 2 Kgs 6:18). Perhaps this means “go down through the mountains to a lower locale” (compare REB). Perhaps the idea is that she had to first go down from Mizpah in order to go to the mountains that she wanted to get to. Some emend “go down” to the verbal root rwd “wander, roam” (as NRSV), which was the translational direction taken by T Syr V. LXXL (perhaps OG) recognized the difficulty and translated the same text as given in MT as epibēsomai, “go forth upon the mountains.” my companions] Follows the plural of qere in agreement with v. 38 and the ancient versions. 39 vowed] Masoretic punctuation and the ancient versions divide the verse so that her continued virginity in v. 39b is not equated with the content of Jephthah’s vow. Some (such as BHS) place the verse divider after “man,” implying that the result of his vow was her ongoing virginity, not her death. it became a custom] Alternative translation: “prescribed practice” or “rule.” The abstract feminine subject refers to the content of the following verse. To convey this, modern translations generally run the last words of v. 39 into v. 40. NJPS: “So it became a custom in Israel for the maidens of Israel to go.” 40 commemorate] By reciting or singing antiphonally, as in 5:11; HALOT 4:1759–60. NJPS: “chant dirges.”

Structure and Rhetoric The main plot problem, as set forth in the exposition segment 10:8, 9, 17, is that Ammonite forces have been oppressing Israel for years, entering the west of Jordan highlands, and now have strategically positioned themselves inside Gilead. Of course, lurking in the background is a bigger and less resolvable problem of Yahweh’s ambiguous and apparently negative attitude toward Israel in spite of its change in behavior (10:16). Israel’s counter-positioning at Mizpah (10:17) holds the military facet of the plot at bay while the first of two subplots is explored. The first subsidiary narrative problem is the question of 10:18: Who…will be first to fight? A second sub-plot involves the outcome of Jephthah’s negotiations with the Ammonite king (vv. 12–28). The main plot problem of Ammonite aggression cannot go forward until both sub-plots are resolved. Jephthah wins his victory, but this plot resolution is encapsulated and overshadowed by the matter of his vow.

212 Judges

In some ways the Jephthah narrative functions as a counterpiece to the Abimelech story. Both discourse on the relationship between power and kinship. Jephthah’s men in 11:33 are designated in the same way as those who served as Abimelech’s henchmen in 9:4. Jephthah shared Abimelech’s social impediment with respect to genealogy, but as a son of a prostitute, Jephthah had even less legal standing. Both are in conflict with their more legitimate brothers. [1–11] The beginning of ch. 11 provides further (delayed) exposition in the form of a parenthetical narrative that introduces the protagonist. Verse 1 begins with circumstantial syntax. Here the reader learns that one Jephthah is a Gileadite and, like Gideon, a valiant warrior (6:12). However, it is also revealed that he is marginalized in his kinship unit because of his mother’s status. Jephthah is a man with a grudge who has been treated poorly by his father’s other sons in order to safeguard their inheritance. He lives far away. He seems an unlikely prospect to become the man…first to fight and leader over…Gilead (10:18). In 11:3, the narrative uses Jephthah’s career as an outlaw gang leader as a rhetorical signal for his future rise to power. In this his career is similar to the story of David’s early rise (1 Sam 22:2), the report about Rezon the upstart king of Damascus (1 Kgs 11:24), and the autobiographical account of Idrimi king of Alalakh concerning his preparatory time in the desert and among the Habiru (ANET, 557–58; COS 1.148:479–80). Like David, Rezon, and Idrimi, Jephthah starts as an outcast exile. Jephthah’s brief introduction in vv. 1–3 is parenthetic in that 11:4 restarts the main military threat plot by reporting the Ammonites next warlike move some indefinite time later. However, a repetition of v. 4 as v. 5a immediately returns the narrative action to the problem of leadership and the question of 10:18. Judges 11:5 moves beyond the first stage of the open-ended question of who into an invitation. The elders take the initiative. Jephthah as judge is chosen via human means to a human office with a formal title. Yahweh in the shape of Yahweh’s spirit will only become involved in v. 29. The elders are shown to be in a weak negotiating position in that they themselves must travel a long distance north to confer with Jephthah (went to bring). Commentators sometimes imagine a messenger situation that is nowhere mentioned. As will be true again later in the chapter, a complex negotiating process delays resolution of the subplot and creates narrative tension. According to 10:18, the candidate was to be offered the office of leader (Hebrew: “head”). However, the elders only offer Jephthah the office of a qāṣîn. There is not enough evidence to define this word precisely (see note on

 Judges 11

213

11:6), but it is clearly not the leadership over all Gilead that constitutes their more generous second offer in v. 8. In v. 7, Jephthah answers their proposition with accusatory and rhetorical questions. He blames the elders for the actions of his relatives. Perhaps if he judges his brothers’ act as a violation of inheritance laws, Jephthah may be blaming the elders for failing to decide justly in the legal process. However, he may just as well be overstating his case by generalizing the blame in order to improve his negotiating stance. The elder’s second and more generous offer in v. 8 shows that they understand that Jephthah is angling for a better deal. To come to an agreement with him, they must offer him the status they had earlier announced that they would grant to a fully legitimate member of their tribal group (10:18). He is to be leader…over all the inhabitants of Gilead. In v. 9 Jephthah seeks to nail down the agreement, contingent on victory. Then in v. 10 the elders clinch the deal by taking an oath (witness between us) so that Yahweh may guarantee performance of their part of the bargain. Finally in v. 11, Jephthah returns home. Now there is a formal contract, and he is installed in both offices as both permanent leader (Hebrew: “head”) and military commander (qāṣîn). He both confirms the agreement and assures that the elders will act in accordance with it by reciting it before Yahweh in a sacral place. Mention of Mizpah takes the reader back to 10:17 and serves as a reminder that the military threat of the main plot continues to menace (11:4). The reader may judge that reinstatement into Jephthah’s familial kinship structure would have been an unspoken assumption in the resolution agreement. [12–28] Rather than now reporting warfare, however, the narrative action at once defaults to another negotiation sub-plot, this time between Jephthah and the enemy king. Sending messengers to parley would not at all have been unexpected (Deut 20:10–12; 1 Kgs 20:1–11; 2 Kgs 14:8–10; 19:9–13). Indeed the expected convention is in fact illustrated in Jephthah’s reported speech during the course of the negotiations themselves (Judg 11:17, 19). This plot detour has the rhetorical effect of further delaying the action, which will not restart until the failure of the peace talks is assured. Resumption of the war plot takes place when the Ammonite king, emulating the king of Edom, did not listen (wəlō šāma melek, vv. 17 and 28). An opening exchange of messengers instituted by Jephthah sets the general parameters for the dispute. Speaking as one negotiating from his new position in high office (compare Gen 20:15), he asserts that it is my land. No, counters the Ammonite king in v. 13, Israel took my

214 Judges

land, territory directly west of the Ammonite homeland, north of the Arnon River, and south of the Jabbok. With these words, the enemy king makes what the readership knows is a false accusation in order to set up the narrative opportunity for Jephthah to respond in harmony with the national history the audience knows to be true, namely that the territory under dispute was once Sihon’s kingdom (v. 22). Jephthah’s messengers return his response. Verse 15 states his main thesis statement and basic argument: Israel took no land that ever belonged to either Moab or Ammon. This assertion is then supported by a historical review in vv. 16–22. This concludes in v. 22 with a direct rejection of the Ammonite claim made in v. 13 by means of exactly repeated language (from the Arnon as far as the Jabbok and as far as the Jordan). Indeed, Jephthah further solidifies Israel’s claim in v. 22 by adding an eastern border in the shape of the wasteland. This clarifies the proper boundary line over against the Ammonite heartland. Theological arguments follow in vv. 23–24. Jephthah then offers an argument citing comparative leadership profiles in v. 25 and a chronological one in v. 26. His conclusion in v. 27 brings the dispute into a juridical context of right and wrong and concludes by calling on Yahweh to decide. Moabites cast a strange shadow over the debate. Indeed, Jephthah brings Moab into the picture right away (v. 15), asserting that Israel did not take any land of Moab or land of the Ammonites. Israel never encroached into Moab proper, for the Arnon is the boundary of Moab (v. 18), and it is territory north of the Arnon that is in dispute. This, along with mention of the Moabite god Chemosh in v. 24, has disturbed scholars. Some have gone so far as to isolate an older argument against Moab (vv. 15abα, 16–26) and a later Ammonite frame (vv. 12–14, 15bβ, 27–28). It seems likely that the presence of Moab is important not so much to the Ammonite king as to the Israelite readership. Much of the territory north of the Arnon continued to be claimed by both Israel and Moab (Mesha Inscription, 2 Kgs 3). Thus, the tradition about Sihon unsurprisingly continued to play its usual role as a bulwark against Moabite pretensions even as Jephthah mobilizes it for a new purpose against the Ammonites. In the context of monarchic Israel, any assertions involving land northward from the Arnon would inevitably be entangled with Moab (and its god Chemosh). One could not talk about this territory without taking into account that much of it had once belonged to Moab (vv. 15, 18b). Unstated, but hovering behind the Israelite negotiating position, is an ancient, poetic tradition that Sihon had once taken territory south of Heshbon down to the Arnon away from Moab (Num 21:26–30). Presumably there was no need for the

 Judges 11

215

audience to be explicitly reminded of this core tradition. When Jephthah explicitly invokes the name of the victory site Jahaz (v. 20), he mobilizes the Sihon tradition as part of his argument (Num 21:23; Deut 2:32). A stock phrase featuring this place name was used in oracles against Moab (Isa 15:4; Jer 48:34). In Judg 11:26, Jephthah’s assertion that Israel has long occupied the more southern portion of the land disputed by Ammon, that is, Heshbon, Aroer, and the Arnon towns, is also made with concerns about dangers of Moabite encroachment in view. The theological argument of 11:23–24 is subtle. Israel and Yahweh, as God of Israel, are in a special relationship, and the land in question was given by Yahweh on the basis of that relationship. History shows that opposing Yahweh is suicidal, and Balak, for one, learned that lesson (v. 25). Ammon must be satisfied with what Chemosh gave them. But why Chemosh rather than the Ammonite national god Milcom (1 Kgs 11:5, 7, 33; Zeph 1:4–6)? Chemosh (Kamash) is found in theophoric names at Ebla and in Akkadian documents, but nothing witnesses to any association with Ammon. This is one reason why some suggest that Jephthah’s speech originally involved a conflict with Moab rather than Ammon. Probably, however, neither Jephthah nor early readers cared that much about the “history of religions” aspects of this situation. Most likely, Jephthah is referring to otherwise undefined territories that had once been Moabite and now are Ammonite. These lands are not claimed by Israel because they had not been taken by Israel from Sihon. Israel has never made any claim on legitimately Moabite territory (vv. 15, 18). The land that Ammon should be satisfied with belonged to Chemosh. Ammon had obtained it from Moab, perhaps because Chemosh was angry with the Moabites. The territory in question is permanently associated with Chemosh no matter who lives there now, and Chemosh remains its god for treaty and “diplomatic” purposes. Early Israel supposed that territorial gods were active within the limits of their own terrain (Ruth 1:15; 1 Sam 26:19; 2 Kgs 3:27). Verse 25 is something of an ad hominem argument set in a rhetorical question. Do you really think you are superior to Balak king of Moab, who never tried to challenge in a military way Israel’s ownership of this land? Again the notion that Moab had some kind of bygone but now invalidated claim to the south part of the land in question (Num 21: 26–30) lurks in the background. Verse 26 point toward the long duration of the status quo. Three hundred years (perhaps a secondary gloss) is a big round number, communicating a period as long as anyone can remember. It also approximates the book’s

216 Judges

chronology, since adding the years of oppression and the periods of rule up to this point results in 301 years. Of course this is rhetoric, not genuine history. In passing, the invocation of urban domains of Sihon’s capital Heshbon and Aroer, along with the Arnon boundary river, provides a further, blatant reminder of Israel’s decisive victory over Sihon, which is Jephthah’s central claim. Heshbon is tightly associated with Sihon in song and story. Jephthah concludes with a claim of personal innocence in v. 27, again wrapping up group action with an almost royal first person singular. The juridical aspects of the situation, first raised by the question and response of vv. 12–13, now come fully to the surface. It is proper to give this matter over to Yahweh’s judgment. Jephthah applies both the substantive judge, used only in the introductory 2:18 and 19, and the associated verb used for many of the humans in the book (translated here as decide), to Yahweh (compare 1 Sam 24.15). With his call for a decision on the divine level, Jephthah makes an implicit threat. Right is on our side, and so, if it comes to it, Yahweh the Judge will decide this in our favor on the field of battle. As Jephthah makes his case, he employs subtle rhetorical devices. For example, he uses a rhetoric of repetition (vv. 17 and 19; Kadesh in vv. 16 and 17; Amorites in vv. 21, 22, 23), rhetorical questions (vv. 23, 24, 25, 26), and emphatic language. Ammon does not appear on the stage of his historical review (contrast Num 21:24; Deut 2:19, 21, 37), leaving Ammon completely out of the picture—off stage as it were—during Israel’s annexation of Sihon’s kingdom. Scrupulously asserting that Israel never took any land of Edom or Moab supports the claim that they took no land from Ammon either. In effect Jephthah says to the Ammonite king, “You have legitimate claims, but they are limited only to land Chemosh has granted you. Our history shows we are reluctant to fight, and we only fought for this territory because of Sihon’s obstinacy. Balak wisely refused to engage us; Sihon was defeated when he chose to.” The enemy king did not listen (v. 28, compare v. 17), and this brings the negotiation sub-plot to a close. It is time to return to the main plot of invasion and sacral war. Jephthah’s words in v. 27, along with the gift of Yahweh’s spirit (v. 29; compare 3:10; 6:34), however, suggest that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Spirit shifts the balance from the purely human arena to divine involvement. Its advent provides God’s response to the declaration let Yahweh the Judge decide in v. 27 and brings to an end the anxious narrative tension created by protracted negotiations. It has been a long while since Yahweh’s spirt has appeared on stage (3:10; 6:34), and this perhaps echoes Yahweh’s stated unwillingness to deliver Israel (10:13–16).

 Judges 11

217

[29–40] Verse 29 restarts the main plot with the narrative device of travel by the protagonist. The verse uses the thematic verb br (passed, moved) three times. This verb is used throughout the Jephthah story (10:9; 11:17, 19, 20, 32; 12:1, 3, 5). The narration has failed to inform us of any move from the Mizpah of v. 11. Presumably Jephthah moves down from some marginal position into the arena of conflict and launches his attack from the Israelite encampment of the Mizpah of 10:17. Perhaps one is to see a mustering tour as he passed through Gilead and Manasseh (v. 29a).The virtually repeated phrase moved against the Ammonites (v. 29) and moved toward the Ammonites (v. 32) encloses the incident of his vow. Thus, the battle story resolves the main plot and makes a sandwich around the new sub-plot of Jephthah’s vow. The main plot climax arrives in v. 32, signaled by traditional sacral war language: gave them into his hand, struck them down from…to…and as far as and the standard cyclical frame language of were subdued (3:30; 4:23; 8:28). The subject of v. 33 is indeterminate (possibly Yahweh but probably Jephthah). The Ammonites flee in directions that communicate a return to their home territory, although the details are obscure (see note on v. 33). But of course the reader cannot rest at this point, for the narrative tension created by v. 31 must be resolved. Who or what will come out? If it is a person or an animal that cannot lawfully be sacrificed, what will Jephthah do? The reader must assume that Jephthah’s improper vow was made at the point between the two mentions of Mizpah in v. 29. It is the path of least resistance to understand this Mizpah as his home town (v. 34; consider return in v. 31). Verse 30 represents Jephthah’s only direct address to Yahweh. As is usually the case in the Hebrew Bible, the description of his vow leaves Jephthah’s intentions, motivation, and state of mind unexplained. Unsurprisingly, readers over the centuries have sought to fill in the blanks, with varying degrees of defensive rationalization and, more recently, outrage. It is not unreasonable to see his vow as an indication that he is not completely sure of victory. The tautological infinitive absolute syntax of v. 30 certainly suggests this: If you really will give. Strikingly, this uncertainly comes on the heels of the bestowal of Yahweh’s spirit in v. 29. One is reminded of Gideon’s need to test matters even after 6:34. The scope envisioned by the wording of Jephthah’s vow is disturbingly open ended. His vow remains completely equivocal and sounds like “who or what, person or animal” comes out first to meet me (see note on v. 30). Will the reader think that a domestic animal is intended? The ancient reader might have been more likely to hear the vow as promising

218 Judges

the burnt offering of an animal, given a cultural context that abhorred human sacrifice. Nevertheless, human sacrifice was sometimes practiced in Israel (2 Kgs 16.3; Ezek 20:25–26:31; compare Gen 22). The standard four-room house could accommodate domestic animals in its central area, but would a sheep or goat be likely to wander out to meet someone? Perhaps a dog might, but such an animal would be unclean as a sacrifice, and a donkey would create the same problem. Certainly a human being would be much more likely to greet Jephthah than a domestic animal. This would be particularly true of one of the women of the house, who would be expected to greet the returning hero with music and dance. Verse 34 describes women’s traditional role of singing with tambourines and dances to welcome victors home (Exod 15:20–21; Judg 5:28; Jer 31:4; Pss 68:26–27; 149:3). Is this a sort of Russian roulette, with the hope that, if it is indeed a woman who comes out first to celebrate, she would only be a slave or concubine and not his only daughter? Perhaps the reader is to assume that Jephthah is in an overexcited state, full of divine spirit and on the way to his rendezvous with destiny, and so simply does not realize the implications of what he says. After all, that is what defines a rash and foolish vow. The narration has given no hint that Jephthah thinks is performing a pious act. So far he has been presented as a tough negotiator, effective rhetorician, and someone who seeks guarantees (from the elders, vv. 7–11). Perhaps we are to read this is a manipulative vow, intended to ensure Yahweh’s support. But of course, Jephthah’s motives remain hidden. Only from his reaction do we get insight. Since Yahweh has now reentered the action in v. 29, the reader is likely to notice that Yahweh remains silent in the face of Jephthah’s vow. Indeed, the narrator does not even note any lack of divine response. What is the reader to make of this divine silence? Some interpret it as acceptance and complicity, reading a relationship between the vow and the conferral of the deity’s spirit. In analyzing the vow, one immediately notices that the language is not communal but first person singular (compare v. 12). The syntactical structure is the same as that of Israel’s vow concerning Hormah in Num 21:2. A sobering comparison can be made between Gideon’s threat against Penuel (8:9) when he would “return in peace” (commentary translation: safe and sound). This is a two-part vow in that the emerging greeter will not just belong to Yahweh (as a sanctuary slave or dedicated person might) but also be a burnt offering to Yahweh. JPSV and NRSV display an odd delicacy by avoiding the active voice I will offer it (compare Gen 22:2; 2 Kgs 3:27) in favor of a passive construction, “offered by me.”

 Judges 11

219

Verse 32 uses the same give…into…hand language employed in Jephthah’s vow to describe victory, thus pushing the vow episode to the forefront even as the Ammonite problem is resolved. Like Jephthah, the first-time reader may be caught unaware when a daughter emerges. In the vow itself, the verb forms and object suffix were in the default masculine, leaving the issue of gender open. Until v. 34, the reader does not even know that Jephthah has a daughter and, for that matter, that he has only one child. Verse 34 reveals the tragic surprise with two circumstantial clauses: there was his daughter coming out to meet him (the verbal forms exactly fulfilling v. 31) and she was his only child. She comes out alone, appropriate for a youngster without siblings. Accordingly, this is a private moment, not a public greeting like that of 1 Sam 8:6–7. The tragedy is deepened with the information that she is his only child, rhetorically effective as an instance of delayed exposition and emphasized by repetitive grammar (only child…neither son nor daughter). This directs the reader’s attention to the vehemence of Jephthah’s reaction. The Hebrew word yəhîd (only child) offers a connection, at least in a canonical sense, to the demand that Abraham sacrifice his only child (Gen 22:2, where the same word is used). Here the initiating causation is a human vow rather than a divine command, and the butchery is not halted but executed. Abraham is presented is a paragon of faith and obedience; Jephthah as an example of thoughtless unfaith. Narrative attention in v. 35 remains on Jephthah. His reaction is open to a variety of reader interpretations. He expresses grief only for himself, but still addresses her as what could be seen as an affectionate my daughter—and she replies with my father. His two you statements sounds like accusations in our ears, sensitive to the human penchant for blaming the victim. But he also recognizes that his behavior is the ultimate causative factor. In v. 36 she picks up his words I have opened my mouth to Yahweh and agrees that he cannot take it back. Ancient readers would probably have been conflicted about the insistence by both Jephthah and his daughter that a vow once made is irrevocable. This rigorous position is asserted by Deut 23.22 [ET 21]; Num 30:3 [ET 2]; Prov 20.25; and Judg 21:17. But Saul managed to work himself out of the vow that threatened his son in 1 Sam 14:44–45. Leviticus 27:1–8 might have allowed Jephthah to escape by appraising a monetary equivalent for a vowed person. The daughter uses verbs that focus on Jephthah and his mouth (you have opened your mouth…. what has gone out of your mouth), not really on the concept of vow, which she passes over. This implies that her father’s original purpose or intention does not matter, only the raw fact of his

220 Judges

words themselves. She accepts her fate with do to me (aśēh lî) as the appropriate correlative to Yahweh’s doing of vengeance for her father (āśâ lekâ, Hebrew: “done for you”). Bətûlîm (status as a virgin; vv. 37–38) is an abstract plural of a state or condition. She will not experience the social role of being married. This bətûlâ social status is not essentially a matter of not having had sex, but of being of marriageable age and not yet married, on being fertile but not having birthed a first child. Such a young woman would still be a member of her father’s bet-ab. She is lamenting that her present place in the social life-cycle will not move on to the next appropriate stage. The opposite of the married state is “forsaken” and “desolate” (2 Sam 13:20; Isa 54:1; 62:4). Telling the daughter story as the conclusion for a narrative of sacral war deliverance requires explanation. The effect is to cloud the resolution of the chief narrative problem of Ammonite aggression with heartbreaking tragedy. Perhaps in a subtle sort of way, this arrangement highlights that the deeper narrative problem of the relationship breakdown between Israel and Yahweh (10:16b) has not really been resolved. Immediately following his reception of Yahweh’s empowering spirit, Israel’s “man of the hour” gets entangled in a faithless, foolish, and shameful vow to Yahweh. In this way, Jephthah contributes to the overall configuration of descent from good judges (Othniel, Ehud, Deborah) in the direction of more problematic ones (Gideon, Samson). It reminds us that unqualified heroes without flaws are rare in Hebrew literature, as they are in Greek literature. Jephthah’s daughter has received immense attention from modern interpreters, who find it significant that her name is never mentioned. One reading suggests that the tale advances the message that if you want to be honored and remembered, obey the strictures of patriarchy in society and religion. These readers judge that her own heroic and worthy story has been completely co-opted for patriarchal indoctrination. Other interpreters emphasize her maturity and loyalty in the face of her father’s folly and inflexibility. Her companions may be seen as a sisterhood of women’s solidarity with who she can explore her pain. As a character, the nameless young woman is portrayed sympathetically, although modern readers may be exasperated with her. She knows the code of proper behavior and will not make her foolish father’s situation more difficult. To refuse her father’s vow would be to dishonor him. She really has no social options or any place to go, except for a temporary respite in the community of her peers. She is courageous, devout, and takes control of how she will spend the last months of her life. Jephthah

 Judges 11

221

too experiences tragedy; he is now childless. Verse 39a describes her fate in as euphemistic a way as possible, but refers directly back to Jephthah’s vow, lest a reader imagine that she was not actually killed. (Nevertheless, the text was often received in this way by medieval rabbinic and Christian interpreters.) Her tragic state is underscored by she had never had intercourse with a man in v. 39b. This is also a reminder that Jephthah’s line is now extinct. In contrast, according to v. 40 she is still remembered. Jephthah the Gileadite in v. 40 creates something of a bracket with the same expression in v. 1, surrounding the whole chronicle of Jephthah’s troubles with family and lineage. In v. 1 the narrative problem centers on his role as son; in v. 40 the death of his daughter is the subject matter. The same wording will also terminate the end of his career in 12:7. Genre and Composition Verses 12–28 provide a clear example of the genre of juridical indictment or rib (from the verbal root rîb, “to conduct a lawsuit”). The rib context starts with the accusatory expression of v. 12 and becomes fully apparent in v. 27: I…have not sinned against you…you are…doing me wrong…. let Yahweh the Judge decide. Other examples of the genre are Deut 32:1–43; Isa 1:1–2:5; Mic 2:6–11; and various ancient West Asian documents involving kings and treaties. Characteristic elements reflected in Jephthah’s speech are a historical review of the situation (vv. 15–22), rhetorical interrogation (vv. 23–26), assertion of culpability (v. 27a), and a call for adjudication (v. 27b). Jephthah’s use of land entry and conquest traditions (vv. 19–22) represents a “setting in life in literature” example of a genuine setting in life (Sitz im Leben) for traditional tales about ancestral movements and victories. Such stories were told and retold in order to back up claims to Israel’s homeland, claims that were often under threat from invaders or centralized authorities. The song about Heshbon, Sihon, and Moab, in Num 21:27–30 must be among the most ancient of these extant. “From…to” lines of extent are common in geographic descriptions. These designate territory in a less precise way than city lists or boundary descriptions, with which they are mixed in Joshua to delineate tribal territory. Examples are Exod 23:31; Num 13:21; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4; 11:17; 12:1–5, 7; 13:3–4, 6, 9, 16–17, 26; 2 Sam 24:2. The king of Ammon and then Jephthah use precisely the same line of extent to express their claim: from the Arnon as far as the Jabbok and [Jephthah adds from the wasteland] as far as the Jordan (vv. 13 and 22). The Ammonite king calls this territory my land; Jephthah insists this same region was once

222 Judges

the territory of the Amorites. In v. 26, Jephthah uses a truncated city list (not unlike the example in Josh 17:11 [parallel: Judg 1:27] mentioning daughter villages) to delineate the south portion of the disputed territory: Heshbon and its…villages, Aroer and its…villages…cities on…the Arnon. Lines of extent are sometimes used to summarize the results of victory, as in Num 21:24; Josh 10:41; and 2 Sam 5:25. This is how the genre is used in Judg 11:33. Two lines of extent are drawn from a second, more northern Aroer. The first runs as far as the neighborhood of Minnith, incorporating twenty cities; the second goes out as far as Abel-keramim. This same pattern of a double line from one starting point is evidenced in Josh 10:41 and 11:8. Thus, v. 33 does not describe a circling motion first to the south and then back north, as is often supposed. Instead, victory is described though a format used primarily to describe regions belonging to a group. It does not just describe the path of victory, but rhetorically supports Israel’s territorial claim. Of course one must remember that the text is expressing a geography that readers would accept as reasonable, not (it would seem) the course of any historical campaign. The historical logic used by Jephthah calls upon a venerable tradition of Israel’s maneuvers and triumph in territory east of the Jordan. Judges 11:13–26 exhibits closer intertextual connections with Numbers 21–22 than it does with Deuteronomy 2. The latter handles Edom in a different manner (Deut 2:29) and presents a distinctive kinship theme. There is no scholarly agreement about the direction or degree of literary dependence. Salient features shared by the Judges and Numbers versions are: 1. from Egypt to Kadesh to interact with Edom (Num 20:16, 22–23; Judg 11:16) 2. Edom was asked and refused permission to pass through (Num 20:20–21 and Judg 11:17; Deut 2:29 suggests that Edom allowed passage) 3. Israel avoided both Edom and Moab (Num 20:21; 21:4, 13; Judg 11:18) 4. Sihon was asked and refused to give permission to pass through (Num 21:21–22; Judg 11:19) 5. Sihon fought at Jahaz and was defeated (Num 21:23; Judg 11:20) 6. The territory in question is from the Arnon as far as the Jabbok (Num 21:24; Judg 11:13, 22) 7. It belonged to neither Ammon nor Moab, but was taken from Amorites ruled by Sihon (Num 21:25–26; Judg 11:15, 21–22, 23) 8. Balak son of Zippor was king of Moab (Num 22; Judg 11:25)

 Judges 11

223

The key to understanding the genre of the daughter of Jephthah sacrifice story lies in vv. 39bβ–40. This is a folktale used as an etiology, a foundation legend explaining the origin of a four-day cultural/religious custom. Perhaps young women observed some kind of mourning ritual concerning transition out from the stage of virginity to the next stage of marriageability, perhaps as a rite of passage. No other trace of such a custom appears in the Hebrew Bible, so this postscript may really be an authorial technique to create the reader’s trust in the tale’s veracity. Perhaps v. 37 refers to those who would have been her bridesmaids (the same word is used in Ps 45:15 [ET 14]). Folktales of a similar nature appear in classical literature, although one need not postulate any sort of dependence. In Book III of the Aeneid, one Idomeneus vows to sacrifice to Poseidon the first living thing to meet him on his return from Troy, and this turns out to be his son. In post-Homeric works, Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia to appease Artemis as the price for letting his ships sail for Troy. Some have suggested a connection of names. This may be tempting, but Jephthah is a perfectly acceptable Semitic theophoric name, the short form of “may [the god] open [the womb?]” or “set free.” Similar toponyms appear in Josh 15:43; 19:14, 27. The name Iphigenia is itself a good Greek formation (“strong born, mighty”). These similar (or perhaps shared) stories are a reminder that Israel was culturally part of the eastern Mediterranean world as well as that of Syria and Mesopotamia. Both the Greeks and the Israelites possessed a societal memory (or even practice) of child sacrifice, an honor and shame culture, a strong patriarchal family structure, and a robust sense of tragedy.

J ud g es 12

Jephthah Overcomes Ephraim The men of Ephraim were called out and they crossed over to Zaphon. They said to Jephthah, “Why did you move out to fight the Ammonites, but did not call us out to go with you? We will burn your house down on top of you!” 2 Jephthah said to them, “My people and I were in a bitter conflict, and the Ammonites oppressed me very much. I called you, but you did not come to deliver me from their power. 3 When I saw that you were not going to be a deliverer, I risked my life, and moved out against the Ammonites. Then Yahweh gave them into my power. So why have you come up against me today to fight against me?” 4 Then Jephthah gathered all the men of Gilead and fought against Ephraim. The men of Gilead struck Ephraim down, because they had said, “You Gilead, you are nothing but fugitives from Ephraim. Being in Manasseh is like being in Ephraim.” 5 Then Gilead captured the fords of the Jordan against Ephraim. Whenever fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me cross,” the men of Gilead would say to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he said, “No,” 6 they would say to him, “Say ‘shibboleth.’ ” But he would say “sibboleth,” not being able to pronounce it correctly. Then they would seize him and butcher him at the fords of the Jordan. At that time, 42,000 fell from Ephraim. 7 Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in his city Mizpah of Gilead. 1

Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon After him, Ibzan from Bethlehem judged Israel. 9 He had thirty sons, as well as thirty daughters whom he sent off in marriage outside his clan and thirty daughters-in-law whom he brought in from outside his clan for his sons. 10 Then Ibzan died and was buried in Bethlehem. 11 After him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel. He judged Israel twelve years. 12 Then Elon the Zebulunite died and was buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun. 13 After him Abdon judged Israel. Abdon was the son of Hillel the Pirathonite. 14 He had forty sons and thirty grandsons who rode on seventy donkeys. He judges Israel eight years. 15 Then Abdon son of Hillel the Pirathonite died and they buried him in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim in the hill country of the Amalekite. 8

 Judges 12

225

Notes 1 Zaphon] A town assigned to Gad in the Jordan Valley (Josh 13:27), either Tell el-Mazar (2074 1810), Tell el-Qosh (2087 1834), or most probably Tell es-Saidiyeh (2045 1861). It is recorded as a clan of Gad in Gen 46:16 and Num 26:15. moved out] The verb br (“pass along to cross” or “pass along to move”) occurs in the Jephthah narrative fourteen times: 10:8–9; 11:17–20, 29, 32; 12:1, 3, 5. 2 oppressed me very much] Follows OG. MT (V Syr T) reads “I was a man of strife, I and my people, and the Ammonites very much.” English translations take îš rîb in a verbal sense. NJSP is typical: “I and my people were in a bitter conflict with.” OG (LXXAL OL) adds what appears to be a translation of innûnî “oppressed me” to achieve “and the Ammonites oppressed me very much” (followed by NRSV). The MT seems to be the result of a straightforward haplography of OG: mwn [nwny]. The noun rîb “strife” echoes the dispute of ch. 11. 3 you…a deliverer] Follows MT. OG Syr translate as “there would be no one to deliver,” thus not reproducing the second person suffix. risked my life] Hebrew: “took my life in my hand,” thus “to take a great risk” (1 Sam 28:21; Job 13:14), and in this context, “to trust my life to the power of my own hand.” 4 Being in Manasseh is like being in Ephraim] Follows MT as the more difficult text. This translation follows the lead of JPSV. Word for word this is, “in the midst of Ephraim, in the midst of Manasseh.” OG (LXXL OL) lacks all of “because they said… midst of Manasseh.” REB and NABRE follows this shorter text. However, it is likely that OG failed to understand this phrase and so did not translate it. Alternatively, there could have been haplography from the second to the fourth occurrence of “Ephraim” in a text that lacked “in the midst of Manasseh” at the end of the verse. Some omissions in the various witnesses are accidental; others try to ease the difficulty of MT. The Greek tradition that follows MT softens the syntax to “in the midst of Ephraim and in the midst of Manasseh.” 5 against Ephraim] The preposition l is used as a dative of disadvantage. 6 Say ‘shibboleth’] LXXA translates ingeniously as “password.” able] Follows MT, which has yākîn “make firm,” that is “concentrate one’s attention to speak,” although a transitive verb before an infinitive is anomalous. It is not surprising that several Hebrew manuscripts read the graphically similar yābîn, “understand how to.” 7 in his city Mizpah of Gilead] Follows brw mṣph gld as the earliest recoverable text, as does BHQ. MT has “in the cities of Gilead,” but he can hardly have been buried in more than one place. OG (LXXL) and Josephus (Ant. 5.270) witness “in his city in Seph(e) of Gilead” (Josephus: “Sebeē”). This reading points to Mizpah in Gilead (11:29, 34), but reflects a graphic misreading of mṣph as bṣph. MT in turn can be explained as a haplography triggered by this OG text: brw [bṣph] gld, then bry gld.

226 Judges LXXAB has “in his city in Gilead” (adopted by most English versions). However, this is a secondary correction of OG in the direction of MT. NJPS “in one of the towns of Gilead” is interpretive of MT. 9] marriage outside his clan] Hebrew: “thirty daughters he sent outside and thirty daughters he brought in from outside.” He practiced exogamy with respect to his clan. OG provides an interpretive translation “wives, women” for the second occurrence of “daughters.” 10 Bethlehem] The one in Zebulun (1682 2380; Josh 19:15). 12 Aijalon] The consonants for the personal name Elon and the place name Aijalon are the same (v. 11), but in v. 12 the Leningrad codex distinguishes between lwn as the personal name and ylwn as place name. His burial spot was honored at the town (that is, clan) of which he was the eponymous ancestor (see Gen 46:14; Num 26:26). The names are the same in the vocalization tradition followed by LXXB. 15 Pirathon] Farata (1659 1775). hill country of the Amalekite] Follows MT. This location is perhaps a reference to the extent of territory once reached by Amalekite raiders. The Greek tradition reads Sellēm for Hillel in vv. 13 and 15, and OG (LXXL OL) presents the end of v. 15 as “in the hill country of Ephraim in the land of Sellēm” (OL Aellen). Some have used 1 Sam 9:4 to suggest that the Vorlage of this referenced the town Shaalim. However, the Greek tradition is probably “blotting out” the name of Amalek (compare Judg 5:14 LXXAL). Out of the same motivation, LXXA scrambled amalēk to lanak here.

Structure and Rhetoric [1–6] The final episodes of Jephthah’s story are loosely joined to the main plot narrative of chs. 10 and 11. The bracket phrase Jephthah the Gileadite in 11:40 and 12:7 (compare also 11:1) encloses Ephraim’s confrontation with Jephthah and Gilead (vv. 1–6). When the Ephraimites crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, into Gilead and Manasseh, they signaled their hostile intent. The Ephraim militia is called out with an impersonal passive voice verb, but they have no leader and operate only as a collective. The word order of 12:1 stresses the pronoun us: “but us you did not call.” Their claim to have been excluded from the muster of forces against the Ammonites is essentially the same complaint they had made to Gideon during the Midianite crisis (8:1). Gideon managed to turn aside their anger with diplomatic words. Jephthah’s harsh rhetoric and subsequent actions led to internecine slaughter. The reader may feel some sympathy with Ephraim, remembering that Ephraim had been a victim of the Ammonite incursion (10:9).

 Judges 12

227

Ephraimites play an oddly fringe role in Judges. According to 5:24 their roots are in Amalek. They follow up worthy success in 7:24–25 with an attitude that leads to strife in 8:1–3. It is not even certain whether an Ephraimite judge is present in the book. Tola lives in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim, but he is an Issacharite and his town may not have been in tribal Ephraim proper (see note on 10:1). Abdon is from Pirathon in the land of Ephraim. However, Pirathon was actually in the territory of Manasseh (Josh 16:8; 17:9), so land of Ephraim may be a non-standard way of identifying the more inclusive “hill country of Ephraim.” Is Jephthah lying with I called you in v. 2? The narrator has mentioned no appeal to Ephraim made by Jephthah nor any failure to help on their part. The first person pronouns in vv. 2–3 show that he takes their complaint as a direct attack on himself, which indeed it was. Their accusation is in second person singular and their threat to burn his structure is directed against him as a private individual. (The threat in Judg 14:15 is directed at family members.) His answer reflects a bit of the rhetoric of lament, as suggested by Jer 15:10 where the prophet laments being “a man of strife and contention with the whole land.” However, Jephthah is really on the verbal attack here, directly contradicting his accusers and putting them in the worst possible light. I and my people (that is, my army who are also my Gileadite kinfolk), were is desperate straits. That I moved ahead without you was your fault: you did not come to deliver me…. you were not going to be a deliverer (perfect and then participle of the same verbal root). Indeed, although the Ephraimite episode is not tied tightly into the plot structure of the earlier two chapters, Jephthah as a character is entirely familiar here. He is engaged in dispute, in this case unfruitfully (compare 11:7–10, 12–27). He favors “I” language (vv. 7, 9, 12, 30–31, 35), uses accusatory questions (vv. 7, 12, 23–26), and seeks to put his interlocutors in the wrong (vv. 7, 27, and perhaps v. 35). In v. 3 his argument ends with the same question he addressed to the Ammonite king: Why…fight against me? (11:26). Gave them into my power (“hand”; v. 3) echoes his vow in 11:30 and counters Ephraim’s failure to save him from Ammonite power (Hebrew: “hand”; v. 2). Perhaps the reader will feel his (boastful?) line I risked my life in v. 3 undermines his character as hero when read against the story of his daughter’s story. His future life, through her potential children, was snuffed out when she was sacrificed. Gilead fights because of an obscure taunt (see “Genre and Composition,” below). There is an effective wordplay as the figurative fugitive state used as an insult against Gilead in v. 4 returns as the literal condition of Ephraim in v. 5.

228 Judges

After gathering the troops, Jephthah drops from sight in vv. 4b–6. Blocking escape across the Jordan from the engagement in v. 4 (compare Judg 3:28) goes beyond merely turning back invaders and points to a desire to increase the slaughter. Using the word šḥṭ (butcher) in v. 6 expresses a particularly brutal act of killing (2 Kgs 10:7, 14; Jer 41:7; 53:10; Ezek 16:21). Forty-two thousand is a standardized number: one thousand times half of seven multiplied by twelve (compare 2 Kgs 2:24; 10:14; and the three-and-a-half times or forty-two months in Daniel). The password test rests on supposedly different pronunciations of the same sibilant. Differential language is regularly used as an ethnic separator and screening device (see Gen 11; Ezek 3:5–6; Jer 5:15; Isa 28:11). Could it have been true that an Ephraimite would have been completely unable to pronounce the required phoneme, even under the threat of death, or that Ephraimite dialect failed to distinguish between a shin and a samek? Probably the text means to say that Ephraimites articulated the sh-sound in a way that sounded distinctive to Gileadite ears. Numerous variants on the pronunciation of a postalveolar sibilant fricative can occur in spoken language. Possibly the trial would be carried out by pointing to an ear of grain or “torrent” right there in the river (the word can mean either), not by actually pronouncing the test word. The viewpoint of the narrator is non-Ephraimite, because they are the ones said not to pronounce the word correctly. In reality, of course, it would be most likely that the central and powerful Ephraim group would be setting the standard for linguistic acceptability, not the outlying Gileadites. The readership is intended to accept that such a dialectical difference existed, which seems to be evidence that something of this nature actually did. It is possible that this story was preserved and retold at a hydrological feature named Torrent near the fords. [7–15] Jephthah is not only a “major judge,” but v. 7 shows that he was also cataloged among the minor judges. Jephthah’s career is concluded by the last items of the minor judges formula (for the list of the minor judges, see ch. 10). For Jephthah there is no period of rest, and no explicit mention is made of the elimination of the threat or the enjoyment of security. From a structural perspective, the minor judges create brackets enclosing Jephthah. The rhetorical effect of this bracketing may be to speed up time in order to create a focus on Jephthah. Moreover, the minor judges formula expression after him in 10:1 coordinates Abimelech with Jephthah and suggests that the two figures be compared. The minor judges sections also help unify the presentation of chs. 3 through 16. The phrase he judged Israel x years provides the core of the chronological pattern of the book of Judges. In addition, judged Israel is used for Othniel (3:10),

 Judges 12

229

Deborah (4:4), and Samson (15:20; 16:31). Finally, Jephthah and the other minor judges share the death and burial at a named location formula with Gideon (8:32) and Samson (16:31). These minor judges also provide a contrast of calm, prosperity, and trouble-free succession that contrasts sharply with the precarious times of the hero judges. Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon are clan eponymous ancestors and are depicted as examples of worthy honor. Ibzan’s name may be reflected in Ebez in the town (and thus clan) list for Issachar (Josh 19:20). Ibzan arranges marriages that reflect high status and prosperity, considering the bride prices that would be involved. His behavior also reflects the royal practice of sealing alliances by marriages (1 Kgs 11:1; 16:31). Some folkloristic elements are paralleled in the Hittite “Tale of the Queen of Kanesh” (COS 1.71:181). She gives birth to thirty sons in a single year and then floats them down the river in baskets. She then bears thirty daughters whom she rears. Her sons survive and drive a donkey back home, eventually leading to some unintentional incest. On this basis, Ibzan may be portrayed as one seeking to avoid incest by practicing exogamy. Abundant offspring signify effective, wide-ranging control as a political ruler. Certainly Ibzan’s rich family structure contrasts with Jephthah loss of lineage. Elon is the eponymous founder of a Zebulun clan (Gen 46:14; Num 26:26) and buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun. However, this datum provides little useful information, since the names Elon and Aijalon are essentially the same (see note on v. 12). Person and place have blended together in the tradition. Even if we take Aijalon to be a genuine geographic tradition, the element “oak, terebinth” appears in several different place names (Josh 19:42, 43; 1 Kgs 4:9). His tomb could have been at the Oak of Zaanannim (Elon-bezaanannim), a border point between Issachar and Naphtali (Josh 19:33; Judg 4:11). Abdon’s hometown was Pirathon. Although v. 15 describes this town as being in the land of Ephraim, it was north of Wadi Kanah and so properly in the territory of Manasseh (Josh 16:8; 17:9). The personal name Abdon also has a reflex in the town Abdon in Asher (Josh 21:30; 1 Chr 6:59 [ET 7:4]; corrupted to Ebron in Josh 19:28; Khirbet Abdeh [1655 2725]). Perhaps this suggests that traditions about Abdon were associated with multiple sites. The decline in v. 14 from forty sons to only thirty grandsons may signify declining administrative effectiveness, signaling the need for another judge in the shape of Samson. Then again, the surrounding context of honorific achievements suggests that the actual point is that Abdon achieved the significant total of seventy offspring (8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1) riding high-status donkeys (1 Kgs 1:33; Zech 9:9). A defective form of Abdon could possibly lie behind the enigmatic Bedan of 1 Sam 12:11.

230 Judges

Modern readers who do not live in an honor and shame culture tend to interpret these descriptions of honor and nobility through a moralistic lens, as though these leaders are bureaucrats without martial fervor who selfishly aggrandized wealth and honor. Genre and Composition Judges 12:4b is a tribal taunt similar to the one in 8:2. These functioned to build in-group cohesion by belittling other groups. We lack the cultural competence fully to grasp this twofold taunt. A fugitive (pelîṭê) is a survivor from danger, especially one who escapes a military defeat. The Ephraimites apparently mean that Gileadites are nothing but absconders or refugees from Ephraim. This may be a disparaging reference to Gilead’s location at the edge of Israel’s settlement sphere, as though they had left the more central groups under distressed circumstances. The implication is that they are not a legitimate, independent tribe, but merely an outlying fragment of Ephraim and Manasseh. The Hebrew “Gilead in the midst of Manasseh, in the midst of Ephraim” (commentary translation: being in Manasseh is like being in Ephraim) may communicate that living in Manasseh makes no difference, for the two tribal areas are simply equivalent for the purpose of determining identity. Or perhaps being in Manasseh is like being in Ephraim because the Gileadites can find no safe haven from Ephraim, even in their east of Jordan homeland. For original readers, all this would have played out against the circumstance that Gilead’s original autonomy (as reflected in 5:17) was being subsumed under the emerging genealogical convention that its eponymous ancestor was merely a son of Machir (5:14) who was in turn a son of Manasseh. It is abundantly clear that the stories of Jephthah and the Ammonite crisis were inserted into a previously existing catalog consisting of 10:1–5 and 12:7–15 and which contained the name of Jephthah. See ch. 10 for discussions of genre and composition involving the list of minor judges.

J ud g es 13

Samson Is Born The Israelites again did evil in Yahweh’s judgment. So Yahweh gave them into the power of the Philistines for forty years. 2 There was a certain man from Zorah from the clan of the Danites. His name was Manoah. His wife was childless and had not given birth. 3 The angel of Yahweh appeared to the woman. He said to her, “Look. You are childless and have not given birth. But you will become pregnant and give birth to a son.” 4 Now then, be careful not to drink wine or other intoxicating drink, or to eat anything unclean, 5 because you will become pregnant and give birth to a son. No razor will touch his head because the boy will be a nazirite of God from the womb. It is he who will begin to deliver Israel from the power of the Philistines. 6 Then the woman went and told her husband, “A man of God came to me. His appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awe-inspiring. I asked him where he was from, but he did not tell me his name. 7 He said to me, ‘You will become pregnant and give birth to a son. Now then, be careful not to drink wine or other intoxicating drink, or to eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a nazirite of God from the womb to the day of his death’.” 8 Then Manoah pleaded with Yahweh and said, “Excuse me, sir. Let the man of God whom you sent come to us again and teach us what we are to do with the child who will be born.” 9 God listened to Manoah. The angel of God came to her while she was sitting in a field and her husband Manoah was not with her. 10 So the woman ran quickly and told her husband. She said to him, “Look. The man who came to me the other day has just appeared to me. 11 So Manoah got up and followed his wife. He came to the man and said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” He said, “I am.” 12 Then Manoah said, “May your word soon come true! What is to be the boy’s rule of life and what is he to do?” 13 The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, “The woman must be careful concerning all the things I spoke to her about. 14 She must not eat anything that comes from the vine or drink wine or other intoxicating drink, or eat anything unclean. She must observe everything that I commanded her.” 1

232 Judges Then Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, “Let us detain you and prepare a young goat for you.” 16 The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, “If you detain me, I will not eat your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to Yahweh.” Manoah did not know that he was the angel of Yahweh, 17 so he said to the angel of Yahweh, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?” 18 The angel of Yahweh said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing that it is incomprehensible?” 19 Then Manoah took a young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to Yahweh, and he did a marvelous thing while Manoah and his wife were watching. 20 As the flame rose skyward from the altar, the angel of Yahweh rose up in the flame of the altar while Manoah and his wife were watching. Then they fell on their faces to the ground. 21 The angel of Yahweh never again appeared to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah realized that this had been the angel of Yahweh. 22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” 23 But his wife said to him, “If Yahweh had wanted to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hand, nor shown us all these things, nor now announced to us anything like this.” 24 The woman gave birth to a son and she called his name Samson. The boy grew up and Yahweh blessed him. 25 Yahweh’s spirit began to rouse him in Mahaneh-dan between Zorah and Eshtaol. 15

Notes 2 Zorah] Khirbet Sarah (1487 1314), north of the Sorek streambed (Wadi es-Surar) opposite Beth-shemesh, in the foothills near Dan’s border with Judah (Josh 15:33; 19:41). 5 because you will become pregnant] This understands the particle kî as causal and so attaches the expression to the end of v. 4, which is the practice of most modern translations. If kî is construed as deictic or emphatic, the clause belongs with v. 5 and introduces information specifically about Samson: “As for the son you will conceive and bear….” Context requires that the adjective hārâ (pregnant) refers to the future. will…give birth] MT offers a “mixed” form of the feminine participle (wəyōladt) that could be pointed as waw consecutive perfect (wəyāladt), which is how all other text witnesses read the word. Compare Gen 16:11. 6 I asked him] Follows OG V. If she did question the angel about something, then noting his failure to reveal his name makes more sense. MT has “I did not ask him.” MT v. 6bα was contaminated by v. 6bβ. 12] The commentary translation interprets the last word, “his work,” as a pointer to Samson’s life “mission” (compare NRSV). It also treats the first part of Manoah’s speech as a wish, following the interpretation of T and JPSV (jussive). An alternative translation would be: “When your words come true, what is to be the boy’s rule of

 Judges 13

233

life and what are we expected to do for him?” The singular/plural fluctuation between “your word” (OG Syr V) and “your words” (MT) in v. 12a is hardly unusual in the textual tradition. Compare the qere situation of v. 17. 13 be careful concerning] In other words, “abstain from.” 14 She…. She…I commanded her] Follows MT. Following the lead of vv. 5 and 13, the variant text of OG focuses on Samson’s own nazirite status and reads a third person masculine singular each time. This is an interpretive strategy, not a witness to a legitimate variant. 15 Let us detain you] REB captures this polite offer nicely with “May we urge you to stay?” 16 Manoah did not know…17 so he said] The puzzling kî clause of v. 16b seems to refer to v. 17 rather than v. 16a (compare NAB). NJB transfers it to the end of v. 15. 17 your word] Follows qere and the ancient versions. Ketiv: “your words.” 18 incomprehensible] Or “wonderful.” The unspoken name has the quality of God’s miraculous wonders (Exod 15:11; Isa 9:5). This request for a name is analogous to Gen 32:30 and Exod 3:12–14. Ketiv pilî (consonants ply) is correct as an adjective from the noun pele. 19 he did a marvelous thing] Follows the MT and masoretic punctuation. NJPV agrees, but opts for a passive construction: “a marvelous thing happened.” BHS seeks to clear up the grammatical obscurity by suggesting the haplography of a subject pronoun: lyhwh w[hw]. Following the translational strategy of OG OL V, some modern versions offer “to him who works wonders” (NJB NRSV REB). The earliest recoverable text is MT, but probably incorporated wmpl lśwt as a marginal gloss. The participle mpl echoes the verbal root of ply (incomprehensible) in the previous verse. while Manoah and his wife were watching] Follows MT. NRSV eliminates this as a vertical dittography from v. 20. This is probably what happened, but there is no versional or manuscript evidence for the existence of a text without these words being duplicated. 21 appeared] MT ləhērāōh is to be taken as the niphal infinitive construct ləhērāōt (compare 1 Sam 3:21), as witnessed by OG. 22 God] Or “a divine being.” 23 nor announced] Follows OG V as the shorter text in omitting wkt, “and as at this time.” This word was added in MT as a clarifying supplement. BHQ agrees. 25 Eshtaol] Khirbet Deir Shubeib (1488 1338), elements of the biblical name being preserved at nearby Ishwa (1511 1320). This is east of Zorah.

234 Judges

Structure and Rhetoric A new narrative problem arises as the cycle of apostasy and oppression starts anew (v. 1), but Samson will only begin to deliver Israel (v. 5). Complete deliverance from the Philistines must wait until Samuel (1 Sam 7:3–4, 10–13) and the elapse of a forty-year “super generation” (Judg 13:1), of which Samson’s career will consume half (15:20; 16:31). The Philistines were last heard of in 10:7. It is significant that there is no crying out by Israel in this turn of the cycle. Also, instead of any notice of Yahweh’s raising up a deliverer, an annunciation and birth narrative performs this function. Such a notice was also lacking at the start of the careers of Deborah and Gideon. Yahweh no longer engages in sacral war, but delivers Israel through human events that unfold as the result of the divine spirit (13:2; 15:14) and Yahweh’s scheme to create contention (14:4). The Samson material chains together distinct storylines that trace a somewhat convoluted narrative arc from his birth to his death and from the start of the Philistine problem to its partial resolution. This dual movement from 13:2 (childless) to 16:31 (buried) and from 13:1 (power of the Philistines) to 16:30 (die with the Philistines) progresses through ch. 13 (Samson’s mother and birth), chs. 14–15 (marriage and aftermath), and ch. 16 (Delilah and death). Judges 16:1–3 (Gaza prostitute) is more isolated, although it does share the location Gaza with the death scene (16:21). Individual narrative blocs remain recognizable, but are connected by transitional statements: 13:25; 15:20; 16:4 (after this), 31b. The perceptiveness of Samson’s mother and the marginality and inanity of Manoah (13:3, 9, 11, 13, 23) provide a foreshadowing reflection of Samson’s foolishness and Delilah’s cleverness. Thematic interconnections unite these stories into a moderately coherent portrayal of Samson’s career. These correlations include: 1. 2.

Focus on women: mother, wife, prostitute, Delilah. Sexual overtones and undertones The angel “came into” Samson’s mother (surface meaning “unto,” 13:6, 9; compare 16:1) Lewd potential answers to the riddles Asleep on Delilah’s knees (16:19) Grind (16:21; compare Job 31:10; Lam 5:13) Entertain (16:25; compare Gen 26:8). 3. Fire appears in the angel’s ascent, the death of Samson’s wife and father-in-law, the fox tails, and the ropes at Lehi that break as though burned

 Judges 13

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

235

The spirit first rouses Samson, then rushes upon him (13:25; 14:6, 19 [his own spirit]; 15:14) The secret of the razor, unrevealed by his mother, and his nazirite status are eventually revealed to Delilah (13:5, 7; 16:17) Samson goes to a foreign place and sees a woman (14:1 at Timnah and 16:1 at Gaza) The verbal root pm: as a piel verb (rouse, 13:25); as a noun (time in the sense of occasion, 15:31; 16:15, 18, 20, 28) Samson’s father and mother link the birth and marriage stories Samson’s eyes appear in 14:3, 4, and then 16:21, 28 A retribution theme surfaces in 15:3, 7, 10 and 16:24, 28 Partial amelioration of Philistine oppressive rule (13:1, 5; 14:4; 15:11)

Chapter 13 wends its way through dialogue and movements by the various characters. These slow down the action. The reader does not move too quickly from the nested narrative problems of the power of the Philistines and childlessness to a resolution of the second (v. 24) and the first step in a partial resolution of the first (v. 25 via v. 5b). The annunciation story highlights Samson’s unnamed mother’s discernment and cooperation. His less astute father Manoah serves as a foil to her positive qualities. She has both the first (v. 6) and last word (v. 23) in their dialogue. The story unfolds through three encounters and conversations: vv. 3–5 (angel to woman), vv. 6–7 (woman to Manoah), vv. 8–18 (angel and both parents). These three conversations are followed by an authenticating epiphany (vv. 19–21). The all-important instructions of v. 5 are repeated in v. 7 (signaled by a reiteration of become pregnant and give birth) and alluded to yet again in vv. 13–14. The divine credentials implied by the messenger’s advent in v. 3 are explored first in v. 6 and then fully in vv. 15–23. Within the annunciation story there is also a subplot concerning the revelation of the messenger’s identity. How will this be revealed to the story characters? An authentic divine oracle about a birth could come from either a human prophet or a numinous heavenly source (2 Kgs 4:16; Gen 18:10). The narrator reveals the fact of identity immediately to the reader (Judg 13:3, 9, 13, 15–18, 20–21), but Manoah and his wife must wrestle with the question. That the woman grasps an ambiguous glimmer of the truth early on is disclosed in vv. 6 and 10. The narrator asserts in v. 16b that Manoah did not know, but this is already clear from his speech in v. 8 (the man of God). Disclosure and resolution come in v. 21. The potential consequences of the stunning revelation are explored in the

236 Judges

denouement of vv. 22–23. Manoah fears death, but his wife’s superior insight puts things in perspective. The opening to the birth story in v. 2, there was a certain man, signals a new narrative start and introduces a new character (compare 17:1; 19:1; 1 Sam 1:1; 9:1). The name Manoah seems to appear in 1 Chr 2:54 as the Judahite clan Menuhoth, brother clan to Kiriath-jearim. The Zorathites appear in 1 Chr 2:53; 4:2. As soon as the reader receives the signal of childlessness (Gen 11:30; 16:1; 30:1), the direction of the ensuing type scene is clear. To understand the woman’s cultural situation and the comforting power of the oracle she receives, compare Gen 11:30; 25:21; 29:31; 1 Sam 2:5; Ps 113:9; Prov 30:16. The angel of Yahweh last appeared in Judg 6:11–24 in connection with Gideon. His words in 13:3 pick up the narrator’s description of the situation in v. 2. The vocabulary of the announcement (conceive…bear… son) is a standard formula (Gen 29; 30; and 38; Exod 2:2; 1 Sam 1:20; Isa 8:3; Hos 1; Isa 7:14). The Hebrew communicates the great significance of the announcement by using the word, conventionally translated “behold,” three times: vv. 3 (look), 5 (not translated), and 7 (not translated). The woman repeats hinneh a fourth time to her husband in v. 10 (translated as look). Now then be careful (Hebrew: “guard yourself”) in v. 4 indicates that the woman has an important role to play. Her lifestyle during pregnancy will launch her son’s nazirite status. Except for the razor taboo (v. 5), the behavioral instructions involved with Samson’s nazirite status are laid entirely on his mother. She is the one who is to avoid certain foods and drinks; his only rule is to avoid having his hair cut. The instructions to her are repeated three times (vv. 4, 7, and 14), indicating that they are absolutely vital. The angel repeats the last part of v. 3 as the first part of v. 5, giving him an opportunity to provide further information on the boy and his life’s task. Disclosure of Samson’s mission converts what is formally a birth story into the functional equivalent of a call narrative. Some think the woman is already pregnant at the time of the annunciation, since the future will become pregnant of v. 3b shifts to a more ambiguous adjective in v. 5a. CEB and LXX translate “you are pregnant,” but most modern translators stick with the future. NIV and CEB mistranslate from [the time that he is in] the womb as “from birth.” Compare Isa 44:2. His mother’s special diet indicates that he is a nazirite in utero. The woman twice speaks to a stranger while they are alone, the second time while she is sitting (not working!) out in a field (v. 9). Early readers doubtless felt some cultural unease with this circumstance (compare Deut 22:25–27), especially in a context of conception. Some think that mythic notions of divine paternity (the heroes Gilgamesh and

 Judges 13

237

Herakles, for example) could be lurking in the background. The wording of Judg 13:6, 9, that the angel “came unto,” can also be construed as a sexual act as “came into,” which at least hints at some such possibility (compare 16:1). Ancient readers might have felt that this dangerous notion explains Manoah’s motivation in desiring a second visit and in so sharply questioning the visitor’s identity in v. 11. Josephus reports that Manoah, enraptured by his beautiful wife, was jealous of angelic visitor (Ant. 5.276–284). The woman raises the issue of the messenger’s identity in v. 6 by citing the two possibilities, man of God (that is, a human prophet) and angel of God. She supposes that he is a prophet, but from his striking appearance she nearly guesses the truth. His numinous appearance creates fear. Informed already by the narrator in v. 3, the reader enjoys the ironic pleasure of knowing what the story characters do not. The woman’s request to know his place of origin (see note on v. 6), if answered, would have revealed his heavenly background. Her comment that he did not give a name hints of further revelations to come (compare name in vv. 17–18). Verse 6aβ is circumstantial. Verse 6b exhibits an ABBA format: “I asked where he was from…his name he did not tell me.” In v. 7, Samson’s mother reports the annunciation and instructions, but makes no mention of cutting hair. She also introduces the concept of the day of his death (pointing to 16:30) but omits to mention his mission, to begin to deliver. The secret of hair and razor is thus left unspoken until it is revealed much later in the Delilah story. When addressing Manoah in vv. 13–14, the angel leaves out Samson’s mission as well. This and his hair seem to be secrets reserved for the mother and the reader. In v. 8, Manoah prays for a second visit in which he can participate (to us), but really learns nothing new. Indeed, in v. 9 the angel again appears first to the woman, and not to him (circumstantial grammar), and again she reports. Yet the plot does advance in v. 10 over where it was in v. 6, because this time the woman ran quickly and Manoah gets a chance to converse with the messenger. His question of v. 11 seems inane. Is this just a way of starting a conversation, or is the reader supposed to draw a conclusion about Manoah’s lack of sense? In any case, along with v. 6b, the question does take a first step in raising the issue of identity and the authorization of the oracle. Manoah’s question in v. 12 is not just about the boy’s special life-style rules, but about something close to his destiny and mission. mišpaṭ also refers to one’s rights and duties (1 Sam 8:11–17), and what he is to do (Hebrew: “his work”) suggests Samson’s future achievements (compare 1 Sam 25:2; Prov 16:3). However, as though brushing Manoah off, once

238 Judges

again in Judg 13:13–14 the angel is concerned with guidelines for the woman only, expanding the prohibition on wine to include all grapevine products (grapes, raisins). This suggest that these nazirite proscriptions are not just about alcohol, but about the vine as a marker for settled, agricultural existence (compare Jer 35:7). With she must observe (tišmōr) the angel concludes with the verbal root with which he began in v. 4: be careful (hiššāmərî). Intriguingly, there is an ambiguity of forms in v. 14. Technically tišmōr could signify “you [singular] must observe” as well as the contextually appropriate she must observe. Now that the matter of taboos has been repeated three times, v. 15 returns to the question of the messenger’s identity that has lurked under the surface of vv. 3–14. Manoah offers the welcome appropriate for an important visitor. As in the case of Abraham and Gideon (Gen 18:3–8; Judg 6:18–19), an offer of hospitality turns into a numinous sign, and indeed the language of prepare a young goat parallels that of Judg 6:19. Perhaps what the angel says in 13:16 should have revealed the truth, but Manoah misses its implications. His question about the visitor’s name in v. 17 grows out of reasonable desire to honor an accurate prophet, whose oracle will come true (referring to v. 12; for the phrase and the concept, compare Deut 18:22; 1 Sam 9:6). Manoah is not in the same situation as Jacob (Gen 32:30), who sought his opponent’s name for his own advantage. The Hebrew is something like “whose is your name,” perhaps hinting at some still hidden enigma. The reader is likely to enjoy the irony as Manoah misses another hint and fails to recognize what must lie behind the answer incomprehensible, a response that both hides and reveals the truth (compare Gen 32:29). Incomprehensible or “wonderful” in Judg 13:18 points forward to the authenticating marvel done by Yahweh in v. 19 (adjective and hiphil participle of the verbal root pl). Behind the oracle is Yahweh, who works wondrously. By including the grain offering and setting the food on a rock in v. 19, Manoah converts his offer of human food into a sacrificial offering. It is emphasized twice that Manoah and his wife both watched, thus providing the two witnesses needed to verify the marvel (compare Gideon and Purah in 7:10). One notes that various forms of the verb “see” occur five times in 13:19–23 (watching, appeared, seen God, shown). The epiphany sacrifice occurs on a natural rock as in 6:19–21. In this case, however, the flame rises upward to form a fiery pathway up to the divine realm. It is only when the angel disappeared permanently that he could be recognized for what he was. To fall prostrate is the appropriate reaction, because Yahweh’s angel is the equivalent of Yahweh’s real and visible

 Judges 13

239

presence. Manoah’s conventional fear of death rhetorically underscores the reality of his recognition and belief (6:22–23; Gen 32:30; 33:20; Exod 33:20; Isa 6:1–5). But his wife, who is more perceptive, speaks common sense in Judg 13:23. There are three things to consider, she says: the acceptance of the offering from our hand, the wonder he has shown us, and what he has announced now, that is, at this critical moment. Birth and naming bring to resolution the narrative arc that began with childlessness and the angel’s promise in vv. 2 and 3. The sequence of birth and naming is standard in such stories (the Genesis narratives; Judg 8:31; 1 Sam 1:20; 2 Sam 12:24). Either parent can name the newborn; in this case it is his mother. Samson’s name is related to the Hebrew šemeš (sun). It is completely uncertain whether the earliest listeners or readers would have traced a mythological meaning or simply thought of this as a secular name (see Ezra 4:8). Perhaps readers would have applied standard metaphorical images connected with the sun to Samson’s character: heat (Ps 19:7 [ET 6]), goal-directed movement (Ps 19:5–6 [ET 4–5]), and shielding and striking (Pss 84:11; 121:6). Judges 13:24b is a transitional formula (compare 1 Sam 2:21, 26; 3:19) that permits some narrative time to elapse between birth and the action of the divine spirit in v. 25. In v. 25, the spirit’s activity should be understood as “trouble” or “agitate” (Gen 41:8; Dan 2:1, 3). The divine act of “shaking up” is anticipatory at this point; it will function actively in Judg 14:19 and in 15:14. The spirit connects 13:5 (Samson’s mission) to 14:4 (Yahweh’s scheme) in order to show Yahweh’s saving agenda. Spirit is also a way of accounting for Samson’s driven, passionate behavior. Presumably this Mahaneh-dan is the location west of Kiriath-jearim that is a Danite staging point on their way north (18:12). Genre and Composition Chapter 13 is a stock narrative, the birth annunciation sub-type of a theophany (compare Gen 16:7–14). Elements common to the genre include a description of the setting, background for the announcement, special instructions, and information about the coming child. The notice of childlessness is like Gen 11:30. The elements common to a theophany are sacrifice, the issue of the numinous figure’s name or identity, a sign or a miracle, and the reaction of awe and fear. Although this might seem reminiscent of a sanctuary foundation legend, the Zorah location is mentioned only as Manoah’s home town and is not explained in any etiology format.

240 Judges

Samson is tied into the larger book of Judges by brief framework formulas referencing the Philistine menace (13:1, 5; 15:20; 16:31) and by the operation of the same divine spirit (13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14) that inspired Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah. The story of the sacrifice in 13:15–20 appears to be based in part on Judg 6:11–24 (angel of Yahweh, young goat, grain offering, rock, fire, fear of seeing). In Israel’s world view, the nazirite (nāzîr) participated a power-laden status, not unlike the cultural categories of being holy or being considered ḥērem (dedicated to exclusive divine use). This preternatural condition is associated with the verb nzr, “hold back, withdraw,” and the noun nēzer (Exod 29:6, an element in priestly head covering; Lev 21:12, concerning the state of the high priest’s anointing oil). Untrimmed vines could fall into nāzîr status according to Lev 25:5, 11. In Gen 49:26 and Deut 33:16, the Joseph group is marked for leadership by its head having nāzîr status. For persons, nāzîr status meant one’s consecrated situation was characterized by abstinence behaviors. The nazirite entered what anthropologists label a liminal state, one characterized by taboos involving diet and the cutting of hair and by a special vulnerability to ritual pollution. Status as nāzîr was particularly associated with one’s head and its hair (Num 6:5, 7, 9, 11, 18, 19; Jer 7:29). In Numbers 6, a man or woman moves into nazirite standing by making temporary vows of consecration. For Samson, however, the state of affairs is permanent, from the womb, which is to say, from conception onward. It is important to observe that Samson, in contrast to his mother, has no explicit eating and drinking restrictions placed on him. The common word pair wine and strong drink is forbidden to nazirites in Num 6:3 (compare Amos 2:11–12). This is enjoined upon Samson’s mother as part of the special pre-natal care she must provide her son. Nothing is mentioned about unclean foods in Numbers 6, but only the impurity of a dead body. For Samson’s mother, not eating unclean foods is an explicit requirement for her role in the gestation of the unborn nazirite. The closest parallel to Samson’s situation as a life-long nazirite is Samuel, whose mother vows him to Yahweh (1 Sam 1:11, 22; the textual situation is complicated). Therefore Samson is not presented to the reader as nazirite of the temporary vow-type portrayed in the Priestly legal code of Numbers 6. Modern interpretations that describe Samson in terms of a failed nazirite must recognize that this construal falls into the realm of canonical criticism. Because restrictions are placed only on his mother, Samson eating honey from an impure lion carcass (Lev 11:24–40), participating in a drinking party (Judg 14:10), or touching dead bodies (Num 6:6–8) would play no role in an early reader’s evaluation of him. This could only

 Judges 13

241

happen after Judges became part of a multi-book canon. Samson’s sole nazirite failure is that his hair was cut. Samson’s problems have to do with hot-headedness and women, not inadequacy as a nazirite. Samson’s mother eats unclean honey in Judg 14:9, which indicates that in the mind of the narrator the prohibitions incumbent upon her only applied during pregnancy. Samson’s particular nazirite status is linked directly to his saving mission in 13:5. One is reminded of the untrimmed locks of the Deborah Song (5:2; compare Deut 32:42), echoing the gallant exploits of expressly dedicated warriors. It is likely that the locution nazirite of [or to] God from the womb vv. 5, 7 (also 16:17) would have been understood as a technical term communicating an exceptional status, one characterized by superhuman strength. Womb points to the special avoidance behaviors required of his mother.

J ud g es 14

Samson’s Marriage Samson went down to Timnah. At Timnah he saw a woman, one of the daughters of the Philistines. 2 Then he came up, and told his father and mother, “A woman I have seen at Timnah, one of the daughters of the Philistines. Now get her for me as wife.” 3 But his father and mother said to him, “Is there not a woman among the daughters of your kinfolk or among all my people, that you must go and take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?” But Samson said to his father, “She is the one you must get for me, for she is the right one in my judgment.” 4 Now his father and mother did not know that this was from Yahweh, because he was seeking from the Philistines a reason for a quarrel, since at that time the Philistines were ruling Israel. 5 So Samson went down to Timnah with his father and mother. When they came to the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came toward him roaring. 6 Then Yahweh’s spirit rushed powerfully upon him. He tore the lion apart as one might tear apart a kid, although he had nothing in his hand. But he did not tell his father or mother what he had done. 7 Then he went down and spoke to the woman. She was the right one in Samson’s judgment. 8 He went back after some days to take her as wife. He turned aside to look at the lion’s body. There was a swarm of bees in the lion’s carcass, and honey. 9 He scooped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went along. He came to his father and mother and gave some to them, and they ate. But he did not tell them that he had scooped the honey from the lion’s carcass. 10 His father went down to the woman. Then Samson prepared a banquet there, because that is what young men used to do. 11 As soon as they saw him, they designated thirty companions to be with him. 12 Samson said to them, “Let me lay out a riddle to you. If you can tell me the answer during the seven days of the banquet, I will give you thirty tunics and thirty festive outfits. 13 But if you cannot tell me, you must give me thirty tunics and thirty festive outfits.” So they said to him, “Lay out your riddle so we may hear it.” 14 He said to them: “From the eater came out something to eat. From the strong came out something sweet.” They could not tell what the riddle was in three days. 1

 Judges 14

243

On the seventh day they said to Samson’s wife, “Coax your husband to tell us what the riddle is, or we will burn you and your father’s house with fire. You didn’t call us here to dispossess us, did you? Surely not!” 16  So Samson’s wife wept before him and said “You simply hate me and do not love me! You have put a riddle to my countrymen but have not told me what it is.” He said to her, “Look. I have not even told my father and mother. Should I tell you?” 17 But she wept before him for the seven days of their banquet and on the seventh day he told her because she badgered him. Then she told her countrymen. 18 On the seventh day, before sunset, the men of the city said to him, “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?” He said to them, “If you had not plowed with my heifer, You would not have found out my riddle.” 19 Then Yahweh’s spirit rushed powerfully upon him. He went down to Ashkelon, stuck down thirty of them, and stripped off their spoil. He gave the festive outfits to the ones who had told the riddle. Then he became angry and went up to his father’s house. 20 Samson’s wife was married off to that one of his wedding companions who had been his best man. 15

Notes 1 Timnah] “Allotted portion.” Tell el-Batashi (1417 1325) on south side of Valley of Sorek. This is down the valley from Zorah, which was up on the ridge. The three occurrences of this name in Judges all exhibit what appears to be a directional suffix: timnātâ. 3 my people] Follows MT. The suffix in singular because this is spoken from the perspective of Samson’s father alone, who is the only one Samson answers. LXXL Syr assimilate to “your [singular] people” under the influence of the preceding your kinfolk. She is the right one] Emphatic object pronoun. 5 they came] Follows MT. Without textual evidence, BHS (followed by NJB REB) suggests deleting his father and mother so that they can be ignorant of the lion event later in the story (v. 6). LXXB solved the perceived problem by converting they came to “he came” (followed by NJPS NRSV). Using another approach, OG (LXXAL) harmonized by substituting “and he turned aside” taken from v. 8. 8 after some days] See 11:4 and 15:1. NJPS translates the start of v. 8 as “the following year” apparently reflecting rabbinic notions of the proper time between betrothal and marriage carcass] OG witnesses to an inner-Greek corruption of sōma (translating “carcass”) into stoma (“mouth”).

244 Judges 9 his hands] Follows MT. OG “his mouth” read a Hebrew text in which kpyw had been corrupted to pyw (compare v. 8). 15 seventh day] Follows MT as more difficult. OG Syr “fourth day” probably represents a harmonizing correction to correspond with the three days of v. 14 (but still clashing with v. 17). The possibility that hrbyy (fourth) and hšbyy (seventh) could have been misread for each other complicates the issue. The majority of modern translations opt for “fourth.” tell us] Follows MT as more difficult. OG V ease this to “you” feminine singular. Surely not!] Translating the interrogative, hălō at the end of the verse is a challenge. Literally perhaps, “Is it not so?” The ancient versions simply omitted the word. Modern translations regularly emend it to hălōm “hither” (“have you invited us here”). Verse 15b is a double polar (yes or no) question with an exclamatory or rhetorical sense. See IBHS 40.3 and p. 684 n. 48. 18 before sunset] The directional he suffix, used here to inflect an uncommon word for “sun,” can indicate progression through time (Exod 13:10; Judg 11:40; IHBS 10.5c). NJB “before he went into the bedroom” is based on an unsupported conjecture referencing 15:1 (reading hḥdrh for MT hḥrsh). 20 best man] Translation based on context. He is “the companion who had associated himself with” Samson. NIV: “who had attended to him.” The Greek translator thought of the “friend” of the bridegroom, as mentioned in Sappho, frag. 124 and John 3:29.

Structure and Rhetoric After the birth narrative, the Samson story is partitioned by topographical setting into two parts: Timnah (14:1–15:20) and Gaza (16:1–31). Each of these two narrative complexes begins with Samson’s movement into Philistine territory and his consequent seeing a woman with whom he seeks a sexual liaison (14:1; 16:1). Each also ends with the same summary formula (15:20; 16:31). The reader of chs. 14 and 15 already possesses background information from ch. 13, namely the drawn-out Philistine oppression (13:1) and Samson’s fitness for anti-Philistine action (nazirite status as well as Yahweh’s intention, blessing, and spirit; 13:5, 24, 25). Samson’s attainment of adulthood and being stirred by the spirit (13:24b–25) provide natural segues into the marriage feast episode (14:1–4, 10–20), its prequel (14:5–9), and its violent sequels (15:1–8 and 9–19). Transition is also effected by means of Samson’s father and mother, who are carried over from ch. 13 and appear in ch. 14 in relation to the lion incident and the riddle (vv. 2–6, 9, 16). Interconnections operate between chs. 14–15 (Timnah) and ch. 16 (Gaza). The two narrative complexes exhibit a pattern of vengeance and counter-vengeance. An all-embracing inclusio is created by “go down”

 Judges 14

245

in 14:1 and “bring up” his body in 16:31, along with between Zorah and Eshtaol, repeated in 13:25 and 16:31. The verb nqd (tell) is an important unifying factor in the lion/riddle story (14:2, 6, 9, 12–17, 19); but it also links forward to the Delilah narrative (16:6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18). Binding with new ropes that melt off (15:13, 14) points forward to 16:9, 12. Beginning with ch. 14 through ch. 16, the Samson story operates through a number of binary oppositions. Some of these are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

In-group Israel versus outgroup uncircumcised Philistines Endogamy with kinfolk versus exogamy Rulers versus the ruled Down to the lowlands (Timnah, Ashkelon) versus up to the highlands (Zorah)

A fruitful line of exploration centers on the opposition between untamed nature and agrarian culture. Samson embodies the former as a nazirite with uncut hair. He is a spirit-driven lion slayer, who overcomes by means of foxes and a donkey’s jaw bone. In contrast, the Philistines are urban (Ashkelon, Gaza), possessing standing grain, looms, and a grinding mill. Samson’s opponents are men of the city (14:18). After devastating Philistine agriculture, the undomesticated Samson retreats to a remote rock (15:8). In ch. 16, he rips out a city gate and tears down an urban temple. His mother and father did not know (compare Manoah in 13:16) that Yahweh was the cause of Samson’s outrageous demand (14:4). This observation on the part of the omniscient narrator connects back to what was revealed about Samson’s mission in 13:5. Yahweh’s covert involvement starts a train of causally linked events that ends with Samson’s exclamation and God’s act at Lehi (15:18–19). First, Samson’s desire to marry leads to the journey to Timnah and the lion incident. Then, bees in the dead lion make the riddle possible. The riddle leads to Samson’s attack on Ashkelon and his angry return home. The consequence of deserting his wife leads to his act of retaliation employing foxes, which in turn causes the death of his wife and father-in-law, which in turn triggers Samson’s slaughter of their killers. Philistine retaliation entangles Judah and, as a consequence, Samson again butchers Philistines at Lehi. His resulting thirst leads to God producing a spring, the name of which is used rhetorically to authenticate the story. This sequence of events provides an exemplary example of dual causality in that both divine and human actions move events forward. Chapter 14 has its own internal plot structure. Verses 1–10a set the stage for and lead up to the banquet and riddle contest situation recounted

246 Judges

in vv. 10b–18. Although Samson seems to lose this contest, this story arc is not concluded until v. 19 provides him with victory over some other Philistines and clothing to pay off his wager. But the narrative remains unfinished, because in v. 20 his wife and companions reappear to link forward into a new narrative problem. Samson’s honor has been compromised and must be reinstated. Chapter 14 begins with Samson going down to Philistine territory. This is the first example of the structurally important verb yrd (go down), which unites the narrative and is used in 14:1, 5, 7, 10, 19; 15:8, 11, 12, 21, 31. The counter-verb lh (go up/bring up) is present in 14:2, 9; 15:6, 9, 10, 13. Timnah (14:1) expands the geographic horizon from Danite territory (Zorah, Eshtaol, Mahaneh-dan) out into the Philistine realm (eventually to Ashkelon and Gaza). While there, at Timnah he saw a woman, language which Samson then picks up in v. 2 and reverses into a woman I have seen at Timnah. A further repetition of v. 1 in v. 2, she is one of the daughters of the Philistines, emphasizes the complicating factor which drives the following episodes at least through 15:8. In v. 3, she is the right one in my judgment is “she is pleasing in my eyes” in Hebrew (repeated in v. 7). The concept of acting rightly in one’s own eyes is a unifying theme of the last five chapters (17:6 and 21:25). Samson’s demand in 14:3 is a double violation of kinship solidarity. He seeks to marry outside his father’s people, and he shames his parents by brushing aside their wishes. Such extraordinary behavior requires that the narrator provide an explanation, which is given in v. 4. His marriage plan is inappropriate, but excused as part of Yahweh’s plan (v. 4) Verses 5 through 10a are framed by a bracket: first Samson and later his father went down. In v. 6, the spirit mentioned in 13:25 precipitates and energizes the lion incident. This cross-reference to 13:25 keeps Yahweh’s purposes in the foreground. For other judges, spirit is connected to a divine gift for military leadership (3:10; 6:34; 11:29), but equips Samson with extraordinary physical power (14:19; 15:14). The spirit rushed (verb ṣlḥ) in 14:6, and then later does the same thing in 14:19 and 15:14. This verb rhetorically links lion, Ashkelon, and Lehi. The dynamic denotation of rush fits well with Samson’s superhuman feats and was probably intended to be connected with his nazirite state. The verb with spirit as its grammatical subject is used also for Saul (1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6; 18:10) and David (1 Sam 16:13). Judges 14:6 offers a metaphor of effortlessness. One might tear apart a baby goat before cooking it (Lev 1:17) or at a meal. There are pictorial examples of heroes killing lions barehanded from Greece and ancient West Asia (for example, Gilgamesh and Herakles). Lion hunting was a royal act, symbolic of the ruler’s task of maintaining order and keeping

 Judges 14

247

the realm of chaos at bay (see 2 Kgs 17:25). By not telling his parents about either killing the lion or getting honey from it (14:6, 9), Samson sets the stage for a successful riddle (v. 16). The verb ngd (tell) unifies the marriage and riddle episode (vv. 2, 6, 9, 12–17, 19). The number and sequence of trips to Timnah is muddled. On Samson’s first trip (v. 1) he sees the woman. On the second (v. 5) he goes with his parents and encounters the lion while they are not nearby for some unexplained reason. He makes a third trip to marry the woman (v. 8) and obtains the honey. At this point it is unclear as to whether his parents are accompanying him and get some of the honey on the journey (but still never see the lion) or whether Samson gives it to them only when he returns home once again. If his parents are along on the third trip, the report of his father’s journey down to the woman in v. 10 would seem to be the same as the third trip (that is, v. 8 is the same journey as v. 10). If the parents remain at home, then v. 10 would represent yet a fourth trip for something that demanded the father’s presence (final negotiations?) and the wedding feast. The paragraphing of the commentary translation selects the simpler three-trip alternative. In v. 8, Samson’s returns to take her as wife, apparently to consummate whatever arrangements have been made. However, it seems from 15:1 that this was to be a type of marriage that expected the wife to continue to live with her parents rather than join her husband at his family or clan location. There is evidence for such a practice in the Middle Assyrian Laws (ANET, 180–88; COS 2.132:356–57). Ancients believed that bees could be produced from an animal’s carcass (compare Virgil’s story about Aristeas, Georgica 4; for bees in a human skull, Herodotus, Histories 5.114). First Samuel 14:29 points to the revivifying effect of honey. Some interpreters suggest that it could have be a fertility symbol. Companions (v. 11) represent a standard feature of marriage celebrations (Ps 45:14). Perhaps the Philistines felt a need for thirty of them as soon as they saw him as a safety measure against a dangerous-looking foreigner. That this is a story world number is obvious. There are thirty companions and garments, thirty dead Philistines (v. 19), 300 foxes (15:4), and three thousand threatening Judahites (15:11). Perhaps Samson proposes a verbal contest in v. 12 in order to prove his worthiness, or perhaps this was understood as a feature of extended festivities. The antecedent of them is obscure, but most likely his companions are intended. Tunics and…festive outfits refer respectively to shorter tunics and longer garments or perhaps long capes. For tunics, presumably of linen, see Isa 3:23; Prov 31:24. Festive outfits translates high-status outer clothing that was a substitute or replacement for one’s daily outfit and suitable as an honorific gift (Gen 45:22; 2 Kgs 5:5, 22–23).

248 Judges

The chronological coherence of the story has been swamped by the importance of the numbers three and seven (see note on v. 15). The Philistines cannot decipher the riddle for three days (v. 14). The bride pressures Samson for the whole seven-day festival (v. 17), but is only confronted by the baffled Philistines on the cutoff day, that is the seventh day (v. 15). The reader who strives to cooperate with the text as it stands has to assume that after three days the Philistines gave up trying to solve the puzzle, but waited until the seventh day to make their threat. At the same time, Samson’s bride was working on him the whole seven days, even before she was threatened. Connotations of the noun ḥîdâ (riddle) and the related denominative verb do not correspond completely with the modern Western notion of riddle. In Ezek 17:2 the noun appears in parallel with māšāl (comparison saying, parable) in a context that suggests the meaning “allegory.” In Hab 2:6 context suggested “pointed epigram” to the NJPV translators. There is something hidden in a ḥîdâ which can be “found out” (Judg 14:18) or “opened” (Ps 49:5 [ET 4]). HALOT 1:309 helpfully suggests as general meanings “ambiguous saying” and “designation of something by enigmatic allusions.” Another promising translation is “dark saying.” The verb ngd hiphil (tell) is used with dreams in Gen 41:24, suggesting the meaning “to provide an explanation.” The Queen of Sheba tested Solomon with “hard questions (ḥîdôt)…and Solomon told (ngd hiphil) her all her words” (1 Kgs 10:1, 3). The accusation that the riddle, if unsolved, would dispossess the Philistines (Judg 14:15) is contextually ironic, because yrš is the standard verb used when Israel is dispossessing the Canaanites. A further irony is that woman eventually suffers the threatened fate in spite of her successful efforts (15:6). Coax implies entice, wheedle, seduce (Exod 22:16; Hos 2:16 [ET 14]) as well as “make a simpleton of someone” (1 Kgs 22:20). Samson’s bride and Delilah use the same persuasive tactics: you do not love me (Judg 14:16; 16:15). The Philistine answer in v. 18 echoes the assonance and parallelism of the riddle and reverses the position of sweet and strong in a chiastic fashion. It both “solves” the riddle and caps Samson’s implicit reference to sexuality with another one referencing the sweetness and strength of love (see “Genre and Composition,” below). It is only in the last word of the second line that they reveal the information they have extracted from the woman: lion. One might say it lets the cat out of the bag. In return, Samson then caps their proverbial epigram with yet another couplet, playing off the sexual connotation of plow (“have intercourse with a woman”) and the figurative possibilities of the term heifer. They have plowed with his young wife to gain the information they wanted.

 Judges 14

249

Because Ashkelon was a Philistine town, Samson in v. 19 cleverly settles his debt without violating the hospitality he owes the guests of the feast he is hosting (v. 10). Not to pay off on the bet would cause him to lose honor in the estimation of readers, although he apparently hands over only festive outfits, passing over the tunics that were part of his original offer. The verse exhibits wordplay between ḥălîṣôt (spoil) and ḥălipôt (festive outfits). Samson’s move back up (lh) to his own home wraps up the wedding episode by reversing and bracketing his initial move down (yrd) in v. 1. Going to his father’s house reminds the reader that the father’s house of his wife has been exposed to peril (14:15) and prepares for the revenge killing of 15:6. Samson’s burning anger echoes that of Yahweh (3:8; 10:7). Verse 20 supplies transition to ch. 15, providing the trigger for the series of events reported there. Genre and Composition The narrative (through 15:6) exhibits some features of a trickster tale, of the sort told by disempowered groups at the expense of their social superiors. Samson’s riddle is devious. In the end, Samson proves trickier than his canny opponents, in that his final poetic couplet caps their solution and shows that he knows what has happened. He solidifies his success by paying off his debt in a way that costs him nothing and harms his opponents’ compatriots. Samson proposes a verbal contest. He speaks a riddle, an ambiguous saying alluding in an enigmatic, veiled way to some hidden reality. His opponents are not only supposed to uncover that obscure referent (tell the riddle), but also surpass or top his saying with one of their own. A somewhat similar situation may be found in the question and answer dialogue involving three guardsmen in 1 Esdras 3 (“what one thing is strongest?”). Samson’s riddle is shown to be potent and extraordinary speech by its assonance between eater and something to eat (mēhāōkēl and maăkāl) and the additional mem consonants in from the strong (ûmēaz) and sweet (mātôq). Samson’s riddle probably had an independent prehistory, either referencing a now-lost fable about a lion and honey or the sexual meanings described below. Samson’s riddle contains an element of misdirection. Many things are strong and sweet and many entities eat and are eaten. At its core the riddle is a double comparison, with one set of elements stated (eater/ strong and food/sweet) and one set hidden (lion and honey). Lions are both devourers and strong. Honey is both a foodstuff and sweet. The paradox is two-fold. That which eats produces food and that which is strong produces sweetness. However, only someone having knowledge

250 Judges

of the undisclosed incident to which Samson covertly refers can connect lion to eater/strong, connect honey to food/sweet, and uncover the hidden relationship between lion and honey. Moreover, the culturally competent reader would imagine that the wedding situation would likely misdirect the Philistines into the realm of sex and love. In fact, the riddle does have other solutions apart from the background story about a lion and bees. In the context of a week-long wedding feast, during which overeating rich food may be expected, a reasonable guess about the referent of the couplet could be the vomit (undigested food) of the party goers (the eater), overcome by too much revelry. Something sweet could be sweet wine vomited up by strong young wedding guests. More likely still, during merrymaking when lewd humor about sexuality would be customary, the thing that eats could be a vulva and what is eaten might refer to secretions tasted in cunnilingus. In a sexualized context, the strong one of the second part of the couplet could allude to the bridegroom’s voracious appetite for sexual consummation. What comes out from him would evoke thoughts of fellatio and the taste of sperm. For a less vulgar approach, one might consider the erotic eating metaphor of Prov 30:20 and the drinking metaphor in Prov 5:15–18. That Samson’s riddle is intentionally unsolvable and not “fair,” in the sense that to tell it requires knowledge possessed by Samson alone, should not be seen as a problem. Repressed (colonialized?) Danites and ruling, uncircumcised Philistines are living side by side in a situation of distrust, not openness. Trickiness at the expense of one’s betters is a virtue in a subservient population, and tricksters are heroes (compare Jacob or Ehud). In any case, the narrative requires an unanswerable riddle for the plot to work. If Samson has broken the rules, so have the Philistines! The Philistines only refer indirectly to Samson’s experience, which the reader must assume was the content of what his wife revealed to them. In order to outdo or surpass Samson, the Philistines both allude to the lion and honey “solution” in a veiled manner and simultaneously provide a new aphorism or riddling epigram that reflects the wedding context. They prove to be brilliant rhetoricians. The reader’s interest is heightened by the circumstance that Samson’s riddle is posed as declarative statement, while the Philistine response is posed as rhetorical question. To say this another way, Samson’s couplet is formally a statement but has interrogative force while the Philistine reply is formally a question, but makes a declaration. Samson’s saying is offered in near synonymous parallelism (eater/strong and something to eat/something sweet). The Philistine counter-statement instead features a two-fold ascending parallelism from

 Judges 14

251

sweet to strong and from honey to lion. The parallelism of Samson’s riddle calls for a connection between lion, the eater, and strong on the one hand, and honey, something to eat, and sweet on the other. The Philistine “solution” does not connect these two sets, but rather separates sweet honey and strong lion into their own halves of the couplet. Samson’s repeated came out (yṣ) directs one into a spatial meaning for the repeated min prepositions (from) and points to the narrative action of v. 9, where honey was taken from the lion’s body. The Philistine answer deftly switches the min prepositions from a spatial meaning into a comparative use with sweeter than…stronger than. Finally, the Philistine rhetorical question format (what is…?) emphasizes the obvious quality of their solution (compare Mic 1:5; 6:8). It does so by drawing attention to the proverbial supremacy of lion and honey in their respective milieus (on the metaphoric possibilities of honey, see Prov 16:24; 24:13; Song 4:11; 5:1; for the strength of lions, see 2 Sam 1:23; Isa 38:13). It is axiomatic that nothing is as sweet as honey or as strong as a lion. This reply is accepted by Samson as a valid answer (found out my riddle). But like Samson’s initial contribution to the verbal contest, the Philistine response is itself a riddle with multiple solutions, at least one of which is connected to the context of the wedding feast. Putting the solution in the form of a question invites the reader to consider the matter further. Certainly one answer could be the power and sweetness of wisdom or skillful language (compare Prov 16:23–24; 24:13–14). However, in a wedding context the reader will think immediately of love or sexual desire. Song 2:3 sings “his fruit was sweet,” and 8:6 insists that “love is strong as death.” Yet there is even more to think about! Love may be sweeter than honey, but was it not Samson himself who proved to be stronger than a lion? Yet in contrast, love has showed itself stronger than Samson when he gave in and responded to his wife’s pleading (you do not love me; Judg 14:16). In the long run, his love for Delilah (16:4) will overcome him, but ultimately lead to the humiliation of the Philistines. There are in fact three riddles, because Samson recaps the Philistine couplet with a metaphorical saying, again touching on the topic of sex. In doing so he reveals that he knows what has happened. On the surface, plowed alludes to the successful persuasion of 14:15 and the Philistines’ use of what his heifer (wife) discovered. Again there are sexual undertones. The Philistines have plowed with his wife, but also “in” her, since the Hebrew preposition b can mean both things. A heifer is a young female who could be beautiful and frisky (Jer 46:20; 50:11). Metaphorically, plowing opens a woman up to receive seed.

252 Judges

These three riddles provide rich opportunities for readers to interact with the text, because riddles are never completely unpacked. Riddles generate tension, in opposition to proverbs than lessen it. Their ambiguity and instability cause them to remain open. Riddles continually invite readers to engage in further consideration in order to discover multiple meanings. In a fertility context, breast milk could be something sweet to eat (compare Prov 5:19). Samson is an eater and so are his parents (14:9). It is even possible to find a double meaning in Judg 14:4b, the Philistines were ruling Israel and the similar expression in 15:11. Are they ruling or “posing riddles”? Context of course demands that mōšəlîm with the preposition b be read as the participle of mšl II “rule over.” However, the word could also be ingeniously construed as from the verbal root mšl I “speak a parable, pose a riddle” as Ezek 18:2. The Philistines were speaking in proverbs with Israel, but Samson came out on top.

J ud g es 15

Samson’s Revenge Some time later, during the wheat harvest, Samson visited his wife with a young goat. He said, “I want to have sex with my wife in the inner room,” but her father would not let him go in. 2 Her father said, “I had thought you really disliked her, so I gave her to your best man. Isn’t her younger sister more beautiful than she is? Let her be yours instead.” 3 Samson said to them, “This time I will be without blame in regard to the Philistines when I do them harm.” 4 Samson went off and caught 300 foxes. He took torches and turned them tail to tail and put a torch between each pair of tails. 5 He set the torches on fire and sent them out into the Philistines’ standing grain. He burned things up, from stacked grain to standing grain and to vineyard from olive grove. 6 The Philistines said, “Who had done this?” They said, “Samson, the son-inlaw of the Timnite, because he took his wife and gave her to his best man.” So the Philistines went up and burned her and her father with fire. 7 Samson said to them, “If you are going to act like this, I swear I will retaliate against you, and only then I will stop.” 8 So he struck them down hip and thigh, a great defeat. Then he went down and stayed in the rock shelter of Etam. 1

Slaughter at Lehi The Philistines went up and camped in Judah and overran Lehi. 10 The men of Judah said, “Why have you come up against us?” They said, “We have come up to take Samson prisoner and to do to him just as he did to us.” 11  So 3,000 men from Judah went down to the rock shelter of Etam. They said to Samson, “Surely you know that the Philistines are our rulers. What is this you have done to us?” He said, “I did to them just as they did to me.” 12 They said to him, “We have come down to take you prisoner in order to give you over to the power of the Philistines. Samson said to them, “Give me an oath that you that you will not attack me yourselves.” 13 They said to him, “No; we will only take you prisoner and give you over to their power. We will certainly not kill you.” So they bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock. 9

254 Judges When he came to Lehi, the Philistines came out to meet him, shouting a war cry. Then Yahweh’s spirit rushed powerfully upon him. The ropes that were on his arms became like flax that has caught fire, and his bonds melted off his hands. 15 He found a fresh donkey jawbone, reached down and took it, and struck down a thousand men with it. 16 Then Samson said: “With a donkey’s jawbone—heap upon heaps— With a donkey’s jawbone I have struck down a thousand men.” 17 When he finished speaking, he threw down the jawbone, so the name of that place was called Jawbone Hill. 18 He was very thirsty and he called out to Yahweh, “You are the one who has given this great victory through the power of your servant. Will I now die of thirst and fall into the power of the uncircumcised?” 19 Then God split open the hollow that was in Lehi and water came out of it. He drank and his spirit revived and he survived. Therefore, he called its name En-hakkore, which is in Lehi to this day. 20 He judged Israel in the days of the Philistines for twenty years. 14

Notes 1 have sex…go in] Wordplay based on two realms of meaning involving the verb bw. The dark inner room provided privacy for sex (2 Sam 13:10; Song 1:4; 3:4). 2 disliked] Hebrew: “hate,” but see Deut 21:15; 24:3. 5 to vineyard from olive grove] Follows MT and Syr. The commentary translation understands the syntax as employing a double duty mem in a poetic chiasm. Most modern translations treat krm and zyt together as though a construct: “groves of olives.” A similar translation can be obtained by treating the expression as an ellipsis: “and far as the vineyards, the olive groves.” The strategy of some ancient versions eased this syntactical difficulty by inserting “and as far as” (T) or “and” (OG V) between vineyard and olive in order to read two targets of destruction. 6 her father] Follows MT. Syr and some Hebrew MSS harmonize with 14:15 to read bt byh “her father’s house” (compare NJB NABRE). OG (LXXAL) similarly harmonizes, but by inserting “her father’s house” before “her and her father,” thus actually confirming MT. 8 hip and thigh] The expression conveys being routed in a violent physical assault, literally “shank to thigh.” One might say that he “beat their legs out from under them.” Or the idiom may suggests the random piling up of corpses. rock shelter] The space underneath a projecting overhang. OG “by the torrent in the cave” indicates it did not understand the rare word sāîp. Etam] Two proposed locations, one in Judah (Josh 15:59a LXX) and one associated with Simeon (1 Chr 4:32), appear to be too far outside the geographic sphere of the story. The suggestions of the cave Iraq Ismain near Zorah or rock formations near

 Judges 15

255

Beit Itab (1550 1269) work much better. The name seems to mean “where the birds of prey are,” appropriate for a site connected to a tradition of a great slaughter by a folk hero. 10 and to do] Includes the conjunction and as witnessed by OG V Syr. This waw dropped out of MT after the final waw of the previous word. 14 came out to meet him, shouting a war cry] Hebrew: “shouted to meet him.” OG presents a doublet translation that interpreted the verb as from both rw “shout, raise a war cry” and rwṣ “run.” 16 heap upon heaps] The second word is dual: “a heap upon two heaps.” A similar poetic step up from singular to dual occurs in 5:30 and Deut 32:20. There is wordplay between donkey and heap, both vocalized by the Masoretes as ḥamôr/ ḥamōr, possibly in order to call attention to the paronomasia. Heap would properly be ḥōmer (Exod 8:10 [ET 14]). NJPS seeks to capture the paronomasia with “With the jaw of an ass, Mass upon mass!” NABRE captures the sense with “I have piled them in a heap.” Another more interpretive approach is that of NIV: “With a donkey’s jaw-bone I have made donkeys of them” (repointing the second word as though a denominative verb from donkey). The Greek “I have utterly wiped them out” understands MT ḥamôr ḥamōrātāyim as ḥamôr ḥamartîm, that is as an infinitive absolute and a first person perfect with a third person plural object suffix. The translator construed the verbal root as ḥmr IV, “to skin, make red by skinning.” Compare REB “I have flayed them like donkeys.” 17 Jawbone Hill] Ramath-lehi, the first of three toponym etiologies. A hill, a concavity, and a spring, all in the same neighborhood, played a role in the preservation and transmission of this legend. A similar story was told about the place Lehi involving David’s champion Shammah (2 Sam 23:11–12). 19 hollow that was in Lehi] A topographic feature at Lehi, “hollow in the jawbone.” Perhaps this is an implied etiology for a well-known geological phenomenon by means of the concavity of a molar tooth in the jawbone or a depression made when Samson threw the jawbone down. The noun is literally “molar” or “mortar” (as in “mortar and pestle”), built on the verbal root “to pound” (Prov 27:22). En-hakkore] The narrative etiology takes this as “Spring of the One Who Calls,” although the place name properly signifies Partridge Spring.

Structure and Rhetoric Narrative episodes are chained together by successive retribution and counter-retribution. The key word in ch. 15 is the verb śh (do), used eight times to emphasize this pattern of cyclic revenge. What Samson

256 Judges

does (v. 3) to avenge the loss of his wife leads to the Philistine question, Who had done this? (v. 6). What is then done to Samson (v. 7) leads to his further onslaught (v. 8a), which is countered by what the Philistine intend to do to him in balanced retaliation (v. 10). A Philistine raid on Lehi (v. 9) motivates the Judahites to move against Samson. They complain of what Samson has done to them, and he counters with the same principle that operates with the Philistines (v. 11). A pattern of movement upwards and downwards that began in ch. 14 continues. Various forms of “go up” have the Philistines as grammatical subject in 15:6, 9, 10, 13. Samson and the Judahites “go down” to his hideout in vv. 8, 11, 12). [1–8] Verses 1–3 set up the first narrative problem: how will Samson fulfill his pledge to take vengeful action? Mention of the wheat harvest (v. 1) is often a narrative sign of a significant event (1 Sam 6:13; 12:7; 1 Chr 21:20). Here it also sets the stage for Samson’s assault on the Philistine crop. The expression may have been intended to signal a time for human sexuality as well (Gen 30:14; Ruth 2:21–22). Samson’s marriage appears to be of the type in which the woman continued to live with her parents (see Judg 14:8). The gift of a young goat may have been customary or intended to smooth out what has become an awkward social situation. In 15:2, the father’s syntax is doubly emphatic: “I really thought you really disliked her.” His conclusion that Samson now disliked her and thus has rejected her is understandable in light of 14:19. Many ancient readers would have seen the offer of her younger sister as a reasonable arrangement. The actions described in Gen 29:15–30 and 1 Sam 18:17–29 provide helpful cultural background. Reasonable or not, however, in 15:3 Samson takes the alienation of his wife as sufficient reason for a further move against the Philistines. For him it is a matter of justifiable retaliation. The use of pm (as part of this time) is an element of a larger unifying structure utilizing this verbal root (13:25; 16:15, 18, 20, 25, 28). In v. 3 the plural them indicates that others were present for the conversation, perhaps the younger daughter and her mother. The plot tension created by v. 3 is immediately relaxed by vv. 4–5. The narrative skips over the difficulty of capturing these animals. Foxes (perhaps more properly, “jackels”) would spread the fire rapidly and extensively and be difficult for the Philistines to catch. Fire plays a unifying role in the Samson stories: the angel’s ascent in ch. 13, the slaying of Samson’s wife and father-in-law (15:6), and the cords that break as though burned (15:14). Burning fields at harvest was a time-tested military tactic.

 Judges 15

257

Livy (22.16) reports that Hannibal sent oxen with torches affixed between horns to panic the Roman lines. Ovid (Fasti 4.679–712) describes a festival practice of releasing foxes with torches tied to their tails to be hunted. Thompson, Motif Index, K2351 is “animals help in military victory.” Judges 15:5b takes the form of a chiastic couplet (see the note). The targets of Samson’s deed appear in pairs (stacked grain…standing grain and vineyard…olive grove), communicating intense destruction and chaos. Samson strikes at the three staples of Palestinian life: grain, wine, and oil (Deut 7:13; Joel 1:10 and frequently). Judges 15:6–8 report ensuing vengeance and counter-vengeance, ending with Samson’s movement to a new locale. Thus, v. 8b corresponds to his movement in v. 1 and provides a closing bracket for the alienated wife incident. The language of the Philistines in v. 6 prepares for their atrocity by laying blame on the Timnite, as though recognizing some legitimacy to Samson’s position (son-in-law, his wife). Ironically, this was the very outcome that Samson’s wife had earlier hoped to avert (14:15). This mob action represents a second blow to Samson’s honor in addition to the initial forfeiture of his wife. Fire in 15:6 represents balanced retribution in that the Philistines employ the same destructive agent used by Samson. Using the syntax of an oath (I swear) in v. 7, Samson threatens and justifies what he will do next. But he also indicates that there will be an end to his retribution (then I will stop). This termination points forward to his withdrawal from the scene in v. 8b. It also suggests to the reader that his retribution is legitimate in that it will be limited in scope, in accord with the culturally accepted “no more than one eye for an eye” principle (Exod 21:23–25, etc.). Contemporary translations underplay the element of restraint by construing Samson’s language as an intensification of his threat (NRSV: “I will not stop until I have taken revenge on you”). The commentary translation seeks to capture both nuances. [9–20] Verses 9–17 set out a heroic exploit introduced by two successive scene-setting encounters. First the Philistines coerce the Judahites in vv. 9–10. Next the Judahites persuade Samson in vv. 11–13. The exploit itself is reported in vv. 14–17. The area in which Samson operated was sometimes considered Judah and sometimes Dan (for Zorah and Eshtaol see Josh 15:33 and 19:41; for Timnah, see Josh 15:57 and 19:43). His hideout is clearly in territory controlled by Judah, who must handle the problem for their menacing overlords. Samson’s fearsome reputation is signaled by the dispatch of three thousand men to capture him (Judg 15:11). The parallel language of vv. 10 and 11 shows that Samson and

258 Judges

the Philistines share the same ethic of tit-for-tat retaliation. The Judahites find themselves caught in the middle. We have come down to take you prisoner (v. 12) echoes the language of the Philistines whose mission they serve: We have come up to take Samson prisoner (v. 10). The introduction of Judahites nicely solves a narrative problem. In order for the bonds miraculously to melt off Samson, he must first somehow be bound. Yet given his superhuman strength and aggressiveness, this binding can only take place voluntarily, so Judahites with whom Samson is willing to cooperate are a narrative necessary. Delilah will devise her own effective workaround to the same storyline quandary (16:6–9, 11–12). Thus, the verb sr (bind) not only unifies this episode (15:10, 12, 13), but also prepares for the following chapter (occurring repeatedly in 16:5–13 and then in v. 21). The detail that the captors use two ropes that are also new (15:13) increases readers’ amazement at Samson’s instantaneous escape (similarly, 16:7, 11, 12). Samson’s narrative problem is extreme and reader tension is at a maximum. He is bound, weaponless, and faced by large numbers of motivated foemen. Judges 15:14a utilizes a syntax of simultaneity with explicit subjects (he, the Philistines) governing perfect verbs. The Philistines for their part shout in triumph and jubilation, sharpening the dramatic turn of events. Next the spirit from Yahweh once more rushes to empower Samson (13:25; 14:6, 19). Yet at this point, unlike the situation of 16:9 and 12, the ropes themselves are the grammatical subject of what happens, not Samson’s great strength. Will the reader see this as a miracle resulting from the independent behavior of the ropes on their own? Or is this a rhetorical way of highlighting Samson’s power by describing its effects only? The simile of burning flax as an image of rapid disintegration will return in 16:9. Culturally competent readers may have thought of Samson’s handy weapon as a farmer’s sickle fashioned from an animal mandible fitted with flint teeth. That it is fresh signals that it would not break under the stress of the assault. The curved shape of a jawbone might cause the ancient audience to think of an analog to the sickle-shaped sword (kîdôn; see Josh 8:18, where it is not as “javelin” as usually translated). Judges 15:15 appears to feature a veiled wordplay between ləḥî (jawbone) and an unexpressed synonym for “fresh,” namely laḥ, which will explicitly appear in 16:7–8. The wordplay between donkey and heap appears in 15:16 (see the note) and highlights the disparity between inadequate weapon and huge results. Throwing down the jawbone (v. 17) marks the end of Samson’s exploit (compare v. 7).

 Judges 15

259

Samson’s thirst in v. 18 communicates his immense exertion and consequently also the vast slaughter. Thirst provides a narrative connector in order to attach the next episode. Verses 18–19a move from the problem of thirst through lament and then to drinking and revival. Samson’s prayer takes the form of a lament intended to motivate divine relief. In order to do this, Samson styles himself as Yahweh’s servant and implicitly relates his thirst to the exertion of the great victory. He communicates his privation through a rhetoric of exaggeration (die; compare Gen 25:32; Jonah 4:9). In addition he describes the Philistines in an adverse fashion as uncircumcised (see 14:3) in order to motivate a response. The cyclical formula of 15:20 sharply divides Samson’s revenge exploits in ch. 15 from the gates of Gaza episode in 16:1–3. This means that the short Gaza narrative is to be read predominantly in light of the Delilah story. In the days of the Philistines makes it clear that Samson has still won no decisive saving victory (compare 13:5). His is the only period of judging that concludes with the enemy still in control. A later repetition of the formula judged Israel…twenty years in 16:31b suggests that an earlier form of the Samson narratives ended here at 15:20. However, even if this anomaly resulted diachronically from some redactional process, taken synchronically the repeated phrase now brackets and encompasses the story of Samson’s final encounters. Judges 16:31b signals its character as a resumptive repetition by its conversion of the connective waw consecutive imperfect of 15:20 (wayiššpōṭ) into a disjunctive syntax using an initial subject pronoun followed by a perfect verb (wəhû šāpaṭ). Genre and Composition Verses 1–8 continue the heroic tale that began in ch. 14, connected by a transitional temporal notice and the figures of the wife, her father, the best man. The threat of 14:15 and the father’s action in 14:20 each reach their conclusion and the narrative arc is closed. Clearly at some point in the authorial process, the relatively self-contained narratives of 14:1–15:8a and 15:8b–19 were joined together at the point of Samson’s movement in 15:8b. The contribution of DH to the compositional situation appears limited to 15:20. In the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, the period of Philistine domination is a golden age of the individual hero. Their exploits are narrated in brief reports, characterized by the use of unusual, inadequate, or non-existent weapons and large numbers of slain enemies. Shamgar kills six hundred with an ox goad (3:11), David strikes down Goliath with his sling (1 Sam 17:49), and Beniah slays the two sons of Ariel and an

260 Judges

Egyptian with only a staff (2 Sam 23:20–21). Four giants are killed by David’s men (2 Sam 21:15–22). Jonathan kills twenty in a small plot of ground (1 Sam 14:14), Josheb-basshebeth massacres eight hundred with a spear (2 Sam 23:8), and Abishai son of Zeruiah kills 300 with the identical weapon (2 Sam 23:18). Beniah killed a lion in a pit on a snowy day (2 Sam 23:20) and David makes a similar claim (1 Sam 17:34–36). Samson’s exploit at Lehi in Judg 15:14–17 finds a close parallel in the tradition about Shammah, one of David’s champions, who slew Philistines at Lehi (2 Sam 23:11–12; for a variant tradition, see 1 Chr 11:13–14). The first part of Samson’s poetic exclamation may have originally been a harvesting song, referencing a jawbone sickle embedded with flint blades and celebrating a rich yield, but if so, it has been supplemented to fit the narrative situation. Formulas for etymological etiology appear twice (vv. 17 and 19b; compare 10:4 and 18:12). Rhetorically, these notices have the effect of adding credibility to the narrative and connecting it to reader experience of known toponyms. It is likely that this heroic folktale was retold in the neighborhood of Etam, Ramath-lehi, and En-hakkore, spurred by those remarkable topographic features.

J ud g es 16

Samson at Gaza Samson went to Gaza. There he saw a prostitute and had sex with her. The people of Gaza were told, “Samson has come here.” So they formed a circle and set an ambush for him all night at the city gate. They kept silent all night, saying, “Wait until first light. Then we will kill him.” 3 But Samson lay there only until midnight. Then at midnight, he got up and took hold of the doors of the city gate and the two gateposts. He tore them out along with the crossbar, put them on his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of the hill that is near Hebron. 1 2

Delilah Learns the Secret After this he fell in love with a woman in the Sorek Valley. Her name was Delilah. 5 The lords of the Philistines came up to her. They said to her, “Coax him and see in what his great strength lies and how we can prevail over him and tie him up to humiliate him. We will each give you 1,100 shekels of silver.” 6 Delilah said to Samson. “Tell me in what your great strength lies and how you could be tied up to humiliate you.” 7 Samson said to her, “If they tie me up with seven brand new bowstrings that have not been dried, I shall grow weak and be like anyone else.” 8 So the lords of the Philistines brought up seven brand new bowstrings that had not been dried. She tied him up with them. 9 Meanwhile she had an ambush lying in wait in the inner room. She said, “Samson! Philistines are upon you!” But he tore the bowstrings apart the way a fine thread tears apart when it comes too close to fire. So the secret of his strength was not known. 10 Delilah said to Samson, “Look. You have made fun of me and told me lies. Now please tell me how you can be tied up.” 11 He said to her, “If they tie me up tight with new ropes with which no work has been done, then I shall grow weak and be like anyone else.” 12 So Delilah took new ropes and tied him up with them. Then she said to him, “Samson! Philistines are upon you!” The ambush was lying in wait in the inner room. But he tore them apart from his arms like thread. 4

262 Judges Delilah said to Samson, “Up till now you have been making fun of me and telling me lies. Tell me how you can be tied up. He said to her, “If you weave the seven braids of my head into the loom fabric and fasten it tight with the peg, then I shall grow weak and be like anyone else. 14 She lulled him to sleep. Delilah took the seven braids of his head and wove them into the loom fabric. She fastened it tight with the peg. Then she said to him, “Samson! Philistines are upon you!” He woke from his sleep and pulled out the weaving peg and the fabric. 15 She said to him, “How can you say, ‘I love you,’ when you don’t confide in me? You have mocked me these three times and have not told me in what your great strength lies.” 16 When she urged him with her words day after day and harassed him, he was wearied to death. 17 So he told her everything on his mind. He said to her, “A razor has never gone up on my head, because I have been God’s nazirite from my mother’s womb. If I were shaved, then my strength would leave me and I would be like anyone else.” 18 Then Delilah saw that he had told her everything on his mind. She sent word to the lords of the Philistines saying, “Come up this time, because he has told me everything on his mind. The lords of the Philistines came up and brought the silver in their hands. 19 She lulled him to sleep on her knees. She called a man and had him shave off the seven braids of his head. Then she began to humiliate him, and his strength left him. 20 She said, “Samson! Philistines are upon you!” Then he woke from his sleep and thought, “I will go out as at other times and shake myself free, not knowing that Yahweh had left him. 21 The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza. They bound up with bronze shackles. He was set to grinding in the prison. 13

Samson’s Death But the hair of his head began to grow back after it had been shaved.  The lords of the Philistines gathered to offer a great sacrifice to their god Dagon and to celebrate, saying, “Our god has given into our hand Samson our enemy.” 24 When the people saw him, they praised their god, because they said, “Our god has given into our hand the one who laid waste to our land who has multiplied our slain.” 25 When they grew merry they said, “Call Samson and let him entertain us. So they called Samson from prison and he entertained them. Then they made him stand between the pillars. 26 Samson said to the young man who held him by the hand, “Allow me freedom to touch the pillars on which the building rests, so that I may lean against them.” 27 The building was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there. On the roof there were about three thousand men and women, who were watching Samson 22 23

 Judges 16

263

entertain. 28 Then Samson called out to Yahweh and said, “Lord Yahweh, remember me and give me strength just this once, O God, so that I may take revenge on the Philistines with one act of retribution for my two eyes. 29 Samson touched and held the two middle pillars on which the building rested. He leaned against them—on one with his right hand and on the other with his left. 30 Then Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” He stretched out with all his strength and the building fell down on the lords and all the people in it. The dead he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life. 31 His brothers and all his father’s house came down and carried him away. They brought him up and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the tomb of his father Manoah. He had judged Israel twenty years. Notes 1 Samson went] Follows MT Syr T. OG includes the adverb “from there,” as though continuing the story line from 5:19. This might be evidence that 15:20 was inserted later (from 16:31?), but is more likely a translational supplement to ease transition. 2 were told] Not present in MT, which is grammatically anomalous. The ancient versions fill in the ellipsis with a verb of informing or telling as a translation strategy. formed a circle] Alternative translation: “moved around in a circle” (20:5; Ps 118:12). kept silent] Or “took no action.” NJPS vividly merges silence and speaking: “all night long they kept whispering to each other.” until first light] The preposition ad here indicates “just before” (1 Kgs 18:29). 3] OG supplements with “and he set them down there” at the end of the verse. 5 Coax] HALOT 3:985: “to persuade someone, by offering a tempting allurement.” In this context, the verb carries the connotation of “seduce” (Exod 22:15; Judg 14:5). 1,100 shekels] “A thousand and a hundred,” not a precise figure, but a stereotypical phrase for a huge amount (see Judg 17:2–3). Compare English “hundreds and thousands.” The commentary translation adds shekels, presuming that this indication of weight was elided as something assumed. NRSV’s “pieces of silver” suggests clipped portions of metal of a standard weight. See also 9:4; 17:2, 10. 7 bowstrings] Made from animal tendons. LXXL and Josephus (Ant. 5.308) think of vine twigs. like anyone else] That is, “be like any human (ādām).” 9 comes too close] Hebrew: “when it smells fire” (compare Job 39:25). 11 new ropes] OG adds “seven” to harmonize with vv. 7, 13, 19. 13 braids] Giving a precise number suggests plaits or pigtails, a practical hairstyle for an active fighter.

264 Judges 13–14 and fasten it…wove them into the loom fabric] Follows OG with indirect support from V. This is the reading preferred by BHQ and modern English versions except NJPS. MT suffered a long haplography from “loom fabric” to “loom fabric” (m-hmskt). Envisioning a type of loom that used a peg to hold one end of the warp into a wall, OG added “into the wall” after “fasten it tight with the peg” in both vv. 13 and 14. To attempt to clarify further, LXXL supplemented after “wall” in v. 13, adding “and weave as upon a beam.” 14 the weaving peg] Both elements of this construct expression are definite, suggesting that the second word hāereg, perhaps “the weaver’s bobbin,” originated as an explanatory gloss. MT still represents the earliest recoverable text, however. OG has the weaving arrangement pulled “out of the wall” when Samson awakes. OG also finishes the verse with “and the secret of his strength was not known” in order to harmonize with v. 9b. 15 when you don’t confide in me] Hebrew: “when your heart is not with me.” In Prov 23:7 this expression following reported speech conveys “does not really mean it” or “does not have good intentions,” which also would fit the context here. 16 wearied to death] The idiom expresses extreme exasperation (1 Kgs 19:4; Jonah 4:8). 17 everything on his mind] Hebrew: “all his heart.” 18 told me] Follows qere. Ketib “told her” looks like assimilation to the previous clause. 19 had him shave] Interpreting the third person feminine piel as factitive. OG V treat the barber as the subject, although the Greek verb allows for either gender. A less natural possible translation would be “she called to the man [that is, to Samson to see if he was asleep], and then she shaved….” she began to humiliate him] Follows MT as the more difficult reading. OG adjusts to “he began to weaken” as though reading wayāḥel lēānôt (followed by NRSV NABRE). Exactly what she does is unclear. REB: “making him helpless.” NJPV: “weakened him.” NJB: “got control over him.” There may be sexual overtones (Judg 19:24; 20:5; Ezek 22:10–11). The sequential relationship between the first and second waw consecutive verbs of v. 19b is intriguing. Her humiliating Samson precedes and may even lead to his weakening. NIV and NJPS link the haircut to the first verb, so that NJPS offers “thus she weakened him and made him helpless: his strength slipped away from him.” 21 prison] Hebrew: “house of prisoners.” Ketiv is the noun and qere the passive participle (also v. 25). The verbal root appears twice in this verse and is used eight times earlier in the narrative (translated tie up). NJB “turning the mill” is anachronistic, as though Samson takes the place of an animal in a large circular mill. Samson’s humiliation consists in doing women’s work with a hand mill (Lam 3:15).

 Judges 16

265

24–25 When the people saw him…. they said, “Call Samson…”] The narrative flow is problematic. They first see Samson in v. 24 and only in v. 25 do they demand he come out from prison. LXXL anticipates the action of v. 25b before the start of v. 24 in an attempt to smooth over the difficulty. 24 multiplied our slain] That is, “killed so many of us.” 25 When they grew merry] Ketiv represents the particle kî and perfect verb (or adjective), either “because” or “when their hearts became joyful.” The qere is the temporal preposition k and infinitive construct, clearly “when.” BHQ prefers ketiv because the ancient versions appear to support it. entertained] NABRE: “provided amusement.” NJB: “performed feats.” NJPS: “danced.” Sexual connotations may lie just below the surface (Gen 26:8; Exod 32:6), which might explain the OG reversal of grammatical subject into “they mocked him” as a euphemistic rendering to protect Samson’s reputation (also Josephus, Ant. 5.314). 26 Allow me freedom] Hiphil imperative of nwḥ, “let me rest, allow me to.” NJB “lead me” takes the verb as a hiphil imperative of nḥh “conduct, lead.” touch] The lexical root of qere is mwš and that of ketiv is ymš (HALOT 2:416), both being by-form variations of mšš (HALOT 2:653), may be a metathesis error. At the end of the verse OG (LXXL OL) fills out the narrative with “and the young man did so.” 28 this once] There is an apparent gender mismatch between “once” and “this” The latter should be repointed as a feminine, hazzōh (see HALOT 1:265 on Josh 2:17). O God] Follows MT. Lacking in OG (LXXAL OL). Perhaps the translator omitted it as a tautology. BHQ follows OG, suggesting that MT is the result of an inserted marginal gloss. 28 one act of retribution for my two eyes] The commentary translation understands the contrast as one between a single act of vengeance and the loss of two eyes. The idea is that in one act Samson will avenge two wrongs. Another possibility is “and let me take revenge with a singular vengeance—because of my two eyes—from the Philistines.” NJPS translates MT as indicating a vengeance more limited than it could be: “if only for one of my two eyes.” 30 stretched out] Some translations describe Samson as pulling in by leaning down: (ESV NJPS REB). In others, he pushes out (NABRE, NIV). 31 twenty years] At this point LXXL OL repeat the notice about Shamgar in a separate translation somewhat different from that of OG of 3:31, but following the same flawed Hebrew text (“besides cattle” instead of “ox goad”). The location at 16:31b highlights the similarities between Shamar’s exploits and those of Samson. It is likely that Shamgar came into the book of Judges at a late stage in the book’s development, finding a home after Ehud in one Hebrew recension and after Samson in another. Shamgar’s position at 16:31 suggests that Judges may have ended at ch. 16 at the time when the insertion was made. See note on 3:30–31.

266 Judges

Structure and Rhetoric Chapter 16 continues a pattern of Samson seeing a woman and loving her at various locations. In v. 1 he saw a prostitute at Gaza; in 14:1–2 he had seen a woman at Timnah. Also in 16:1, he had sex (Hebrew: “went into”) the prostitute, which echoes the language of 15:1. In 16:4, he fell in love with a woman in Sorek Valley. This leads to Delilah’s complaint about love in v. 15, one that echoes that of his wife in 14:16. Delilah’s assigned task according to 16:5 is to see what the mechanism of Samson’s strength is, and when the story reaches v. 18 she has succeeded and saw it all. [1–3] Verses 1–3 provide a setup for the Delilah episode. Samson’s weakness for women’s sexuality prepares readers for a story of his vulnerability. The verbal root ambush in v. 2 will be repeated in vv. 9 and 12. The prostitute incident moves the story world (at least momentarily) to Gaza where elements of ch. 16 take place. The episode begins and ends with Samson’s movement, first to Gaza, then to Hebron. The narrative is highly concentrated, without detail and marked by grammatical ellipses. In contrast, the subsequent Delilah episode is exhaustive and repetitive. This indicates that vv. 1–3 serve almost entirely as an overture to what follows. Repetition of city gate and night links together the rapid actions of vv. 2–3 (midnight in Hebrew is “half of the night”). Samson preempts the threat of ambush, acting proactively in the dark of midnight. But the reader is left to wonder how he gets past the ambush at the gateway, or even whether he even ever learned about the threat to his life. Explicit motivation is offered neither for his midnight wakening nor for ripping out the gate assembly and carrying it off. Gates and bars are symbols of a city’s power (Deut 3:5; 1 Sam 23:7; Lam 2:9). He carries their weight, easily imagined by a culturally competent reader, a great distance and moreover does so uphill. As though carrying off the gates were not enough, he also yanks out the posts and takes them along with the crossbar. All this illustrates Samson’s strength, which is of course the central topic of the rest of the chapter. The reader will notice that neither Yahweh nor the spirit plays any role here. Emphasis rests on Samson’s sexual drive, his superhuman strength, and the ineptitude of the Philistines. [4–21] Delilah represents a successful third attempt by the Philistines to neutralize Samson after two failures (14:1–15:20 and 16:1–3). She is also the third woman with whom Samson has involved himself. The first woman was from Timnah, the second was from Gaza, and she is from

 Judges 16

267

the Sorek Valley. Although the ethnicity of Samson’s wife and perhaps that of the Gaza prostitute might suggest to the reader that Delilah too is a Philistine, this is never actually stated and nothing made of her nationality. In fact, the offer of bounty money suggests that she in a disinterested intermediary, unaffiliated with the Philistine grievance so passionately expressed in 16:23–24. Danites and Judahites could certainly have resided in the western portion of the Sorek Valley. Her name seems to refer to dangling curls (from the verbal root dll II) or perhaps to flirtatiousness. Internal unity is provided the verbal root pm, a leitmotif first introduced in 13:25 as a piel verb (stir up), and then used by Samson to justify his act in 15:3. Delilah uses the word to refer to the four episodes of her inquiry: these three times (16:15); come up this time (v. 18). paam is then used to reflect the radical turn in Samson’s situation in 16:20 (as at other times, that is “time after time”) and then in v. 28 to highlight his final retaliation: just this once (that is, “this time”). Exposition is provided by vv. 4–5. The reader knows from experience that Samson’s love of a woman will bring about a problem. The characters Delilah and the Philistine lords are introduced. The narrative issue is introduced by a clash between the assignment given to Delilah and Samson’s might (just demonstrated in v. 3). Both elements are signposted by the phrase great strength (v. 5 and later vv. 6, 15). The opposite of Samson’s strength is the possibility expressed by tie him up (v. 5 and later vv. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13). The huge monetary consideration informs the reader that Delilah will be strongly motivated to succeed. The reader will doubtlessly assume there are five lords (3:3), although this is not stated. Since each of the rulers promises 1,100 shekels, the total payoff is fabulous. The Levite who serves as priest in 17:10 will make only ten shekels a year. In the narrative proper, Delilah moves step by step closer to her assigned goals, which are to learn the secret of his strength and to bind him. She reaches the first goal after three failures in 16:18 (everything on his mind) and the second in v. 21 (bound him). The suspended matter of promised silver is resolved in v. 18. Unshorn Samson is a wild and undomesticated creature. But Delilah keeps him in the house, domesticates him with a loom and a razor, and he succumbs. The narrative climax comes with v. 21a at the close of its own little narrative full of dramatic tension comprising vv. 18–21. Verse 21b serves as denouement, but also as the first element of the exposition of the next episode. Delilah’s two-part assignment in v. 5 drives what follows: (in Hebrew) “in what is his strength great and in what [way] can we prevail over him.” Elements of this commission are repeated to introduce each of her four stratagems (vv. 6, 10, 13, 15). In fact in the first round (v. 6), Delilah is

268 Judges

completely straightforward in exactly repeating to Samson the wording of her instructions from v. 5: tied up to humiliate. The reader thus experiences irony, knowing that she is upfront in communicating her desire and tells the truth to an oblivious Samson. In contrast, Samson lies to protect his secret. There are four cycles to the story: bowstrings (vv. 6–9), ropes (vv. 10– 12), loom (vv. 13–14), and razor (vv. 15–20). The mechanisms to weaken Samson move from the realm of nature (animal sinews) to increasing levels of culture: ropes, textile technology, and personal grooming. They also move from warfare (bowstrings) to domesticity (loom, razor). The seven new bowstrings of v. 8 move to the stronger and more practical ropes of v. 11. Of course, only in the world of storytelling would a person allow this exchange to happen three times before finally reaching success. Tied up should certainly have sounded alarm bells for Samson, especially in light of 15:13! The accounts of Delilah’s failed attempts are repetitive: 1.  Tell me…tied up (vv. 6, 10, 13a) 2.  If…tie up / weave…grow weak and be like anyone else (vv. 7, 11, 13b) 3.  She tied him up / wove (vv. 8, 12a, 14a) 4.  “Samson! Philistines are upon you!” (vv. 9a, 12a, 14a) 5.  He tore apart / pulled out (vv. 9b, 12b, 14b) The tale’s repetition and three-fold structure are hallmarks of its oral background. In the first round (vv. 6–9), the Philistine lords make an appearance, reminding the reader of the conspiracy. Delilah is not likely to have bowstrings sitting around the house! Made from fresh animal tendons, they would shrink and tighten as they dried, binding Samson even more tightly. The image of v. 9 echoes that of 15:14. Unlike the other rounds, this section concludes by highlighting Samson’s still-unknown secret. To begin round two (vv. 10–12) Delilah refers to her first failure and accuses Samson as she will in the third round. In the first two attempts, Delilah tied Samson up while he was (apparently) conscious. Or perhaps this suggests a bit of sex play. However, the complex and overly revealing business with the loom and razor requires that Samson fall asleep. The story advances in round three (vv. 13–14) in that Samson lets slip the connection between his secret and his hair. The narrative assumes a low sort of loom with its loom fabric (the web) stretched parallel to the ground and fixed by pegs driven into the floor. Samson must be asleep

 Judges 16

269

(and apparently on the ground) so Delilah can entangle his hair into it. Perhaps the thought is that entangling Samson in something so domestic as weaving would drain his warrior powers. The climactic fourth scene echoes some elements of the earlier failures: 1.  be like anyone else, v. 17 (like vv. 7, 11, 13b) 2.  lulled to sleep…woke from his sleep, vv. 19–20 (like v. 14) 3.  seven, v. 19 (like vv. 7, 13b) Delilah turns up the emotional heat (How can you say…. mocked me these three times) and Samson succumbs: have not told me…. he told her everything. The reader is reminded of Samson’s capitulation to his wife in 14:16–17, but his time the results are much more serious. Appropriately, given the change from various sorts of strings and yarns to a razor, the matter of tying up is dropped by Delilah. Instead she focuses only on the central question of great strength. Samson for his part no longer speaks of growing weak, but prepares for Yahweh’s abandonment of him by saying my strength would leave me (v. 17; see v. 20b). In v. 17, Samson finally reveals the secret information about the conditions of his nazirite status that was communicated by the angel to his mother back in 13:5. Yet the topic of his great strength has never earlier been connected specifically to his hair. Both of these items are rather extreme cases of delayed exposition, and this element of the story may actually come as something of a surprise to the reader. The fourth scene comprises its own miniature drama. With the increased length and detail of Delilah’s pestering in vv. 15–16, narrative time slows down. Narrative tension increases as the reader wonders how she can manage the awkward feat of shaving. The story increases in complexity as the Philistine lords are brought back onto the scene. In her first three attempts, Delilah felt the need to test Samson’s veracity, and the ambush stayed hidden (vv. 9, 12, and implicitly in v. 14). But in the climactic episode, she shows how convinced she is by sending for her employers before she acts. There is no need to experiment first. The narrator in v. 17 reveals that Samson told her everything on his mind and then repeats this phrase as Delilah’s knowledge in v. 18. She in turn uses the same phrase in her report to the Philistine lords in v. 19. In vv. 18–20a, Delilah is the grammatical subject of all significant verbs. That she saw (v. 18) links back to her original assignment in v. 5. The intimate scene of v. 19 may suggest to the reader an infant with his mother, who soothes him to sleep (2 Kgs 4:20; Isa 66:12), or even a scene of birthing onto her knees (Gen 30:3; Job 3:12). If the reader follows the

270 Judges

latter implication, there is a degree of irony in that the state of affairs faithfully maintained from his mother’s womb (Judg 16:17) is now being violated. The narrative does not address the vexing problem of shaving someone’s head with a bronze or iron razor while he remains asleep. Loss of hair alone would itself be an experience of humiliation (compare 2 Sam 10:4; Isa 7:20). Delilah’s dramatic warning in Judg 16:20a echoes those of vv. 9a, 12a, and 14a, and narrative tension reaches its high point as the unaware Samson rises to struggle free. But this time, unlike the previous stymied ambushes, the Philistines act. Are these the Philistine lords themselves or those minions who had laid in wait previously? In v. 19 Samson’s strength left him, and v. 20 reveals that Yahweh had left him in a coordinated fashion. The two events really represent the same reality and are both connected to Samson’s loss of nazirite status. Yahweh had left him means that the divine spirit would no longer motivate and empower his extraordinary exploits as before (14:6, 19; 15:14; compare 1 Sam 16:14; 18:12). Judges 16:18 and 20 reveal the contrasting inner consciousness of Delilah and Samson respectively: she saw, but he arose not knowing. Verse 21 reports the climactic and seemingly final reversal of Samson’s fortunes. The recurring prospect of being tied up or bound has now come to reality (see note on v. 21). His eyes, which have regularly caused trouble (14:3, 7 [Hebrew: “right in his eyes”]; 14:1 and 16:1 [saw]) are destroyed. [22–31] Verse 22 marks a new turn upward in the narrative, but the dividing line is not absolute. Verse 21 provides necessary background by reporting that Samson’s foes have overpowered him, shackled him, imprisoned him, and humiliated him by blinding him as well as setting him to the grindstone. The narrative returns to Gaza, site of his last public feat of power. Overall, the concluding Gaza narrative moves from dishonor (vv. 21, 25) to restored honor (vv. 30–31). Samson, the disgraced warrior, is forced to engage in a menial task usually carried out by women and slaves (Lam 5:13). Blinding is also a way of degrading an opponent (2 Kgs 25:7). His humiliation is also suggested by the presence of the young man as attendant in Judg 16:26 (naar). This figure poignantly evokes the squire of an elite warrior, who appeared in the story of Gideon (7:10) and assisted Abimelech to an honorable death (9:54). Yet dishonored Samson finishes his career in honor, with a mighty deed, a proper burial, and a concluding notice of his exploits (v. 31). The turn toward the positive culmination begins already with v. 22 (began), reminding the reader of the use of this same verb in the description of

 Judges 16

271

Samson’s mission (13:5, 25) and starting a reversal what Delilah did in v. 19 (began to humiliate). In spite of blinding, binding, and grinding, all is not lost as the reader might have assumed. Over time hair grows back. The narrative tension rebuilds. Will his strength return along with his hair? How can he do anything while bound and blind? Judges 16:23 starts with a subject-first disjunctive syntax that signals a temporal gap after the information given in v. 22 and returns the lords of the Philistines to the narrative foreground. Their delight is communicated by a rhyming scheme that continues through two poetic couplets. In v. 23 it is bəyādēnû (our hand) and ôyəbēnû (our enemy). The lyrical celebration of the rulers is then echoed and developed by the Philistine populace in v. 24. They link up to their rulers’ couplet by repeating its first line. Then they define our enemy by citing the atrocities he has committed and continuing the sound parallelism: maḥarîb arṣēnû…hirbâ et-ḥalālēnû (ravaged our land… multiplied our slain). The Philistine sacrifice to their god, and their refrain stresses the sacral war victory of our god with the standard formula given into our hand (Deut 2:36; 3:3 and elsewhere). Their theological confidence in Dagon contrasts sharply with what the narrator revealed to be the actual situation in v. 20, namely that Yahweh is the divinity behind Samson’s downfall. Ravaged our land is a reference to the foxes incident of 15:4–5, and multiplied our slain to what is reported in 15:8; 15. The show Samson is forced to put on (entertain, vv. 25, 27) represents further humiliation, this time a public shaming. Would a reader with more cultural competence than we possess think of dancing and capering about (1 Sam 18:7; 1 Chr 15:29), mock combat to make fun of a blind warrior (2 Sam 2:14), or some sexually charged act (Gen 26:8; 2 Sam 6:5, 20–22). Indeed, an implicit theme of sexuality seems to permeate the humiliation of Samson, at least for the reader sensitized by the prostitute incident. The use of the piel of nh (humiliate) in v. 19 could point to some sort of forced sexual degradation (Gen 34:2; Judg 19:24; Lam 5:11, etc.). Delilah’s knees in the same verse have sexual overtones. Grinding in v. 21 has sexual connotations in Isa 47:2–3 and Job 31:10. The staging of vv. 24–27 is somewhat awkward. The crowd sees Samson in v. 24 before he is called from prison in v. 25. The waw consecutive of the last part of v. 25 (v. 25bβ) indicates that the demeaning performance of the first part of the verse (v. 25abα) is over. Most contemporary translations indicate this by starting a new sentence at this point. Samson has been moved out of the limelight. However, this raises a problem with v. 27, which reports that the throng on the roof were (still?) watching Samson entertain. The reader is pushed into taking the participle in v. 27 (who were watching Samson) as reporting an action contemporaneous

272 Judges

with the performance of v. 25 and previous to Samson’s move to between the pillars. Verse 25bβ features a bit of wordplay between wayaămîdû (made him stand) and hāammûdîm (the pillars). In v. 26, the presence of the guide and Samson’s need for assistance remind the reader of Samson’s blindness, but the pillars foreshadow what is to come. Perhaps Samson is being pictured as a man of great size, able to bridge the gap between support pillars The subject-first syntax in v. 27 turns attention away from Samson to the building with its potential victims inside and on its rooftop. Roof might refer to the vantage point from some neighboring structure from which spectators watched the proceedings, but it is most natural to assume that only one building is meant throughout. This would be a pillared public building with a rooftop platform from which the crowd could see down into the performance area on the pillar level. This verse emphasizes by repetition that both inside and outside groups consist of men and women. The text’s authors know that the indigenous Dagon has been adopted by the Philistines. Mention of sacrifice in v. 23 suggests to some modern translators (NABRE NIV) that the pillared building (Hebrew: “house”) is a temple, rather than a large public hall. This is hardly certain, and one should remember that Solomon’s Temple was part of a complex with several pillared buildings (1 Kgs 7:2–8). Nor does the text say that this public building is in Gaza. First Samuel 5:1–7 reports the continuing existence of a Dagon temple in Ashdod. Samson’s prayer in v. 28 seems (to modern readers, at least) to be a distinct improvement over his thirst-driven call to God in 15:18–19. Nevertheless, he is still concerned only with his own issues (take revenge…my two eyes) and not with the misfortune of the people he is supposedly judging (16:31b). Asking God to remember me is the equivalent of “act on my behalf” (Pss 25:7; 106:4). That Samson pushes (or pulls, see note on v. 29) on the middle pillars signals that he will destroy the entire building, not just one part. Complete retribution requires that the lords die along with the general public. Those he killed in life have been reported in 14:19; 15:8, 15. The scales of retribution have been balanced, and Samson has achieved honor after his dishonor. Reinstatement to dignity and honor is communicated in v. 31 as Samson’s kinfolk come and bury him in the tomb of his father. This returns to and resolves the topic of his strained relationship to his family that was highlighted in ch. 14. The heroic career that started between Zorah and Eshtaol (13:25) has turned full circle. This last act is similar to the conclusion of Gideon’s career in 8:32, whose father’s tomb is also precisely located.

 Judges 16

273

Genre and Composition It is likely that folktales were recounted at Samson’s grave location, which the text carefully locates in an area that was (eventually) within the kingdom of Judah (Josh 15:33). The site of Manoah’s altar may also have played a role. In addition, it is possible that 16:3 could refer to a gate-like landscape formation near Hebron. The literate ancient reader of the Delilah story may have recalled the harlot who tames Enkidu in Gilgamesh. The themes of magic strength in hair and the secret of strength treacherously discovered are found in other folktales (Thompson, Motif Index, D1831 and K975). This tale of the trickster tricked reflects a background of paranormal power. In v. 7 the bowstrings are explicitly prepared from fresh animal tendons; brand new articles were assumed to have special powers. The new ropes in v. 11 point to the same notion (see 15:13 and 1 Sam 6:7; 2 Kgs 2:20). This is also a social control story. It reflects male fear of female eroticism. For men the point seems to be a warning not to surrender strength to the allure of dangerous womankind. Telling this story would also justify women’s subjugated social role. Elite males co-opt Delilah’s womanly power in order to achieve their goals. Female characters are important to the Samson narrative as a whole. At points they are the ones who move the action forward. Samson’s mother is central and Manoah is marginal in ch. 13 (vv. 3, 9, 11, 13, 23). This pattern provides a foreshadowing reflection of Samson’s unperceptive foolishness and Delilah’s persistent cleverness. However, from a modern perspective, these women still appear against a patriarchal background. Samson’s mother is a patriarchal ideal of perceptive obedience who is rewarded with a child. Delilah is the classic dangerous exotic and erotic woman. Samson’s wife, too, is one who entices and betrays. Interpreters tend to compare Samson unfavorably with the judges who precede him. Because he only “begins to deliver” Israel, his achievements are not as complete as those of the untarnished judges Othniel through Deborah or the more problematic but still successful Gideon or Jephthah. Samson is a flawed character, although at least he is not responsible for any problematic ephods or human sacrifices. However, interpreters regularly disparage his actions because they are individual rather than communal. He wreaks personal vengeance rather than leading the people in sacral war. He kills a lion barehanded, raids the enemy to pay off a debt, commits arson, slays a thousand made strong by a divine spirit, and publicly shames the people of Gaza by stealing their gates. The unstated

274 Judges

cultural assumption on the part of modern commentators is that public leadership is socially more valuable than the actions of an unrestrained, isolated vigilante. One must doubt, however, that early readers would have felt any problem here. Danite peasants caught between Philistine colonialism to the west and Judahite domination to the east would have reveled in Samson’s exploits. These heroic tales would have reinforced Dan’s ethnic identity, which must have been regularly threatened, especially in the small tribe’s beleaguered southern location (1:34–35). Samson is the classic underdog, the entertaining trickster who from a marginalized position still harms the enemy. His acts of small-scale violence could not make any strategic difference, but ordinary folk would have retold them with relish. A similar judgment may be made about the exploits of Shamgar (3:31) or of David’s heroes (2 Sam 21:15–22; 23:8–23). Samson kills lots of Philistines and dishonors them as well. As the Samson stories functioned over the centuries, Philistines could signify any dominating foes—elites, royal officials, Assyrians, Persians—who richly deserved their comeuppance. Samson is a liminal character. He operates “between Zorah and Eshtaol” (13:25; 16:31), an area which was sometimes Dan (Josh 19:41) sometimes Judah (Josh 15:33). Just downhill to the west is the Philistine world of Timnah, with the Sorek Valley as a buffer zone (16:4). His liminal character is illustrated by his mother’s (and his) nazirite behavior, rejecting signs of civilization such as razors and vines. Structural critics observe that these stories are characterized by numerous binary oppositions: mother/prostitute, wife/temptress, male/female; Israel/Philistine, upcountry/lowland, us/them. Samson crosses back and forth across these binaries. It is easy to fall into a historicizing trap. The Philistines who inhabit this story world are not the equivalent of the colonizing Aegean people known to historical scholarship through ancient texts and archaeology. In the Samson tales they are not invaders so much as aggressive neighbors. They are rulers of Israel (14:4b; 15:11), raiders (15:9), and long-standing enemies (3:31; 10:7, 11). They are agriculturalists (15:5) who worship Dagon, a vegetation god native to Canaan. Danites move easily in Philistine territory and interact with them through marriage or other sexual relationships. There is no language barrier. Of the five Philistine cities (1:18) only Ashkelon and Gaza are mentioned. The title of their rulers (seren; 16:5 etc.) is the only item of foreign exoticism, except for the critical matter of being uncircumcised, something of great importance for the practice of intermarriage (14:3; compare Gen 34:14). These

 Judges 16

275

story-world Philistines are a people with “Canaanite” culture, not too different from the “Israelites” who live on the eastern, inland side of the cultural border. Compositional activity is visible at the join between the conclusion of the Lehi tale and the Gaza prostitute story, where the DH cyclical formula is present (15:20), and in the formula after this in 16:4, which moves on to the Delilah story. The DH cyclical formula rounds off Samson in 16:31.

J ud g es 17

Micah Acquires a Yahweh Image 1 There was a man of the hill country of Ephraim. His name was Micah. 2 He said to his mother, “The silver worth 1,100 shekels that was taken from you, so that you uttered a curse that you also spoke it in my hearing—the silver is here with me. I am the one who took it.” Then his mother said, “Blessed by Yahweh be my son.” 3 He returned the silver worth 1,100 shekels to his mother. Then his mother said, “I hereby consecrate to Yahweh silver out of my hand for my son, to make a carved image overlaid with precious metal. I now return it to you.” 4 So when he returned the silver to his mother, she took 200 shekels’ worth of silver and gave it over to a silversmith. He made it into a carved image overlaid with precious metal. It was in Micah’s house. 5 Micah had a shrine, made an ephod and teraphim, and ordained one of his sons to be his priest. 6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what seemed right in his or her own judgment.

Micah Acquires a Levitical Priest There was a young man from Bethlehem of Judah, from the clan seat of Judah. He was a Levite and lived there as a resident alien. 8 The man left Bethlehem of Judah to sojourn wherever he could find a home. Making his way, he came to the house of Micah in the hill country of Ephraim. 9 Micah said to him, “Where do you come from?” He said to him, “I am a Levite from Bethlehem of Judah and I am travelling to sojourn wherever I can find a home.” 10 Then Micah said to him, “Live with me and be a father and a priest to me, and I will give you ten shekels worth of silver per year, a supply of clothing, and your rations.” So the Levite went. 11 The Levite decided to live with the man, and the young man became like one of his sons to him. 12 Micah ordained the Levite, and the young man became his priest and was in the house of Micah. 13 Then Micah said, “Now I know that Yahweh will deal well with me, because I have this Levite as a priest.” 7

 Judges 17

277

Notes 1 of the hill country] Here the preposition min signifies that Micah lives in this territory (as in Judg 13:2; 1 Sam 1:1), not that he is from there but now lives elsewhere (as in Judg 17:2; 19:16; 2 Sam 20:21). 2 worth 1,100 shekels] The unit of weight is implied but not stated. “Eleven hundred” communicates an undefined large quantity. Idiomatically one might say “the huge amount of silver.” See note on 16:5. so that you] Ketiv preserves an older form of the second person feminine singular pronoun, read in the usual manner by qere. spoke…in my hearing] This overfull, awkward syntax may indicate that the authors (or transmitters) of the text circumspectly suppressed the actual wording of the curse. 3 I hereby consecrate] This is performative speech, using an infinitive absolute for emphasis (IBHS 35.3.1c). for my son, to make] Follows MT lbny. OG read lbdy “I alone,” perhaps a clarification intended to make it clear that Micah was not involved himself in producing the image. The preposition l (for) indicates ownership, but perhaps also “for the benefit of,” implying that the image was intended to undo or protect Micah against the effects of his mother’s curse. This would also be the purpose of her counteracting benediction: Blessed by Yahweh be my son. carved image overlaid with precious metal] Hebrew: “a carved image and a cast metal image,” a hendiadys indicating a single statue (Deut 27:15; Judg 18:14; perhaps Nah 1:14). The hendiadys is broken up into its two elements in 18:17–18 as a poetic device. There is only one image in 18:20. Archaeology makes it clear that a wooden statue covered with a layer of metal is intended. I now return it to you] Repetition of “and he returned the silver to his mother” at the start of vv. 3 and 4 has caused commentators and modern translations to propose transpositions or dittography. The most common emendation (NABRE NRSV REB) is to transpose v. 3bβ I now return it to you to just after v. 2a, so that it is spoken by Micah rather than his mother. Textual evidence for such maneuvers is non-existent. 4 200] Follows MT as more difficult. Some Greek texts (LXXL OL) fail to witness any number here. However, such an insertion into MT cannot be easily explained. The absence of the number in parts of the Greek tradition resulted from the common abbreviation of 200 as a single sigma, which dropped out as the result of an innerGreek haplography, perhaps expedited by the repetitions of “his mother” and “the silver.” made it into a carved image] A double accusative of material and thing made (IBHS 10.2.3c). For the same construction in the same context, see Exod 32:4; Isa 46:6.

278 Judges 7 from the clan seat of Judah] Follows MT OG. Lost by haplography caused by the repetition of Judah in LXXB and Syr. The commentary translation follows NJPS in construing mišpaḥâ as clan seat, that is, the town with which a kinship group was traditionally associated (compare also 18:2, 11). lived there as a sojourner] The phrase gār-šām is likely an intertextual reference to Deut 18:6. The expression also occurs in Gen 35:27. Without any textual evidence to support its conjecture, REB assumes haplography and corruption caused by a supposedly original repetition of the letters šm and fills out the awkward whw gr šm to achieve wšmw bn-gršm “and his name was ben-Gershom” (see 18:30). 8 Making his way] Alternative translation similar to that adopted by NRSV: “to carry on his work [as a religious specialist].” 10 So the Levite went] Follows MT. OG (LXXAB) actually supports MT by taking into account the awkward gap between v. 10 and v. 11 with its translation strategy: “and the Levite went and began to live with the man.” So the Levite went is omitted by CEB NRSV REB NJB, presumably following the conclusion of BHS that it represents a dittography of the first words of v. 11. The problem is that these last words of v. 10 do not make obvious sense when followed by v. 11. So certain Greek witnesses soften the transition by inserting “and the Levite approved” before “and the Levite went.” OL “he pressed him” (followed by NABRE) is an inner-Latin error. ESV renders v. 10b as “went in” [that is, to Micah’s house]. Another suggestion is “went [along with the plan].” It is common for interpreters to understand a change of heart: “the Levite [did not agree at first but] left,” and “then [afterwards] the Levite agreed to stay.” The gap is softened if one follows the strategy of some Greek witnesses and joins the end of v. 10 to v. 11: “So the Levite went [off] and the Levite resolved to stay with the man.”

Structure and Rhetoric Chapter 17 exists completely for the sake of ch. 18. The linked episodes of these two chapters provide readers with an etiology for the image of the Dan sanctuary and for the founder of its priestly house. In this sense, all of chs. 17 and 18 point directly forward to the final paragraph of ch. 18. These narratives twist both the image and the priesthood of the Danite cult into a moderately negative direction. Unlike other Yahwistic sanctuaries or priestly dynasties described in the Bible, Yahweh has nothing to do with the establishment of either of these for Dan. Instead the image results from a somewhat obscure family financial problem, perhaps involving theft and restitution, and a need to counter the power of a mother’s curse. Dan’s founding priest serves this image, not as one elected by divine choice (contrast Num 25:11–13; Deut 18:5; 33:8–11; 1 Sam 2:20, 35),

 Judges 17

279

but as one who first comes to a practical employment agreement with its owner and then opts for a better deal in a situation of mortal threat. The text does stress, however, that he is a legitimate Levite and a descendant of Moses. The two episodes of Judg 17:1–6 and 7–13 share a similar structural framework and are introduced by the same phraseology. In each case, the opening there was a man [or young man] is followed immediately by that character’s home location. Readers then learn the name of the first and the social situation (Levite, sojourner) of the second. Both stories rely on dialogue between two characters to set up the narrative problem and move forward to a solution. The evaluative formula of v. 6 both divides and unites the two accounts, commenting on them as examples of inappropriate behavior choices based on personal judgment. There are other internal unifying connections: 1. Concern for a relationship with Yahweh motivates action (v. 2, blessed by Yahweh be my son; v. 13, Yahweh will deal well with me) 2. The hill country of Ephraim (v. 1 and v. 8) 3. Micah’s house (vv. 4, 8, 12) 4. The image in Micah’s house and the Levite in Micah’s house (v. 4 and v. 12) 5. Silver (vv. 2–4 and v. 10) 6. Family relations and status as son (v. 2 and v. 11) 7. Ordination and priesthood (v. 5 and v. 12) Micah’s optimistic conclusion in v. 13 suggests that the outcome of the Levite episode helped to resolve the curse problem of the image episode, at least in his own mind. In addition to the silver image and the characters of Micah and the Levite, other items point beyond ch. 17 to prepare for ch. 18. The hill country of Ephraim appears in 18:2 and 13, and Micah’s house is the locale of action in 18:2, 3, 13, 15, 22, and 26. The respected status of father and priest motives the Levite in both 17:10 and 18:19. Repeated acts of taking (verb qi) also link ch. 18 (vv. 17, 18, 20, 24, 27) back to ch. 17 (vv. 2 and 4). A striking example of delayed exposition arises in that the Levite’s significant name and ancestry are not revealed until the denouement of the whole story is reached in 18:30. This is a rhetorical strategy, because disclosing this information prematurely would have robbed the overall narrative of much of its tension and interest.

280 Judges

As a whole, the larger unit of chs. 17–21 is held together by the formula of 17:6 and 21:25, together with its shorter form at 18:1 and 19:1. This framework instructs the reader to evaluate the events recounted in light of the non-monarchic situation of the period. At Judg 17:6 the full formula divides the start of the Levite’s story from the report of the origin of Micah’s image. The short form in 18:1 serves to segment the background story of ch. 17 from the central action of ch. 18. There is a sharp break with the Samson narratives as a new story begins. Micah is introduced as protagonist with formulaic language similar to that of 13:2; 1 Sam 1:1; 9:1 (There was a man of…. His name was; compare Judg 19:1b). Using dialogue, v. 2 then reveals the narrative problem, although the circumstances are unclear. As a consequence of someone taking (stealing?) missing silver, Micah’s mother has spoken a curse. She spoke generally without reference to Micah but uttered it in his hearing. His reaction is to say (confess?) that he took it (for whatever purpose) and has it in his possession, a circumstance implicitly unknown to his mother, but which puts him directly in the crosshairs of her curse. The remainder of the episode in vv. 2b–5 reports successive attempts to undo the dangerous effects of this malediction. These begin with the mother’s counteracting blessing in v. 2. Next Micah apparently seeks to deflect the curse by making a restoration, but danger still lurks. In a dedicatory vow, the mother solemnly consecrates a substantial portion of it for my son, for his benefit and ownership (see notes on v. 3). The idea is to defend against or undo the curse, which would have an objective and irreversible power regardless of intentions of the one who uttered it. There might seem to be a discrepancy between the mother’s pledge in v. 3 and the amount she sanctifies, but in Hebrew usage the definite article before silver in v. 3b does not necessarily imply that the entire amount was dedicated (thus the commentary translation is consecrate to Yahweh silver, rather than “the silver”). From my hand communicates that she is the lawful owner and is handing it over, probably in a dramatic legal action (Gen 21:30; 33:10; Exod 32:4; Deut 16:10; 26:4; Ruth 4:6). So the silver is made into an image, which is installed in Micah’s house so that divine presence will protect him and whatever is associated with his house against the curse. Micah’s further arrangements for the care of the image by a priest and provision of accompanying equipment seem to be further efforts to protect himself. Micah’s strained relationship to Yahweh caused by the curse is the basic narrative problem. Both the mother’s blessing and statement of consecration are directed toward this deity. This narrative problem is not

 Judges 17

281

fully addressed until v. 13 (Yahweh will deal well with me), if even then. Things in ch. 18 do not turn out at all well for Micah, who in the end loses his gods (or God; 18:24). [1–6] Let us look at the rhetoric of the first episode in greater detail. Verses 2–3 are complex and difficult to follow, in part because the story begins in the middle of the action. A Hittite court case concerning a supposed theft and the use of gold belonging to the mother of the accused to (re-)plate (votive?) objects may provide some help in understanding this incident (COS 3.33:58). Eleven hundred shekels is the same huge amount that each Philistine ruler gave Delilah to betray Samson (see note on 16:5). It is implied, but only implied, that the son has stolen the silver. Assuming this, readers may interpret the discontinuities of what Micah has to say in v. 2 as the halting speech of a guilty party. The mother seeks to counteract what her son took (v. 2) through action that begins with she took (v. 4). In vv. 3–4, the dialogue and action is repetitive and recursive in order to focus on the precious metal: he returned the silver I hereby consecrate…silver overlaid with precious metal I now return it to you he returned the silver took 200 shekels’ worth of silver overlaid with precious metal

Micah’s restitution in vv. 3a and 4a is followed and balanced by his mother’s speech and action in vv. 3b and 4b. Verse 5 uses disjunctive, circumstantial grammar to describe the resulting state of affairs in Micah’s household. He is in possession of a domestic shrine or temple (shrine translates “house of God”; contrast the same expression in 18:31). This state of affairs is followed by actions. He has other religious items fabricated and sets up a son as priest to administer cultic operations. An ephod seems to have been a priestly vestment that served divinatory purposes, as perhaps also did teraphim (Zech 10:12; Ezek 21:26), although these latter are often rendered more generally as “domestic gods.” Rhetorically, the pair is be taken as a disapproving catalog of cultic paraphernalia (see Hos 3:4). Understanding their precise nature and function are not critical for understanding the narrative. The point is that Micah had personal access to a complete range of cultic

282 Judges

facilities. David too was said to have established his sons as priests (2 Sam 8:18). One of his sons looks ahead to what will follow when a Levite becomes like one of his sons (v. 11) by contractual arrangement. One should observe that the LXX tradition of 2 Sam 20:18 makes reference to the divinatory reputation of Dan. The evaluation formula in Judg 17:6 both concludes this episode and points forward to further developments in vv. 7–13. [7–13] In v. 7, a second new start introduces the second feature of the Danite cult. Verse 7 introduces a new protagonist with almost the same wording as v. 1. His problem is encapsulated in his status as unemployed Levite and marginalized sojourner. He seeks a solution to his vocational dilemma in his journey. His problem seems to be resolved as the dialogue and actions of vv. 3–12 unfold. He comes to the house of Micah (v. 8) and ends up in the house of Micah (v. 12). He enjoys a fixed priestly appointment with its perks and a place in the family like a foster son. Micah’s comment in v. 13 both looks back to the curse reported in v. 2 and forward to the events of 18:13–26. The partial evaluative formula of 18:1a may be seen as much as a comment on 17:7–13 as it is an introduction to the Danite migration story. Examining the second episode in greater detail, one sees that circumstantial grammar describes two things about the future priest of Dan: he was a Levite and a temporary sojourner in Bethlehem. If the commentary translation is not followed (clan seat of Judah), then it would seem that the Levite was considered to be part of the tribe of Judah in some sense, based on his status as a resident alien living in Judah. Another possibility is that he was indeed ethnically a Judahite living outside his home area, but still in Judah, and that at this early date not all those who practiced as a “Levite” cultic specialist were yet separated into the tribe of Levi. Such a reference to archaic realities would impress a reader that this is a story about events in the distant past. The Levite is a youth or naar, and perhaps the reader is to understand this as a barrier to finding a professional position. The language of making his way in v. 8 suggests something like “by the merest chance”; he had no particular destination in mind. The dialogue of v. 9 repeats information from v. 8, but foregrounds the youth’s Levite status and his quest. The dialogue continues in v. 10 as Micah picks up and counters the idea of journeying by asking the Levite to stay (live). He also counters the Levite’s quest to find a home by adding with me. The implications of the itinerant’s negative status as youngster

 Judges 17

283

and positive status as Levite are addressed in a second imperative (be a father and priest). Word order that foregrounds the subject pronoun (I will give) draws reader attention to Micah’s responsibilities in the deal. Father as an honorific title is repeated in 18:19 (compare Gen 45:8 for Joseph as Pharaoh’s advisor; also Judg 5:7 and 2 Kgs 2:12; 13:14). A waw consecutive sequence begins with the last words of Judg 17:10 (see note) and continues through v. 13, at which point the episode concludes. The Levite becomes part of Micah’s bet-ab as one of his sons (compare 2 Sam 9:11) in the house. House here could mean Micah’s shrine building (as NJPS). A bit of rhetorical artistry is showcased in that the Levite is hired as a father and treated as a son. Culturally competent readers would understand from this that he would have a filial duty of loyalty to Micah. The Hebrew phrase in Judg 17:12, “fill the hand,” is the standard expression for “ordain as priest” (also in v. 5). Perhaps this conveys an actual act of investiture during which sacred objects or the share of sacrifice that would belong to the ordinand were handed over to him. By the time it is used in Ezek 43:26, it is clear that the expression had lost its literal implications. Verse 13 reflects back to the problem caused by the curse of v. 2, which Micah seems to think has now been dealt with. Readers would assume that a properly equipped and staffed domestic shrine should lead to prosperity (compare 2 Sam 6:11). However, this is not how things will turn out for Micah. We may assume that the early readership would agree with Micah’s opinion that it was beneficial, if not required, for a priest to be from the proper kinship group. Genre and Composition Chapter 17 is only the first part of the unified plot sequence that concludes with ch. 18, and most matters of genre and composition are discussed there. Chapter 17 draws the reader’s attention to the traditional genre of etiologies for sanctuaries and religious institutions. Unlike and in opposition to a proper etiology, however, this tale lacks any hint of divine authorization of cultic arrangements or activities. There is no theophany as at Ophrah or Zorah. The silver Yahweh statue and other sacred articles result from ignoble and purely human motives: money lost and recovered, family dysfunction, and Micah’s need to evade his mother’s curse. The priesthood of Dan is not founded on some notable act of fidelity such as that of Phinehas (Num 25:7–13) or on Yahweh’s promise as in the case of Zadok (1 Sam 2:35; 1 Kgs 2:26–27, 35). It results from a young man’s

284 Judges

need to find a job. Salary and secure livelihood are his initial motivating factors. His ordination is performed by a private landowner, without reference in the text to proper sacrifice or ceremony. In the end he is entirely happy (glad, Judg 18:20) to betray the man who has treated him like a son (17:11). The disappearance of the cyclical structure that has dominated chs. 2–16 points to a sharp discontinuity in compositional history (see the section “Judges 17–21 as Epilogue”). The themes of infidelity, return, and Yahweh’s response in the form of deliverance are no longer present. There are no judges or military heroes. The organizing cyclical structure of chs. 2–16 is replaced by the evaluative refrains 17:6; 18:1; 19:1 and 21:25. Yahweh as an actor is conspicuously uninvolved in events. The themes of the Samson narrative are directly picked up in First Samuel, skipping over Judges 17–21 (compare Judg 13:5 with 1 Sam 7:3, 13). Samuel, with his own birth narrative and quasi-nazirite status (1 Sam 11:1), continues and completes Samson’s mission. It may be that Judges 17–21 were added at this point because Samson the Danite provided a point of attachment. After the book of Judges had been separated from the ongoing epic of Joshua through 2 Kings, the end of the Judges scroll became a fitting place to add new material (compare the situation with later material in Deut 32–33; Josh 24; 2 Sam 21–24).

J ud g es 18

Dan Seeks a New Home In those days there was no king in Israel. In those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking an inheritance for itself to live in, because up to that day nothing had been allocated to them as an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 2 So the Danites sent out from their clan seat five valiant men from their total number of men, from Zorah and Eshtaol, to scout out the land and to explore it. They said to them, “Go and explore the land.” They came to the hill country of Ephraim as far as the house of Micah. They spent the night there. 3 They were right by the house of Micah. They recognized the voice of the young Levite. So they turned in that direction and said to him, “Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? What is your business here?” 4 He said to them, “This is how Micah dealt with me: he hired me and I became his priest. 5 They said to him, “Please consult God, that we might know whether the journey we are taking will succeed.” 6 The priest said to them, “Go in peace. Yahweh views the journey you are taking with favor. 7 Then the five men went on and came to Laish. They saw the people within it, living in security, following the customs of the Sidonians, quiet and self-confident, with no lack of anything that is in the earth, no one possessing control. Moreover, they were far from the Sidonians and had no dealings with anyone. 8 They came back to their kinsfolk at Zorah and Eshtaol. They said to them, “How did it go for you?” 9 They said, Get up and let’s go up against them, because we looked at the land and realized it is very good. But you are delaying! Do not hesitate to move out to enter and take possession of the land.” 10 As soon as you arrive you will come to a trusting people. The land in extensive—indeed God has handed it over to you—a place where there is no lack of anything that is in the earth. 11 So they set off from there, 600 men from the clan seat of the Danites, from Zorah and Eshtaol, armed with weapons of war. 12 They went up and camped at Kiriath-jearim in Judah. That is why that place is called Mahaneh-dan right up till today. It is west of Kiriath-jearim. 1

286 Judges

Dan Acquires an Image and Priest They passed on from there to the hill country of Ephraim and came to the house of Micah. 14 Then the five men who had gone to scout out the land said to their kinfolk, “Do you know that in these houses there are an ephod, teraphim, and a carved image overlaid with precious metal? So now consider what you should do. 15 So they turned toward there and came to the house of the young Levite at the house of Micah. They greeted him. 16 The six hundred men from the Danites armed with their weapons of war were positioned at the entrance of the gate. 17 The five men who had gone to scout out the land went up. They entered there and took the image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the cast image. The priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred men armed with weapons of war. 18 These entered the house Micah and took out the image of the ephod, the teraphim, and the cast image. The priest said to them, “What are you doing?” 19 But they said to him, “Be quiet. Put your hand over your mouth and come with us. Be a father and a priest for us. Is it better for you to be priest in the house of one man or for you to be priest to a tribe and clan in Israel? 20 The priest was glad. He took the ephod, the teraphim, and the image, and went along with the people. 21 They set out again and put their little children, cattle, and valuables in front of them. 22 They were some distance from the house of Micah. Right then Micah and the men who were in the houses near the house of Micah were called up as fighters and overtook the Danites. 23 They called out to the Danites, and they then turned around. They said to Micah, “What is the matter with you, that you have called up fighters? 24 He said, “You have taken my gods that I made and the priest and gone away! What do I have left? How can you ask me ‘What is the matter with you?’ ” 25 The Danites said to him, “Do not let your voice be heard among us or else some angry men might assail you and you lose your life and the lives of your household.” 26 The Danites went on their way. Micah saw that they were too strong for him, so he turned and went back to his house. 13

Dan Conquers Laish But they took what Micah had made and his priest and moved on to Laish, against a quiet and self-confident people. The struck them down with the edge of the sword and burned the city with fire. 28 There was no one to rescue them because it was far from Sidon and they had no dealings with Syria. It was in the valley where Beth-rehob is. Then they rebuilt the city and lived in it. 29 They named the city Dan after the name of their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel. But formerly the city’s name had been Laish. 30 The tribe of the Danites set up the image for themselves. Jonathan son of Gershom son of Moses and his descendants were priests for the tribe of 27

 Judges 18

287

Dan until the time of the captivity of the land. 31 They continued to use the image belonging to Micah that he made throughout the time that the house of God was in Shiloh. Notes 1 allocated] Hebrew: “fallen.” The expression is elliptical. The common translation “allotted” looks back to the book of Joshua 2 five] A small indefinite number, something like “a handful.” Compare 1 Sam 17:40; 21:3; 25:42. NJPS, for example, translates this as “a few” in Gen 47:2 and 2 Kgs 7:13. from their total number of men] Follows MT and translates on the basis of Num 22:41. This was lost by LXXB V Syr either by haplography from nšym to nšym or because it was not understood. 4 This is how] Hebrew: “thus and thus.” The expression serves as a general introduction to a more detailed statement (2 Sam 11:25; 1 Kgs 14:5). 5 succeed] Whether this hiphil verb is to read as a qal, as some Hebrew evidence and OG Syr T apparently suggest, is immaterial to its translation. 6 views…with favor] Hebrew: the journey is “in front of Yahweh.” 7 living in security…Sidonians] Recognizing that the feminine participle yôšebet must refer to the feminine noun Laish, BHS transposes these words forward to just after “to Laish” at the end of v. 7a. This has no textual support. For “live in security,” see Jer 32:37; Zech 14:11. following the customs of the Sidonians] The expression kmšpṭ ṣdnym cannot refer directly to “in security” as though that factor characterized Sidonian life. For mišpaṭ as “customs,” see 1 Kgs 18:28; 2 Kgs 17:33; for something akin to “life style,” see Judg 13:12. Perhaps commercial interchange is intended. with no lack of anything…, no one possessing control] Follows MT, which is obscure. The ancient versions struggled to make sense of the verse, and none provide useful assistance in attaining a more original text. maklîm is a hiphil participle of klh “to shame, harm,” construed in the commentary translation as lacking. The participle yôrēš means “being heir to” or “possessing.” The otherwise unknown eṣer is usually taken as a noun from the verbal root meaning “the capacity to restrain, control.” An alternative is to derive eṣer from an Arabic cognate as “prosperity.” The translational attempts of V Syr T support MT, as does LXXB, which renders maklîm with two words, “perverting and shaming.” OG lacks brṣ ywrš ṣr and understands wyn mklym dbr as a reference to an absence of those able to speak, apparently taking mklym as a hophal participle of ykl: “no one able to speak a word.” NABRE NJB REB follow OG in omitting all or part of brṣ ywrš ṣr.

288 Judges Contemporary translations more often than not interpret entirely in terms of prosperity, conveying the idea that there was no shame caused by poverty because none of the land’s resources were lacking (compare NJB NRSV REB; NABRE: “no lack of any natural resource”). This interpretation corresponds to the unambiguous statement of v. 10b. CEB goes its own way, thinking of a utopia of social cooperation: “Nobody held back [maklîm] anything in the land, so no one had to hoard,” apparently taking eṣer in the sense of “need to cut back.” NRSV “possessing wealth” seems to rest on the suggestion of wealth in V (magnorumque opum) and part of the doublet translation of LXXB (“no heir extorting treasures,” which treats eṣer as though a metathesis of ṣr). In contrast, traditional Jewish exegesis has taken the route of political oppression. The Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917 offers: “there was none in the land, possessing authority, that might put them to shame in anything.” NJPS understands military danger, “no one in the land to molest them”—a translation full of irony in this context—and the last part of the expression as “with no hereditary ruler.” The commentary translation renders the first element as a reference to prosperity and construes yôrēš eṣer in a political direction (possessing control) as an epexegetical continuation to maklîm. with anyone] Follows MT as a better fit to context. Instead of ādām, OG reads ārām (“Syria,” followed by NRSV REB NJB), continuing a theme of political alliances. The competing readings resulted from a confusion between r and d. The same phenomenon occurs in the OG of v. 28. Perhaps a consciousness about the longstanding Aramaean threat against Israel helped sustain the OG reading. 8 How did it go for you?] Or “What do you report?” as NRSV. 9 because we have looked at] Follows MT as the shorter text. After “because,” OG expands with “we have entered and gone around in the land as far as Laish and.” Then after “looked at” there is an even longer plus that basically repeats the content of v. 7. The OG plus reads “Syria” as in vv. 7 and 28. and realized] Hebrew: “and behold.” The commentary translation seeks to express the enhanced perception implied by “and behold” (IBHS 40.2.1b). 11 armed with weapons] Translating the participle “girded” followed by an adverbial accusative (IBHS 37.3b). Compare vv. 16 and 17. 12 Mahaneh-dan] Camp of Dan. Kiriath-jearim] A border town between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, northeast of Zorah and Eshtaol (Deir el-Azar [1599 1353]). 14 land] Follows the shorter text of OG (LXXL OL). MT glosses land with “that is, Laish” to harmonize with v. 7. know…consider] A rhetorically effective double use of the same verb, first as a finite verb in a question and then as an imperative. NJPS (and NIV) felicitously translates the imperative with “Now you know what you have to do.” overlaid with precious metal] See note on 17:4.

 Judges 18

289

15] LXXL is extremely expansive in this verse (compare the situation in v. 9), enhancing the narrative with elements from vv. 14, 16–18. 17 image…cast image] The hendiadys describing a single figurine overlaid with metal (v. 14; 17:4) is split here into “image…cast image,” so there appear to be two images and four total constituents to the list. In v. 18, however, MT (but not the Greek) has “the image of the ephod” as the first item in the catalog, so that in that verse there are three list items, the last of which is the crucial silver image. Three (ephod, teraphim, image) is also the tally in v. 20 MT. 20 the ephod, the teraphim, and the image] Follows MT. OG felt the absence of massēkâ “cast image” and added it as a fourth item. 21 near] Alternative translation: “associated with.” 22 Right then Micah] Translating the OG reading wəhinnēh mîkâ (“and behold Micah”), preferred by BHQ. This was lost by homoioteleuton in MT: mykh [whnh mykh] whnšym. 24 made] Follows MT. BHQ advocates inserting “for myself” on the basis V and of what is probably OG to correct a supposed haplography: l[y l]qḥtm (as REB). However, the Greek plus more likely represents an anti-idolatry addition reflecting the thinking of texts such as Exod 32:8, 31; Isa 2:20, or Hos 13:2. Idolaters make gods for themselves. 27 on to] Follows OG OL ad “as far as.” MT has al “against” by contamination from the next preposition. Syr V have el “unto,” a common variant for al, and thus support MT. 28 anyone] See note on v. 7. Here textual evidence for divergence from MT is virtually non-existent. where Beth-rehob is] Alternative translations: “running toward Beth-rehob” or “belonging to Beth-rehob.” This region or town cannot be identified (compare 1 Sam 10:6). 30 Moses] Follows OG (as a doublet in LXXL) OL V (see Gershom in Exod 2:22). The notion of Moses as an ancestor of heterodox priests was unacceptable to textual tradents. Thus, a nun is suspended in the best MT manuscripts (Aleppo, Leningrad, Cairo, and others), signaling that readers are to pronounce the consonants mšh not as Moses but as the apostate king Manasseh. Or perhaps, the change may reflect the story told by Josephus about the Manasseh who was supposedly first priest of the Samaritan temple (Ant. 11.302–312). The Talmud shows that this suspended letter was understood as a theologically based modification (b. Baba Batra 109b). LXXAB Syr T also witness the venerable tradition of reading “Manasseh” in place of Moses. In deference to tradition, NJPS stands out against other modern versions and BHQ in reading “Manasseh,” noting the textual situation in a footnote.

290 Judges 30–31 captivity of the land…Shiloh] Captivity of the land refers to the events surrounding the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel in 732 and 720. It is a metonymy for the deportation of the populace. The emendation “captivity of the ark” (as though an original hrwn was misread as hrṣ) was once popular with scholars convinced that Shiloh had been destroyed by the Philistines (citing 1 Sam 4). Another emendation postulates that the letters of an original “Laish” (lyš) were scrambled into “Shiloh” (šlh). There is no textual support for these conjectures. 31 continued to use] Hebrew: “set in place for themselves.” The time indication in v. 31b requires a durative translation. NJB is felicitous: “The statue…they installed for their own use, and there it stayed.”

Structure and Rhetoric In v. 1a, the short form of the structural formula looks back to 17:7–13 and forward to ch. 18. The repetition of in those days in v. 1b, however, ties it more closely to the upcoming story by the rhetorical device of anaphora. The striking phrase tribe of the Danites (šēbeṭ haddānî) in vv. 1 and 30 forms a structural bracket around the whole of ch. 18. The mainline plot problem is expressed in v. 1. Dan lacks any inheritance. Consequently, this story circles back to the subject of the final remark of ch. 1 (1:34). This central problem is resolved in three plot stages: first spies and their report (8:2, 7–10); then journey, conquest, and destruction (vv. 11–13, 21, 27–28a); and, finally and conclusively, rebuilding, settling and naming (vv. 28b–29). However, the route to resolution is interrupted at three points by a coordinated etiology subplot leading from the realities introduced in ch. 17 to the establishment of the Dan sanctuary in 18:30. When the spies encounter the Levite and learn his situation at the house of Micah (vv. 3–6), this may seem at first to be simply a device to introduce a positive oracle that moves the conquest plot forward. However, a second interruption of the action at the house of Micah (compare vv. 2–3 and 13) transfers the Levite and Micah’s cultic paraphernalia to the Danites (vv. 14–20). A third interruption (vv. 22–26) is caused by Micah and his neighbors at a distance from the house of Micah (v. 22a). This incident solidifies the Danites’ possession of what Micah had made and his priest (v. 27). To sum up, v. 29 resolves the main line problem of Dan’s need for an inheritance uncovered in v. 1, while v. 30 brings resolution to the unfinished subject matter of ch. 17. The last part of v. 30 and v. 31 may be considered as denouement.

 Judges 18

291

[1–12] Verse 1 is exposition, setting up the narrative problem. Dan lacks an inheritance. Although the language describing Dan’s dilemma (Hebrew: “inheritance…had not fallen”) reflects that of Josh 13:6 and 17:4–5, there is no recognition here of Josh 19:40–48 or even of the explanation given in Judg 1:34–36. Early readers would see the act of sending out spies in Judg 18:2 as a predictable response to this problem. They would expect that a pattern of journeying (vv. 2 and 7a), observing (v. 7b), returning (v. 8), and offering a convincing report (vv. 9–10) will follow (see below.) The spies leave from and return to Zorah and Eshtaol (vv. 2 and 8). These two places are taken together to describe the heartland of Dan, and it is from these same places that the military expedition sets off (v. 11). Inserted into the spy plot, however, is a diversion (vv. 2b–6) with implications for the rest of the story. The expression house of Micah provides a bridge by means of anaphora between the spies’ overnight stay (the end of v. 2) and the opportunity to encounter the Levite (the start of v. 3). House of Micah also serves as a geographic benchmark throughout the chapter (vv. 13, 15, 18, and 22). Lodging for the night, spies’ proximity to Micah’s house, and overhearing the Levite’s voice provide a narrative opening for them to question the young man. The narrator does not bother to explain what they recognize about the Levite’s speech. This may refer to a distinctive Bethlehem accent or to a characteristically “priestly” or mantic speech pattern adopted in the performance of his official duties. The geographical tenor of their questions (who brought you here?…this place?…your business here?) indicates that they view him as somehow out of place in the hill country of Ephraim. Of course, the questioning scene should not be examined too closely, because it is a narrative strategy to permit the Levite to explain his history and status, which in turn permits the spies to request an oracle from him. His positive response in v. 6 provides the only indication in the narrative that Yahweh has any role in these events (contrast Yahweh’s direct participation in Judg 20:27 or 1 Sam 1:17). This plot detour has the effect of filling up narrative time to match the spies’ long journey and generating narrative tension over where they will end up. It also sets the stage for what the spies are able to reveal to their compatriots in Judg 18:14 when the attack party reaches the house of Micah in v. 13. The report of the scouts in vv. 9–10 is motivational in character, not merely an objective recital of observations. The spies engage in a powerful rhetoric of persuasion. Only one element of what the spies learned about Laish (v. 7) is quoted directly in the information they report: no lack of anything that is in the earth (v. 10). That the inhabitants

292 Judges

are living in security and quiet and self-confident (v. 7) is interpreted by the spies as a trusting people, with the implication that their trust is a military weakness. The fact that the people of Laish follow the customs of the Sidonians, coupled with their distance from Sidon, is passed over in silence, perhaps because bringing up the issue of such a powerful city would be counterproductive! Later in vv. 27 and 28, the language of quiet and self-confident and far from Sidon will be used by the narrator to explain how Laish was so easily conquered. The spies focus on the quality of the land: it is very good and extensive, a place of abundance. Because their rhetorical goal is to motivate an attack, they surround these particulars with directive syntax (get up, let’s go up, do not hesitate to move out to enter and possess) and spurs to action (you are delaying, God has handed it over to you). They use the traditional language of conquest stories: possess the land (Josh 1:11; 13:1), handed it over (Josh 6:2; 8:1; 10:8). Their assertion that God has given Laish into Danite hands would seem to be based on their interpretation of the Levite’s oracle in Judg 18:6. The action phase of the conquest narrative begins as the expedition moves out from the Zorah/Eshtaol home base (v. 11). Six hundred perhaps sounds like a small number, but it may describe a standard unit of troops (3:31; 20:47; 1 Sam 13:15; 14:2; 23:13; 27:2; 30:9; 2 Sam 15:8). Is the implication that only a portion of Dan took up the challenge and moved? The reader will be surprised to discover eventually that these six hundred are moving with small children and cattle (Judg 18:21). The expeditionary force transforms into a full-scale migration in the course of the narrative. The story thus telescopes matters, so that the six hundred warriors achieve victory (v. 27) while the whole populace builds and settles the city (v. 28b), decisively resolving the narrative problem of v. 1. [13–26] The campaign itinerary follows the earlier track of the spies into the hill country of Ephraim. Once again forward movement is interrupted at the house of Micah (v. 13). This location triggers a return to the etiology subplot, providing an occasion (the sight of these houses, v. 14) for the spies to reveal the intelligence they had earlier acquired in v. 4 about Micah’s religious treasures. So now (v. 14b) signals that, considering what has just been said, the time has come for the Danite war party to make up its mind. The five make contact with the Levite at his house in Micah’s domestic complex (v. 15), while at the same time (circumstantial syntax, v. 16) the warriors set themselves up as a guard at the compound gate.

 Judges 18

293

Things become confused at this point, as though reflecting the turmoil of any such operation. In v. 17 the five go up, perhaps upward to the platform of a high place. The grammar becomes abrupt. They enter an undesignated place (there, v. 17a), which will turn out in v. 18 to be Micah’s house. They take the loot. Meanwhile (again circumstantial syntax, v. 17b) the priest is now positioned with the troops at the gate. It is best to consider v. 18a as analepsis, contemporaneous with the events of v. 17 and something like a cinematic flashback. Disjunctive subject-first syntax returns attention to the ones who have invaded the house of Micah, that is, the five spies (these). Then the chain of actions starts up again from v. 17b with v. 18b as the priest protests. Apparently the reader is to envision the five as carrying the booty out of the house so the priest can communicate with them from the gate as they leave the compound. This justifies the commentary translation took out in v. 18a. The Danite response to the priest’s objection picks up the attractive proposal, be a father and a priest, from Micah’s original offer (17:10), but transposes it to a higher level (one man versus a tribe and clan). The priest gladly joins in the crime. Just as they took the cultic items (18:17 and 18), now it is reported that he took them (v. 20). The journey sequence resumes in v. 21. The order of march is strategic. It protects vulnerable persons and tribal wealth from any attack from the rear by pursuers, and at the same time provides the advancing expedition with a peaceful smokescreen. But then another interruption intrudes in order to remove any uncertainty about the success of the theft (vv. 22–26). The upshot of a dialog of emotional grievance by Micah and unambiguous threat by the Danites is that Micah effectively gives up any practical claim to the objects. Early readers would know that Dan had a reputation for belligerence (Gen 49.17: “a serpent in the way, a viper by the path”; Deut 33.22: “a lion’s cub that leaps from Bashan”). The threat of Judg 18:25 is that the warriors are hot-tempered (Hebrew: “bitter of soul”), like the provoked bear robbed of her cubs (2 Sam 17:8). The verb took in Judg 18:27, repeated from vv. 17, 18, and 20, signals that the image and associated objects are now unequivocally in the possession of Dan. [27–31] The journey restarts in v. 27 and concludes at Laish. Typical conquest language nails down the city’s fate (edge of the sword, burned; Josh 11:11). In Judg 18:27 and 28 the narrator reuses as explanations for victory items picked up from the spies’ observations and report in v. 7. Subtly, the location near Beth-rehob echoes the spies’ report in v. 10 that the land is extensive (the Hebrew adjective there is raḥab). Language of destruction (v. 27) is offset by constructive deeds (vv. 28b–30): rebuilt, lived in, named, set up.

294 Judges

Jonathan son of Gershom has remained unnamed until v. 30 in order to preserve reader interest and dramatic tension. That he was a descendent of Moses suggests a somewhat positive viewpoint, in contrast to the tenor of the rest of chs. 17–18, and for this reason is certainly a genuine tradition. Until…the captivity of the land indicates that both the cult of Dan (Amos 8:14) and its priestly house continued until the Assyrian conquest. In v. 31, the text seems to devalue the Dan sanctuary with its reference to the (really legitimate) house of God…in Shiloh. Certainly the entire narrative emphasizes the illegitimacy of the Dan cult. Its image was fabricated in dubious circumstances and hijacked from its proper owner (17:1–2; 18:16–18, 24). Its priesthood originated with an act of faithless opportunism (17:9; 18:19–20). However, v. 31 is most likely not a negative judgment but means only that the two shrines were contemporary for some period of time. A possible implication is that Shiloh was the single legitimate sanctuary, but only as long as it continued in operation. In spite of the near-universal opinion that the Shiloh shrine was destroyed by the Philistines about 1050, the date of the termination of the Shiloh shrine to which Jeremiah and Ps 78:60 bear witness cannot be determined, and may have had nothing to do with pre-monarchic Philistine military activity. Genre and Composition Judges 17–18, along with chs. 19–21, evidence many compositional and thematic differences from the core chs. 2–16. For a discussion of these, see the section “Judges 17–21 as Epilogue,” below. Taken together, chs. 17–18 form a complex authorial construction drawing the reader’s attention to the traditional genres of sanctuary foundation legend and spy and conquest narratives. Unlike and in opposition to a standard sanctuary etiology, of course, this tale avoids any hint of divine choice of place and reflects a negative evaluation. There is neither authorizing numinous appearance as at Ophrah or Zorah nor venerable ancestral tradition like that of Bethel to justify Dan as a holy place. The priestly house of Gershom turns out in the end to be suitably Mosaic. But again Jonathan’s priesthood is not founded on some notable act of fidelity such as that of Phinehas (Num 25:7–13) or on Yahweh’s promise as in the case of Zadok (1 Sam 2:35; 1 Kgs 2:26–27, 35), but on this youngster’s need to find a job followed by his pleased acceptance of a better arrangement when the opportunity arose.

 Judges 18

295

Other etiological concerns come to the fore in chs. 17–18. The story explains how Dan came to be located so far to the north even though its tribal folktales were tied to an area near the border with Philistia. The distant location of the city of Dan at the extreme edge of the Kingdom of Israel is highlighted by the fixed phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” (Judg 20:1, etc.). The narrative also explains the change of the ancient name Laish for the city. The main narrative plot takes the form of a conquest narrative, similar to those of Num 12:16–14:45; Deut 1:19–46; and Josh 1–12). However, this seems to be a literary construct and not an example of older tradition such as the folktales that lie behind the book of Joshua. The most striking difference from the standard format is that Yahweh does not participate. There is also no mention of the ban devoting the enemy or booty to destruction (ḥērem). Joshua 19:47 picks up in a summary fashion the central elements of the Danite conquest from here in Judges (note the telltale repetition of “their ancestor Dan”). Conquest stories often begin with a spy mission (Num 13; Deut 1:22–35; Judg 1:23–25; Josh 2), and the author(s) of Judges 17–18 made productive use of this literary convention. Spies are sent to scout out the land (Judg 18:2, 14, 17; Josh 2:1; 6:22; 7:2; 14:7), they came and saw (Judg 18:7; Num 13:18, 28, 32, 33; Josh 2:1; Judg 1:24), and then they returned and reported (Judg 18:8–10; Num 13:25–33; Deut 14; Josh 2:23–24; 7:3). The verb send (šlḥ hiphil) is characteristic of spy stories (Judg 18:2; Num 13; Deut 1:22; Josh 2:1; 6:17, 25; 7:2; 14:7, 11). Scout out (rgl) is also a common verb in such contexts (Num 21:32; Deut 1:24 Josh 6:25; 7:2; 14:7). The Danite spy materials are unified by repetition of the land (six times in Judg 18:2–17). The narrative does, however, rest on an awareness of actual historical realities. Migration and conquest is a reasonable explanation for the dual location of Dan in both the southwest and in the Huleh Valley in the north. Both locations are solidly witnessed in tradition. The southwest locale is anchored by the Samson stories, the toponym Mahaneh-dan (Judg 13:25; 18:12), the town list of Josh 19:41–46, and the eventual conversion of Dan’s single clan Hushim (Gen 46:23; transposed to Shuham in Num 26:42) into a clan of Benjamin in 1 Chr 8:8. At the same time, an early northern location is indicated by the appearance together of Dan and Naphtali as Bilhah tribes in some tribal lists. Dan (Tell el-Qadi [2112 2943]) had indeed originally been a prominent city named Laish (lion). This name is mentioned in Egyptian Execration Texts, Mari documents, and the topographical list of Thutmose III (as #31). Laish was a significant

296 Judges

pre-Iron Age site, and its chief excavator reported a significant cultural change at the start of Iron I. Judges 18:27 notes that the city was burned by the Danites, but absence of archaeological evidence for such an event indicates that this detail derives from what was expected from a generic conquest story. Joshua 19:47 refers to the town as Leshem (presumably lyš plus mem as mimation). Migration is not the only possible explanation for Dan’s dual location, however, and the group may have inhabited more than one place from the earliest times. Other tribal groups seem to have had footholds in more than one area: the Manasseh/Machir/Gilead connection, the Reubenite Stone of Bohan on the Judah/Benjamin border (Josh 15:6; 18:17), a man of Issachar living in Shamir (Samaria; Judg 10:1), and the warm relations between Gibeah and Jabesh-gilead. A locale termed the Forest of Ephraim was in the Transjordan (2 Sam 18:6). Considered synchronically in the context of Judges, chs. 17–18 (and 19–21) must be read as representing a temporal distortion. Rabbinic interpretation assigned these chapters to the time of Othniel because Jonathan the priest of Dan was only a grandson of Moses (18:30). However, chs. 17–18 do belong temporally in the Judges period, because the house of Yahweh is still in Shiloh (18:31) and Jerusalem is a foreign city (contrast 1:8).

J ud g es 19

Delayed Departure In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite was living as resident alien in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim. He took a concubine for himself from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But his concubine was unfaithful to him. She went from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah and stayed there four whole months. 3 Then her husband set out and went after her, to speak encouragingly to her and bring her back. He had his servant and a pair of donkeys with him. She admitted him into her father’s house. The young woman’s father saw him and came happily to meet him. 4 His father-in-law, the young woman’s father, kept hold of him, so he stayed with him three days. They ate and drank and spent the night there. 5 Early in the morning on the fourth day, they got up to go. But the father of the young woman said to his son-in-law, “Strengthen yourself with a little bit of bread, and after that you can go.” 6 So the two of them sat down and ate and drank together. Then the father of the young woman said to the man, “Won’t you decide to spend the night and enjoy yourself?” 7 The man set off to go, but his father-in-law urged him, so he spent another night there. 8 On the fifth day, he got up early in the morning to go. But the father of the young woman said, “Strengthen yourself with a little bit of bread. Stay until daylight.” The two of them ate. 9 Then the man, his concubine, and his servant got up to go. His father-in-law, the young woman’s father, said: “Look. The day has faded into evening. Please, spend the night. Look. The day is settling down. Spend the night here and enjoy yourself. You can get up early tomorrow for your journey and go home.” 10 But the man was not willing to spend the night, so he got up and went. He came up close to Jebus (that is Jerusalem). The two saddled donkeys and his concubine were with him. 11 They were near Jebus and the day was nearly over, so the servant said to his master, “Come on. Let’s turn off into this city of the Jebusites and spend the night in it.” 12 But his master said to him, “We will not turn off into a city of foreign people, here where there is not a single Israelite, but we will go on to Gibeah.” 13 He said to his servant, “Come on. Let’s reach one of those other places and spend the night in Gibeah or Ramah.” 1

298 Judges

Atrocity at Gibeah So they went on. Sunset overtook them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. 15 So the turned off there to go and spend the night in Gibeah. He went in and sat down in the city square. But no one took them home to spend the night. 16 At evening there was an old man coming along from his work in the field. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim but was living as a resident alien in Gibeah. The people of that place were Benjaminites. 17 He looked up and saw the traveler in the city square. The old man said, “Where are you going and from where have you come?” 18 He said to him, “We are going along from Bethlehem to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim. I went from there to Bethlehem of Judah. I am going to the house of Yahweh, but no one has taken me home. 19 There is both straw and fodder for our donkeys and also bread and wine for me, for your female servant, and for the servant who is with your servants. There is no shortage of anything. 20 The old man said, “Peace be with you. Let whatever you need be my responsibility instead. Only do not spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him home and gave the donkeys fodder. They washed their feet and ate and drank. 22 They were enjoying themselves when suddenly the men of the city, good-for-nothing men, surrounded the house, pounding on the door. They said to the man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who has come into your house so we can have sex with him.” 23 Then the man who owned the house went out to them and said to them, “No my brothers. Do not act so wickedly. Since this man has come to my house, do not do this depraved thing. 24 Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out. Violate them. Do what seems fit to you, but to this man you shall not do this depraved thing. 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and pushed her out to them. They raped her and abused her all night until morning. When dawn was just breaking, they let her go. 26 Toward morning the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house, where her husband was, until it was light. 27 Her husband got up in the morning and opened the doors of the house. He went out for his journey. There was the woman, his concubine, fallen at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up. Let’s go.” But there was no answer. So he put her on the donkey. The man set out and went to his place. 29 He went into his house and took a knife. Then he seized his concubine and cut her up limb by limb into twelve pieces. Then he sent her out into the whole territory of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, “Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day the Israelites came up out of the land of Egypt until today.” He had commanded the ones he sent, saying, “Thus you shall say to all the men of Israel, ‘Has such a thing ever happened from the day that the Israelites came up out of Egypt until today? Consider it. Take counsel and speak out.’ ” 14

 Judges 19

299

Note 1 concubine] This common translation is problematic, but the more accurate “wife of secondary rank” is too awkward. This status was not that of a slave (in contrast to Exod 21:7–11) but of a legal wife of subordinate status. For the complexity of this station in life, see Gen 35:22; Judg 8:31; 2 Sam 3:7; 16:21–22. This woman was free to leave the one who is termed her husband (v. 3) and a son-in-law (v. 5) to shelter with one who is called a father-in-law. Her rape and death were serious offenses against the honor of her husband and the social norms of Israel. Whether her status as concubine means that the Levite also had a primary wife is uncertain. 2 was unfaithful to him] Follows MT Syr. OG and OL translate as “was angry with him,” as though from a supposed root znh II related to Akkadian zenū (HALOT 1:275). NJB NRSV REB follow suit. NJPS translates neutrally as “desert,” interpreting her infidelity more broadly than just a matter of sex. V offers “leave behind, abandon.” T translates “she despised him.” These translations suggest that znh could be a transcription error for znḥ II (HALOT 1:276) denoting “reject,” but in that case the following preposition would seem to be anomalous. LXXB eporeuthē, “depart,” is an obvious inner-Greek corruption of eporneuthē, “commit harlotry.” Josephus simply says that she did not return his affection and left him (Ant. 5.137). Some suggest that just by walking out on her husband she committed the equivalent of adultery and translate the waw as epexegetical: “was unfaithful to him in that she went from him.” Ancient and modern maneuvers to avoid the allegation of adultery seem to rest on a notion that the attitude of her father and husband would not have been so positive if she had been unchaste and that adultery would make reconciliation impossible. Given the social and moral breakdown described throughout chs. 17–21, such sensitivity seems misplaced. Moreover, the woman’s infidelity can function as a literary motivation for the Levite’s later indifference to her fate. 3 speak encouragingly] Hebrew: “speak to her heart.” NABRE’s “soothe her,” NIV’s “persuade,” NJB’s “appeal to her affections,” and NJPS’s “woo” all point to his attempt to restore a fractured relationship. bring her back] Following qere, which is supported by the ancient versions (T Syr; in OG by a doublet translation). Ketiv is “bring it back,” as though referring to her heart. The verb šwb can be construed either as locational (bring her back home; NRSV) or relational (cause her to reconcile; NJPS). She admitted him] Follows MT, “she brought him,” as the more difficult text. OG “he went,” seeks to improve the narrative flow. The Greek translator apparently saw a premature reconciliation on her part as inappropriate. The OG reading is adopted by NRSV NJB. The commentary translation follows JPSV, understanding the causative hiphil as “caused him to enter.” 4 kept hold of him]. According to BHQ, this verb should be vocalized as hiphil, following the Aleppo and Cairo Codices and OG Syr T. The qal stem of the Leningrad Codex would mean “prevailed on him” (NRSV NJPS).

300 Judges they…spent the night there] Follows MT as the more difficult text. A secondary stylistic correction witnessed in the Greek tradition (LXXL OL) is accepted by NRSV: “he spent the night there.” 7 spent another night] Hebrew: “turned and spent the night.” Another translation: “turned back and spent the night” (NABRE NJPS). The verb “turned” could be vocalized as “sat, stayed” as some elements of the Greek tradition construed it, but the syntax of MT is more natural. 8 Stay] Follows MT and treats the verb as imperative. NRSV “So they lingered” construes as a plural perfect verb (compare CEB NJPS). The OG translator construed this as a singular perfect verb with a third person masculine singular object suffix: “and he diverted him.” ate] Follows MT. OG Syr harmonize with vv. 4 and 6 by reading “ate and drank” and are followed by NRSV. 9 spend the night. Look. The day is settling down] The language of persuasion is awkward and repetitive, which led to problems in text transmission. LXXB Syr omit this phrase (followed by REB), apparently through haplography: lyn[w-n hnh ḥnwt hywm lyn]. Look (hnh) and settling down, that is “making camp” (ḥnwt), could represent a dittography in MT as suggested by LXXL “spend the night here also today.” Nevertheless, MT has a lyrical flavor that should be retained as motivational rhetoric. The commentary translation seeks to capture this. The image of day settling down into its nighttime camp is unprecedented and evocative. 11 was nearly over] That is, “had gone down,” treating the anomalous rd as though the perfect form yārad as preferred by BHQ. OG translates it as such. 12 foreign] If this is an adjective (as understood by LXXB Syr) there is a gender mismatch with the feminine noun city. Along with LXXLA T, the commentary translation considers the word nokrî as a collective plural substantive: “city of foreign persons.” here] If hēnna were to be taken as a feminine plural pronoun, its antecedent would be awkward as either nokrî or the singular îr (city). The commentary translation construes hēnna is an adverb of place that means “here.” 13 Gibeah] Gibeah of Saul (1 Sam 11:4, etc.), most likely Tell el-Ful (1720 1369). This fits the context of a journey northward from the outskirts of Jerusalem toward Ramah (1722 1402). 14 Sunset overtook them] That is, “the sun went down to their detriment” [dative of disadvantage]. 18 the house of Yahweh] Follows MT (V Syr T) as more difficult. A single letter yod was sometimes used to abbreviate yhwh, and OG “to my house” must have understood such an abbreviation in its Vorlage as a possessive pronoun, perhaps influenced by v. 29. Many modern versions follow the easier OG. The reference could be to

 Judges 19

301

Bethel or Shiloh, or there may have been a temple at the Mizpah sanctuary (20:1, 3). It is possible that the direct object marker preceding house means that I am going to should be translated metaphorically as “I perform priestly duties at.” 19 your servants] The plural of MT and OG is appropriate, referring to the Levite and his concubine. The Levite carefully uses polite, subservient language. 21 gave…fodder] Ketiv is a plene form; qere is the expected denominative from “fodder.” 22 good-for-nothing men] Hebrew: “sons of Belial.” Belial was a malicious character of the mythic underworld (Ps 18:4; 2 Sam 22:5–6). CEB captures the nuance nicely with “a perverse bunch.” men, second occurrence] Both OG and V omit this repetitive word, presumably for stylistic reasons. pounding on the door] Or “pushing each other at the door,” taking the reflexive possibilities of the hithpael stem into account (HALOT 1:229). have sex with him] Hebrew: “know.” If there is any ambiguity about what this means, it disappears with the offer of the young women (v. 24). 24 what seems fit to you] Hebrew: “what is good in your eyes” (compare 17:6 and 21:25). and his concubine] Follows MT OG. BHS indulges in a series of unsupported emendations to create a text in which the host offers only his daughter, perhaps rooted in the way Josephus tells the story (Ant. 5.145). The three ostensibly masculine plural suffixes may perhaps be understood as duals, but masculine suffixes are sometimes used for women (for example, 21:22). you shall not do] Follows MT l tśw. OG (LXXAL) mē poiēsēte seems to have read the less apodictic and more expected l tśw “don’t do” as v. 23, as do some Hebrew witnesses. depraved thing] A vile and shocking act, usually with reference to sexual crime (20:6, 10; Gen 34:7; Deut 22:21; 2 Sam 13:12). 25 When] Ketiv “while”; qere “as soon as.” OG Syr T support qere. 28 there was no answer] OG translates “and she did not answer him,” and then adds an explanatory gloss, “but had died.” This plus probably represents an explanatory gloss erroneously incorporated into the text. 29 cut her up] The verb nth is brutal: “butcher, cut meat up into pieces.” See 20:6. 30 until today…until today] Follows OG (LXXAL) and Josephus (Ant. 5.149). MT lost this long section through haplography from d hywm hzh to d hywm hzh. BHS and BHQ offer a retroversion of the omitted text preserved by OG and recommend its acceptance. NJB and REB agree to this, but rearrange the verse into a “better” narrative sequence by putting the Greek plus at the beginning of the verse. However, the final admonition to react and speak out (that is, v. 30b) fits better into the mouths of

302 Judges the messengers, itself a strong argument that this is a case of haplography in MT and not dittography in the Greek tradition. The commentary translation uses a pluperfect (“had commanded”) in order to rationalize the order of clauses as preserved in OG. On the other hand, one could choose to read two events in sequence. First those who saw the dismemberment and preparation for distribution of the pieces react in v. 30a. Then on the basis of that reaction, the Levite provides a set of instructions and talking points to the messengers who are going out with the pieces. NRSV chooses to replace the witnesses’ reaction with the Levite’s instructions to the messengers. This assumes that OG offers a doublet and abandons MT in favor of the second part of the OG reading. Consider it] Or perhaps “consider her,” although this is unlikely given the content of this verse and the Levite’s attitude.

Structure and Rhetoric Private grievance mushrooms into public catastrophe. Outrageous abuse against expected hospitality leads to brutal rape and murder (ch. 19), which in turn leads to a reaction on the part of Israel and Benjamin that raises the tragedy to the level of a civil war (ch. 20). This in turn leads to maneuvers to undo some of the consequences (ch. 21). The macropattern of chs. 19–21 is similar to that of chs. 17–18 in that the first narrative (chs. 17 and 19) prepares for the second and more important plot sequence. The first narratives are about individuals; the main ones are communal. In each case the second and main portion is at least in part a tribal etiology. Why is Dan and its sanctuary situated in the extreme north? Why is Benjamin such a small tribe compared to its dominant neighbors, Judah and Ephraim? Looking backwards, this Levite from the hill country of Ephraim who travels to Bethlehem reverses the situation of ch. 17, in which a Levite from Bethlehem migrates to the hill country of Ephraim (17:7–8). The story ch. 19 tells exists solely for the sake of chs. 20–21. Thus, the issues of ch. 19 are not resolved internally and all its characters are anonymous. It is notable that women and their conjugal relationship to men begin and end the conflict of chs. 19–21. One way to analyze the shape of ch. 19 is as an alternation of scenes of movement (vv. 3a, 10–15a, 27–28) and scenes of standstill (vv. 3b–9, 15b–26). These are enclosed by introduction (vv. 1–2) and, at the end, an exploration of the significance of Gibeah’s crime that points forward to ch. 20 (vv. 29–30). The narrative moves along as a series of increasingly serious crises and resolutions. An initial fleeting crisis of a marital tiff seems to be almost immediately resolved by reconciliation (vv. 2–3).

 Judges 19

303

However, this resolution creates another problem as the journey home is delayed for days (vv. 4–9). This matter is sorted out when the travel party finally leaves (v. 10). Then the late hour raises the issue of where to spend the night (vv. 11–13). The seemingly opportune answer, Gibeah (v. 14), soon turns sour seeing that hospitality is lacking (v. 15), but the old man’s offer appears to resolve this (vv. 16–21). But it does not, for crisis arises again as the citizens of Gibeah surround and threaten (vv. 22–24). A ruthless sort of resolution is achieved as the concubine is cast out (v. 25). Then the Levite’s response to her death moves the action into ch. 20 (vv. 26–30). A solid chronology organizes and unifies the whole chapter: vv. 2, 4–9, 11, 14, 16, 25, and 26. Considering the chapter in its entirety, one can see that the difficulty set forth in v. 2, the awkward relationship between the Levite and the young woman, is actually more comprehensive than it first appears. It may seem as though this predicament is resolved immediately with v. 3: she admitted…happily. But it turns out there is to be more to the story of their rocky relationship, and the issue returns in vv. 25–28: pushed her out…. Get up…. no answer. This theme of marital discord is encompassed and muted, however, by the dominant story arc of the Levite’s journey. The journey storyline begins with v. 3 (to Bethlehem). A delay sequence consisting of vv. 4–10a builds narrative tension into the journey. After this, the next leg of the journey, as far as Gibeah, continues in vv. 10–15a. Even further delay is generated by the dialogue over where to spend the night in vv. 10b–14. Hospitality descends into barbarous atrocity in a scene apparently modelled on the well-known story of Sodom (vv. 15b–25). After the events in Gibeah, the Levite’s journey concludes in vv. 27–29, cycling back to its starting point: his place…his house. The key word lyn (spend the night) provides unity for the hospitality theme, which is operative in the first delay sequence (vv. 4, 6, 7, 9a, 9b, 10a), the dialogue (vv. 11, 13), and the Gibeah welcome scene (vv. 15, 20). Verbs of movement predominate in the journey sequence (hlk, go; bw, come; śwr, turn). The collocation qwm and hlk (“get up…go”) occurs at vv. 5, 7, 9, and 10, and then in the brutal imperatives in v. 28. [1–13] The structural refrain in v. 1a provides reading instructions for what follows. Disorder is in the offing. The verse goes on to introduce the Levite and the woman as protagonists. In the end, those two will be the only characters still in the narrative frame when the penultimate discovery and dismemberment scenes transpire (vv. 26–29). It is unclear

304 Judges

what is meant by remote parts, but this notice does prepare the reader for an extended journey whose goal is somewhere past Gibeah and Ramah. Because the expression is sometimes used in regard to the numinous mountain of divine residence (Isa 14:13; Ps 48:3), it may conceivably be related to the unnamed temple of v. 18. The Levite’s status as a resident alien might be something expected as related to his profession as a religious specialist linked to a shrine within some other tribe’s territory (compare 17:7, 9). The small episode of estrangement and reconciliation in vv. 2 and 3 performs the narrative function of transporting the Levite to Bethlehem (mentioned twice), from which he must eventually return home. In Judah spells out that this is not the northern Bethlehem in Zebulun. The husband is the one who seeks reconciliation, suggesting perhaps that the young woman is really (somehow) the offended party. More likely the reader will suppose that he is either emotionally attached to her, values her from an economic standpoint, or anticipates children by her. That four months have passed without developments may suggest to the reader that he had better take the initiative. If the danger of pregnancy after her episode of infidelity is in view, enough time has passed to set that concern aside. A servant and a couple of donkeys give the appearance of prosperity and vocational stability, in contrast to the circumstances of the young Levite of ch. 17. The servant finds his role in vv. 11–13 when he serves as the Levite’s dialogue partner. The narrative purpose of the donkeys unfolds finally in v. 28. Whatever the woman’s attitude (it is true she admitted him), the culturally competent reader knows that her father’s delight is what really matters in this awkward situation. Delaying a journey at the importuning of the host is a narrative technique intended to increase dramatic tension. A similar situation with the possibility of delay caused by hospitality can be found within Genesis 24, above all vv. 54–56. The delay sequence (Judg 19:4–9) is driven by the young woman’s father, who is the grammatical subject of sentences in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. The episode is bracketed by a fuller statement of the man’s familial authority in that the longer phrase, his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, serves as grammatical subject in vv. 4 and 9. Verse 4 (the first three days) sets the overall pattern: the father-in-law as the dominant party, a reckoning of days, eating, drinking, and spending the night. Days four (vv. 5–7) and five (vv. 8–9) are described in parallel cycles, touching at vv. 5 and 8 (strengthen yourself), vv. 6 and 9 (enjoy yourself), and vv. 6 and 8 (ate). Excerpts from the commentary translation illustrate the internal contacts:

 Judges 19

305

Early in the morning…fourth day…to go.…the young woman’s father said… “Strengthen yourself with a little bit of bread…. the two of them…ate.… the young woman’s father said…, “spend the night and enjoy yourself.” (vv. 5–7) fifth day…early in the morning to go…the young woman’s father said, “Strengthen yourself with a little bit of bread…. The two of them ate…. the young woman’s father said…“Spend the night…and enjoy yourself.” (vv. 8–9)

These repetitions build narrative tension. The reader becomes anxious for the Levite and his concubine to get going! Finally, instead of spending another night (vv. 6 and 7), the plot advances in v. 10 as the travel party leaves toward evening. The narrative purpose is to set up a late leavetaking that will lead to the next episode (v. 11, the day was nearly over; v. 14, sunset overtook them; v. 16, at evening). The father first uses the chronology of eventide in a poetic rhetoric of persuasion (vv. 8–9, see note on the lyricism of v. 9). Then in vv. 11 and 14, chronology is used to highlight impending danger. The father’s use of the language of the good host (a little bit of bread; Gen 18:4–5; 1 Sam 28:22) and his disproportionate hospitality function as a foil to what the exceedingly inhospitable people of Gibeah do not do— and then do. In contrast it is the old man who reflects the father (compare vv. 20–21: do not spend the night…. ate and drank). The descriptions and dialogue of vv. 10–13 fill the narrative time required for the journey. The irony of bypassing Jerusalem to seek the safety of Gibeah is profound, almost blatant. Verses 10 and 11 use an artificial, gentilic-based designation for Jerusalem (Jebus, from “Jebusite”) in order to emphasize its foreignness. Historical evidence shows that Jebus was never the proper name of the city, but it may have been a popular slur used by its detractors (rural Judahites, northern Israelites; compare Ezek 16:3). The parallel characterizations city of the Jebusites and city of foreign people in vv. 11–12 have the same effect. The horror of what will happen is highlighted by the contrast between foreign people and not a single Israelite in v. 12. [14–30] Movement on the part of the central characters leads into the Gibeah episode (went on…turned off…went in). In v. 14, in what at first seems to be an incidental notice, the narrator remarks that Gibeah belongs to Benjamin, something that will prove to have momentous implications. Hospitality was a basic civic virtue; the ancient reader would be outraged

306 Judges

that no one took them home (v. 15). The old man and the Levite are in similarly marginalized social situations as residents without full kinship group rights (vv. 1 and 16). The Levite is an alien in both Gibeah and the hill country of Ephraim; the old man is one in Gibeah. One resident alien offers hospitality to another in the context of their common vulnerable state. One notes that the citizens of both Gibeah and Sodom make outrageous demands on resident aliens (the old man and Lot). The old man’s hospitality serves as a contrasting foil for what the citizens of Gibeah have not done and will do. The Gibeah episode is moved along by the particle hinneh (conventionally “behold”) pointing to characters in sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4.

behold an old man – v. 16 behold the men of the city – v. 22 behold my daughter – v. 24 behold the woman, his concubine – v. 27

From a narrative standpoint, the conversational interchange of v. 17–19 exists in order to set the scene for the offer of v. 20. The Levite uses the polite language appropriate for one hinting at a favor: female servant… servant…servants (v. 19). The host responds cordially to the Levite’s assurance of no shortage in v. 19 (ēn maḥsûr) by using the very same noun in v. 20: whatever you need. The urging of v. 20, do not spend the night in the square, may at first seem to be only an expression of hospitality, but the reader will soon understand that it is a warning as well, especially if Gen 19:2 is called to mind. The exposed and unsafe square (Hebrew: “open space, plaza”; Judg 19:15, 17, 20) is the rhetorical opposite of the enclosed and protected “house” (translated as home in vv. 15, 21). The old man had spotted the visitor on his way back into town (v. 16). Although major cities like Megiddo or Lachish would have open camping areas for merchant caravans, a provincial town’s open area would have been just inside the gate in order to permit traffic flow and allow room for defense. The focus of the old man’s hospitality is only on his male social peer in v. 21: took him home. Of course, the animals are fed first (Gen 24:32), and feet are washed (Gen 18:4; 24:32; 43:24). As guests and host should, they are enjoying themselves (v. 22; compare vv. 6 and 9). The syntax of v. 22 then communicates a shocking turn of fortune. An introductory participle sentence indicates a situation of enjoyment concurrent with the next action, which is introduced by the participle of surprise, “behold” (translated suddenly). This contrary action is stated in a disjunctive, subject-first

 Judges 19

307

sentence that introduces the new grammatical subject. Doubling this subject emphasizes the aggressiveness of the adversary: men of the city, good-for-nothing men. The scene has nothing to do with what modern people understand about sexual orientation. In the ancient cultural context, same-sex rape was an assertion of power, with the intent of feminizing and thus dishonoring the foe. Examples from the classical world are common. This particular assault can only be envisioned as possible by the reader because neither man has any family support and protection in Gibeah. As resident aliens, they are socially vulnerable. In response, the old man and the Levite basically direct the threat even farther down the scale of social inferiority, to the even more vulnerable women who are under their control. Lot too is a resident alien (Gen 19:9) and makes a similar offer to protect his visiting guests (v. 8). The old man in Judg 19:23 uses a rhetoric of solidarity, my brothers (Gen 19:7; 29:4; 1 Sam 30:23), but continues with an extremely negative evaluation of their threatened behavior as a nəbālâ (depraved thing), that is, a violation of sexual propriety (Gen 34:7; Deut 22:21; 2 Sam 13:12–13; Jer 29:23) and of religious and social norms (Josh 7:15; 1 Sam 25:25). In Judg 19:24, both the word order of his syntax and the nature of his prohibition (lō with imperfect) are emphatic: to this man you shall not do. With his offer in v. 24, the old man gives greater weight to the obligation of hospitality to his male guest than to any duty he owes to his guest’s concubine or even his own family. We should assume that the earliest readers would feel deep anxiety over his competing ethical obligations. Jephthah’s dilemma with respect to his daughter was of a similar nature. Caught in the social force field of an honor and shame culture, the old man has to choose between preserving his own honor as a host by protecting his male guest and the shame he would suffer by failing to protect his guest’s woman and his own daughter. Worthy men were supposed to safeguard the women under their protection and control (contrast Abraham’s failing in Gen 12:15–19 and parallels), but in the end the old man seemingly decides that the social obligation he owes the Levite trumps this consideration. One should observe that the possibility of throwing out the male servant is not even raised, either because he would have been of too low a status to cause shame to the host or the Levite or because the women were considered of lesser value even though they had the social standing of daughter and secondary wife. While it is not completely clear which of the two men seized his concubine and pushed her out, the most natural reading is that it is the Levite who acts and does so merely to save himself.

308 Judges

Might early readers think the Levite could be seeking to protect his host’s honor by protecting his host’s daughter and throwing out his only his own concubine? Perhaps so, but saving his own honor must be imagined to be his chief motivation. The loss of honor through the humiliation of his concubine would be thought trivial compared to that resulting from his own same sex rape. At this point in the story, there is a wide chasm between the evaluative stance of the majority of modern readers and (presumably) the majority of ancient readers. But even Josephus felt the need to soften this story for his audience. He removed the threat of homosexual rape, making the woman the original object of the attackers’ lust. The householder offers only his daughter when threatened with death. It is the men of Gibeah who seize the concubine, and the Levite goes out in the morning to console her (Ant. 5.143–149). The negative judgment of the authors against Gibeah is unambiguous. The old man’s words, do what seems fit to you, echo the language of the framework formula of 17:6 and 21:25 (see note on v. 24). Certainly by using the verb nh (translated violate) he means nothing less than rape (Gen 34:2; 2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam 5:11). The host’s offer of his daughter as a most radical example of hospitality provides a foil or rhetorical contrast to the reprehensible inhospitality of Gibeah’s citizens. It should be noted, in passing, that offering his daughter is not really necessary for the plot to advance, indicating that this detail was picked up from its original home in Gen 19:8. The Hebrew is similar: “do to them what seems good in your eyes…do nothing to these men // do to them what seems good in your eyes…to this man do not do…this thing.” The Judges text recalls Sodom in order to use it as an effective rhetorical slur of the most intense nature. The allusion demonstrates just how low Gibeah has fallen, down to the level of the very wickedest. Indeed, the outcome of the evoked Sodom story is reversed in order to show the truth of the bracketing refrain repeated in 17:6; 21:25. If the proper outcome of such a story is the “happy ending” of the rescue of Lot and his daughters, the inappropriate and even worse outcome is kicking the Levite’s concubine out to the rapists. The depiction of betrayal and rape is powerful. The horrifying description has the effect of generating outrage against Gibeah. Judges 19:25 and then v. 26 return to the time schedule that organizes the chapter: vv. 2, 4–9, 11, 14, 16. As though to remind readers of the Levite’s legal and moral responsibilities to his concubine, this expression has appeared three times earlier in the narrative, and now is used briskly four times in vv. 24–29. In vv. 26 and 27, the designation of the Levite as husband (îšāh, v. 3, “her man”) shifts to ādônêhā (her master), a word choice

 Judges 19

309

that highlights how he is now treating her. The Gibeah rapists may accept her as a substitute because they can still undermine the Levite’s honor this way. As mentioned already, their ostensible motivation is less about sex directly than about insult and dishonor by proxy. The poignant final scene at the door (vv. 27–28) sets the stage for the indifference of the woman’s master/husband in the verses that follow. Initially the Levite leaves, not to look for his concubine, but rather to continue his journey. Use of hinneh (conventionally “behold,” commentary translation: there was the woman) suggests that her prostrate figure catches his attention incidentally. Perhaps it expresses his surprise that she is there on the doorstep and not still in the hands of her rapists. The moving image of her two hands on the threshold contrasts with his brusque, two-word command. The scene has the effect of escalating the emotional involvement of the reader. The threshold divides the domestic safety of inside from the danger of the nighttime outside, inviting the one who reads to empathize with the terror and torture she has experienced. The narrator follows the man’s command with a brutally abrupt turn of phrase: no answer. The observant reader notes that the narrator does not actually report that she is dead at this point, which should lead to a good deal of discomfort when v. 29 is reached. When we come to the Levite’s (clearly untrustworthy) explanation in 20:5, we will note that his “and she died,” leaves the time and circumstances of her death open. The your [plural pronoun] journey of 19:9 now has been reduced into a singular his journey (v. 27). Thus, v. 28 describes the Levite as abrupt and curt. This is a woman for whom he had traveled far in order to rebuild their relationship. Is this a portrayal of a calloused male chauvinist, or an example of the typical narrative restraint about emotions characteristic of Hebrew Bible narrative? The ancient authors and their audience were of course patriarchal, and the interpreter must not overlook elements in the narrative that reflect this. It seems likely that some early readers would have entertained a notion that the woman’s initial sexual misdeed and desertion of her husband (v. 2) must have had some impact on her ultimate fate, even though the narrative itself gives no hint of this. In vv. 29–30, the Levite treats the woman’s body as an object or an animal carcass. She is reduced to being a tool of communication. Her body becomes a graphic visual aid used to publicize his version of the atrocity that has taken place. In v. 29, the Levite seized his concubine, echoing exactly his action in v. 25. He cuts her up “according to her bones” (commentary translation: limb by limb). Some interpreters see this phrase as a hint of sacrifice, but this language indicates a procedure of butchering into appropriate “cuts” to be distributed. The early reader

310 Judges

probably would have judged his actions as an inappropriate caricature of an accepted practice for raising the militia. Saul sends around twelve parts of an ox (1 Sam 11:7), and the custom appears in other texts from ancient West Asia. The action seems intended to mobilize a reaction by creating shock and outrage. It may also be a symbol of the potential outcome of an unexpressed covenant curse (compare the dismemberment of animals in Gen 15:9–11, 17; Jer 34:18–19). A Mari document reflects the notion of cutting up a prisoner and depositing his body in a particular area to create fear and to encourage locals to join in an urgent campaign. Similarly, curses in the Sefire treaties threaten actual enactment, as though punishing by sympathetic magic (COS 2.82:214). A calf cut in two intends to bring about the butchery of the treaty violator, and a wax figure of a woman is abused to instigate the ill-treatment of his wives. So the Levite’s message may be: let those who fail to honor their responsibilities have their bodies butchered in this way (similar to 1 Sam 11:7). The verbal parallel between 19:29–20:1 and Saul’s action in 1 Sam 11:7 is close: “then he took…and he cut up…and he sent…throughout the territory of Israel…went out… as one man.” If the proper illustration of national emergency consists of dismembered oxen, the deplorable counterpoint is dismembering a murdered human being. Interpreters sometimes read elements of this narrative through the lens of pentateuchal laws and suggest that the adulterous concubine properly should have been executed (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22–24) or that the Levite violated priestly purity regulations in his handling of a corpse. The methodological appropriateness of this is open to question. In any case, such legal concerns do not appear anywhere on the conceptual horizon of this story and are properly canonical readings, not historical-critical ones. Genre and Composition The intent and design of this commentary prevents a thorough reinvestigation of the question of this text’s literary relationship to the Sodom narrative in Genesis 19. The similarities in plot order are striking: arrival of travelers, the option of the public square, accommodation by the host, washing feet and eating, encirclement of the house, demand to bring out the visitor(s) to be “known” sexually, and the host’s offer of two women. Perhaps a traditional type scene lies behind both narratives, but lexical tie-ups (my brothers, do what seems fit to you; the rare hithpalpel of the verb mhh “stay” in Gen 19:16 and Judg 19:8) make a powerful case for literary imitation. The preponderance of scholarly opinion is that the Gibeah story is dependent on the Sodom episode. It seems inconceivable

 Judges 19

311

that Sodom’s iconic status in the larger tradition (Deut 32:32; Isa 1:9–10; Lam 4:6; Amos 4:11, etc.) could stem from a story that emerged relatively late as a secondary parallel to the Gibeah narrative. This story of an outrageous act beyond the limits of propriety would have been told in part in order to effect social control. It would teach an audience to internalize society’s behavioral rules. The expression repeated in the stories of Dinah and Tamar (Gen 34:7 and 2 Sam 13:12) is instructive: “such a thing ought not be done [in Israel].” Ancient readers who accepted the notion that acts led in some objective way to consequences (“the doctrine of retribution,” or better, “the act-consequence relationship”) may have judged that the concubine’s infidelity and desertion of her husband led in some way to her rape and death. This understanding of the story would have exerted social control on women’s sexuality and freedom. The host’s virgin daughter, who is safely within the domestic sphere of her father’s control, provides an instructive contrast to the “brazen” concubine. She is spared. Benjaminite resistance to incorporation into the kingdom of Judah (for example, 2 Sam 20:1) led to Saul being celebrated as a tribal folk hero. This obliged pro-David and pro-Judah tradents to develop and retell stories to delegitimize Saul and his tribe. Examples are found in 1 Samuel 14, 18, and 28. Judges 19–21 is to some extent an example of this effort. Judges 19 employs a rhetorical tactic of surreptitious implication and suggestion, almost like modern subliminal advertising. Hidden not too far behind the story’s anti-Gibeah and Benjamin slant is an anti-Saul polemic, explaining why Saul and his family had to be replaced by David. Hospitality has its home in Bethlehem (vv. 3–9), not in Gibeah. That the Levite fails to reach Ramah (19:13) is not important to the needs of the story, but functions as a hint about Saul (compare 1 Sam 15:34). In the chapters that follow, other signs of an anti-Saul and anti-Benjamin polemic occur. Judges 19 declares that chaos results when there is no king and when elements associated with Saul are permitted free rein. Chapter 19 is a skillful example of storytelling craft. Given its role as an exposition for the episodes that follow and its (presumed) dependence on a Yahwist section of Genesis, this seems to be an authorial creation rather than a traditional folktale. The authors demonstrate an interest in entertaining readers with both humor (in the hospitality–delay sequence) and horror. The story receives much of its interest from the human penchant for enjoying insults directed at disliked foreigners. Jerusalem is demeaned as dangerous and alien, suggesting that the story may have originated in rural Judah. The anti-Benjaminite flavor is suited to a monarchic date, but hardly excludes a later period of composition.

J ud g es 20

War Threatens All the Israelites went out and the congregation assembled as a single person—from Dan as far as Beersheba, including the land of Gilead— before Yahweh at Mizpah. 2 The leaders of the whole people, of all the tribes of Israel presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 foot soldiers armed with swords. 3 Meanwhile, the Benjaminites heard that the Israelites had gone up to Mizpah. The Israelites spoke, “Tell us. How did this evil thing happen?” 4 The Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered. He said, “I and my concubine came to Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin to spend the night. 5 Against me the citizens of Gibeah rose up. They surrounded the house against me at night. It was me they planned to kill, but they raped my concubine and she died. 6 So I seized my concubine and cut her up and sent her throughout Israel’s entire inherited territory, because they have committed a vile and depraved act in Israel. 7 Look, all you Israelites. Give your advice and counsel right here! 8 Then the whole people stood up as a single person, saying, “Not one of us will go back to his tent, And not one will turn aside to his house. 9 Now this is what we will do to Gibeah: Against it according to lot! 10 From all the tribes of Israel we will select ten men for every hundred, a hundred for every thousand, and a thousand for every ten thousand, to bring rations for the army, that they may do when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin that which completely corresponds to the depraved act it has done in Israel. 11 So all the men of Israel gathered together against the city, comrades together as one. 12 The tribes of Israel sent men through the whole tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What is this evil thing that has happened among you?” 13 Now give up the men, the scoundrels who are in Gibeah, so that we may put them to death and purge evil from Israel. But the Benjaminites were not willing to listen to the voice of their kinfolk, the Israelites. 14 From the cities the Benjaminites gathered together to Gibeah to go out to battle against the Israelites. 15 On that day the Benjaminites mustered from the cities 26,000 men armed with swords, besides ones mustered out from the inhabitants of Gibeah who mustered 700 select men. 16 Of all this army there were 700 1

 Judges 20 select men who were left-handed. Each one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. 17 The men of Israel apart from Benjamin mustered 400,000 men armed with swords. All these were warriors.

Civil War They set out and went up to Bethel and inquired of God. The Israelites said, “Who should go up first to fight against the Benjaminites?” Yahweh said, “Judah is to go up first.” 19 Then the Israelites got up in the morning and pitched camp against Gibeah. 20 The men of Israel went out to fight against Benjamin. The men of Israel formed a battle line against them at Gibeah. 21 But the Benjaminites came out from Gibeah and annihilated down to the ground 22,000 men from Israel on that day. 22 The army, the men of Israel, took courage and again formed a battle line in the same place where they had formed it on the first day. 23 The Israelites had gone up and wept before Yahweh until evening. They had inquired of Yahweh, saying, “Should I again approach for battle with the Benjaminites my kinfolk?” Yahweh said, “Go up against them.” 24 The Israelites approached the Benjaminites on the second day. 25 But Benjamin went out to meet them from Gibeah on the second day and again annihilated down to the ground 18,000 men of the Israelites. All these were armed with swords. 26 Then all the Israelites, the whole army, went up and came to Bethel and wept and sat there before Yahweh and fasted that day until evening and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before Yahweh. 27 The Israelites inquired of Yahweh (the ark of the covenant of God being there in those days 28 and Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron stood before it in those days) saying, “Shall I go out again to battle against the Benjaminites my kinfolk or shall I cease?” Yahweh said, “Go up, because tomorrow I will give them into your hand.” 29 So Israel set an ambush all around Gibeah. 30 Then the Israelites went up against the Benjaminites on the third day. They formed a battle line against Gibeah as before. 31 The Benjaminites went out to meet the army and were lured away from the city. As before, they began to strike down some of the army who were on the roads—one of which goes up to Bethel and the other to Gibeah—and in the open country, about thirty men of Israel. 32 The Benjaminites said, “They are routed by us as the first time.” But the Israelites had planned, “Let’s flee and lure them away for the city out to the roads.” 33 All the men of Israel rose up out of their place and formed a battle line at Baal-tamar, and the Israelites who were in ambush rushed out of their place from Maareh-geba. 34 Ten thousand selected men from all Israel came out in front of Gibeah. The battle was fierce, but they did not know that disaster was closing in on them. 35 Yahweh routed Benjamin before Israel. The Israelites annihilated 25,100 men of Benjamin on that day; all these were armed with swords. 36 Then the Benjaminites saw that they were defeated. 18

313

314 Judges The men of Israel gave ground to Benjamin, because they trusted in the ambush they had set against Gibeah. 37 The ambush quickly rushed against Gibeah. The ambush went out and struck down the whole city with the edge of the sword. 38 The agreed-upon signal between the men of Israel and the main ambush was that they would make a fire signal of smoke go up from the city, 39 and the men of Israel would turn around in the battle. Benjamin had begun to strike down dead about thirty men of Israel. They said, “Surely they are being routed before us as in the first battle.” 40 But the fire signal began to rise from the city as a column of smoke. Benjamin looked back, and there was the whole city going up in smoke to the sky! 41 The men of Israel turned around, and the men of Benjamin were horrified because they saw that disaster had closed in on them. 42 They retreated before the men of Israel in the direction of the wasteland, but the battle overtook them and those who were from the cities were among them annihilating them. 43 They surrounded Benjamin, pursued them at their resting place, and trampled them to a point opposite Gibeah on the east. 44 Eighteen thousand men of Benjamin fell, all of them brave warriors. 45 They turned back and fled toward the wasteland to the rock of Rimmon. They [the Israelites] mowed down 5000 men on the roads. They pursued them closely as far as Gidom and struck down 2000 of them. 46 Those that fell of Benjamin on that day totaled 25,000 men armed with swords. All these were brave warriors. 47 But 600 men fled toward the wasteland to the rock of Rimmon. They remained at the rock of Rimmon for four months. 48 Meanwhile, the men of Israel returned to the Benjaminites and struck them down with the edge of the sword, the city, the people, the animals, and all who remained. They also set fire to all the cities that remained. Notes 1 Mizpah] Tell en-Nasbeh (1706 1436). In the monarchical period, this was just inside the northern border of the kingdom of Judah (1 Kgs 15:22). 2 leaders] Hebrew: “corner” or “corner stone.” Used metaphorically for the chiefs of the people, who provide solidity and strength. See 1 Sam 14:38. 6 vile and depraved act] OG translates the hendiadys zimmâ ûnəbālâ with a single word, perhaps not understanding the first term of the pair. 7 right here] The translation seeks to capture both the initial hinneh (conventionally “behold”) and final adverb hălōm. Compare NJPS “here and now.” OG (LXXL) and V omit the adverb as a translation strategy. 9 Against it according to lot!] Follows MT, which is elliptical. The lot will determine the order of battle. OG precedes this with “we will go up.” This could represent

 Judges 20

315

naălâ, lost through graphic similarity with the following word: [nlh] lyh. However, this is most likely a translation strategy intended to ease the difficult MT. NJB follows OG with “we will draw lots,” construing the OG plus nlh as hiphil: “cause the lot to go up.” 10 they may do when they come to] Seeks to follow MT which is awkward but not impossible. MT has two infinitive constructs, “to do when they come.” NJPS construes MT in a different way: “to prepare for their going to Geba.” OG reverses the two words to make what it considered to be more sense: “for those coming to do to Gibeah,” as though a plural participle followed by infinitive. OG also formulates the final verb of the verse (it has done) as plural: “they have done.” NRSV is unclear: “who are going to repay Gibeah of Benjamin.” Is “going” in NRSV intended to be the verb “go” or part of an English progressive future? Gibeah] MT reads “Geba.” Confusion between Gibeah “which belongs to Benjamin” (v. 4)—which is clearly intended both here and in v. 33—and Geba (for example, 1 Kgs 15:22) is common both in the biblical text and modern scholarship. Some suggest that these may have been alternate names for the same place. Tell el-Ful (1720 1369) is the most likely site for Gibeah and Jaba (1749 1405) for Geba. 11 against the city] Follows MT supported by V Syr T LXXB. OG (LXXAL) reads “from the cities.” This alteration in OG took place because the translator rendered the final noun of the verse, ḥăbērîm (united), with echomenoi as though from the participle ḥōbərîm (gathering together). This was then corrupted to erchomenoi “coming,” which in turn led to changing “against the city” to “from the cities.” 12 tribe of Benjamin] The MT form looks as if it is plural, “tribes of.” Compare 1 Sam 9:21. The ancient versions (not T) support a singular, and BHQ prefers this. MT may have been assimilated to the first occurrence of “tribes” in the verse. An alternative explanation is the so-called ḥireq compagnis, an ending that connects a noun (usually a singular in construct) to the word that follows (IBHS 8.1e). 13 Benjaminites] Reading with qere along with the ancient versions. Hebrew: “sons of Benjamin.” purge evil from Israel] This expression is common in Deuteronomy (13:6 [ET 5]; 17:7, 12; 22:22; etc.). A definite article would be expected and could have been lost through haplography caused by the previous word: wnbrh [h]rh. 15 26,000] OG recalculates to 25,000 in an ill-considered attempt to harmonize with the losses in vv. 44–46. Benjaminite losses are said to be 18,000 (v. 44), 5000 (v. 45a), and 2000 (v. 45b), totaling 25,000 as reported in v. 46. In v. 35, 25,100 are said to have been killed. 16 Of all this army…select men] Follows MT. These words were lost in OG through homoioteleuton from bḥwr at the end of v. 15 to bḥwr in v. 16. The repetition of the number 700 is suspicious, and it is possible that the quantity of left-handed

316 Judges slingers has been assimilated to the number of troops from Gibeah. Alternatively, vertical dittography could have inserted 700 select men into the end of v. 15 as the number of mustered soldiers from Gibeah. NJB NRSV REB eliminate 700 select men from v. 15. NJPV creatively punctuates the verses to leave the total number Gibeah troops unstated: “mustered from the towns 26,000 fighting men, mustered apart from the inhabitants of Gibeah; 700 picked men of all this force—700 picked men—were left-handed. 22 The men of Israel] Follows OG V Syr in omitting the superfluous am (army, people) present in MT (“the army, the men of Israel”), as preferred by BHQ. This word could have entered the text as an incorporated gloss citing an alternate reading for îš. 23–24] Follows MT. Twice in these two verses OG either lost “sons of” from “sons of Benjamin” (Benjaminites) through haplography—bny [bny]mn—or eliminated the words as a matter of translation technique. 26 wept…evening] OG does not witness and sat there and until evening, expressions that highlight the parallels with 20:23 and 21:2. 28 in those days] Following this, LXXL and OL insert a long lament in order to ease the abrupt MT. 31 lured away] Follows MT. In place of this awkward asyndetic and atypical hophal perfect (hontəqû), BHQ prefers the waw consecutive imperfect niphal (wayinnātəqû) as OG Syr T and the nearly parallel Josh 8:16, suggesting that an initial wy was misread as a ḥ. the city] LXXL inserts a long supplement about strategy for the ambush group at this point, and OL puts a similar one into v. 19. This must have been a marginal note constructed on the basis of vv. 29, 38, and 40 that was eventually inserted into two different places. strike down] Follows OG (LXXL) as the shorter text. MT supplements with ḥllym to achieve “strike down dead.” to Gibeah—and in the open country] Alternative translation: “to Gibeah through the open country.” 32 had planned] Hebrew: “said,” creating a contrast with what the Benjaminites said in the first part of the verse. 33 Baal-tamar…Maareh-geba] Neither toponym can be located. Maareh-geba follows MT. As a place name this is unknown. OG has the easier “from west of Geba (or Gibeah)” mmrb-gb, which is commonly accepted (NABRE NIV NJB NRSV; REB: “neighborhood, vicinity”). Syr “from the caves of” construes these consonants as a more common homonym that appears elsewhere as a collective plural. T “from the plain of Gibeah” suggests that mrh be understood as “meadow, cleared field” (as

 Judges 20

317

perhaps Isa 32:14), which sounds like a poor place to situate an ambush. Traditional rabbinic exegesis has understood this as the “bare side of Gibeah,” that is, the side now left unprotected, an interpretation that is certainly attractive. Context indicates that Baal-tamar would be west of Gibeah and south of Bethel and that the main battle took place nearby. 34 in front of] Follows MT mngd. NJPS follows T: mngb “south of.” 37] NJPS reads this as describing two ambushes approaching from different sides. 38 the main ambush] MT begins v. 38b with a difficult word, hereb, apparently intended to be the hiphil imperative of rbh “make great.” However, this is probably a damaged dittography of the previous word hrb (ambush). This is “corrected” to ḥereb “sword” in a few Hebrew MSS and LXXA. LXXB “signal of battle” takes the word as a noun meaning “combat.” LXXL V Syr fail to translate the rogue word, as do most modern English versions. The commentary translation moves the athnah and construes hrb with the previous word as hāōrēb hārāb “the main ambush” (with ESV and BHQ). Lachish Ostracon 4 uses mśt (v. 38a) as “fire signal” (ANET, 322; COS 3.42C:80). Compare Jer 6:1. 40 the whole city] The noun kālîl (both “entirety” and “whole burnt offering”) echoes the command of Deut 13.17 [ET 16]. 42 overtook them] Verses 42 and 45 use the same verb, dbq hiphil (“cause to stick together”). This is translated in v. 42 as overtook (similarly, Judg 18:22) and in v. 45 as pursued closely. This is a technical term for aggressive military pursuit. cities] Follows MT and OG as the more difficult text. If these troops are Israelites who had just captured and burned Gibeah (v. 37), the singular “city” would be required (as LXXL V; NRSV REB). An original “from the city” mhyr could have corrupted to mhyrym “from the cities” through a dittography of the mem of the following word. However, it is more likely that the singular arose as a secondary reading intended to smooth out a difficult text. These attackers from the cities are the other Benjaminites among them, who had been mustered from the surrounding towns (vv. 14–15). They turned against their own people after seeing Gibeah going up in smoke. 43 surrounded] Follows MT (from the uncommon verb ktr II). OG read the verbal root ktt (piel) “crush to pieces” or perhaps krt “cut down” (NRSV). pursued them] Follows the waw consecutive qal suggested in the Greek tradition and preferred by BHQ. MT is an asyndetic perfect of an otherwise non-extant hiphil. It arose from misreading the initial wy as h. The hiphil of MT would have to be considered as either intensive or factitive, conveying “had them pursued/gave them over to pursuit.” at their resting place] Follows MT OG mənûḥâ, without a preposition, seemingly an accusative of place. They hoped to rest at this location, but were pursued from

318 Judges there. NRSV “from Noah” minnôḥâ follows LXXB and would be the Benjaminite clan mentioned in 1 Chr 8:2. NJPS finds a different supposed place name, “from Menuhah.” V and T suggest interpreting MT in the sense of mimmenûhâ “without rest” (min privative, REB; compare NJB “relentlessly”; NIV “easily overran”). trampled them] Alternative translation: “caught up with them” (HALOT 1:231). 44 fell, all of them] The object marker et occurs because v. 44b is in apposition to the subject of the intransitive verb fell (IBHS 10.3.2b). 45 rock of Rimmon] Pomegranate Rock. Evidently a striking landform west of the theater of battle, located on the line of flight westward through the wilderness. This is often identified with a cave 2 km east of Geba in the Wadi es-Suweinit. mowed down] Taking the verb ll poel “glean” as a metaphor (compare NJPS “picked off” and Jer 6:9). The grammatical subject of v. 45aα is Benjamin, shifting abruptly to the Israelites in v. 45aβb. as far as Gidom] This place is otherwise unknown. This could be revocalized as gidam as preferred by BHQ: “until their being cut off” or “cut to pieces” (suffixed qal or piel infinitive of gd). For this verb, see 21:6, and for this syntax, 2 Sam 22:38. This emended vocalization is adopted by REB as “until they had cut down.” Mention of Gidom may reflect a traditional etiology. Properly deriving from “clearing, open place,” its name may have an etiological echo as the place of cutting down in an epic battle. 48 people] Vocalizing the problematic word mətōm “integrity” (retained by NIV as “all the towns”) into mətim “men.”

Structure and Rhetoric A new episode begins with mass movement to Mizpah (v. 1). The characters (Israel and Benjamin) are introduced in vv. 1–3. The arc of the plot moves from the narrative problem of this evil thing (v. 3), recapped by the Levite’s report in vv. 4–7, to what appears to be a solution in the annihilation of Gibeah, the near-obliteration of the Benjaminite army, and destruction of Benjaminite cities (v. 48). The text evokes readers’ acceptance of the principle of equalized retribution (that which completely corresponds to the depraved act, v. 10). Balance cannot return to the community until retribution can be imposed on the individual malefactors (v. 13) or, if it proves necessary, on those who shield them. Israel’s vow not to quit in v. 8 underlines the reality that such resolution must be achieved. Israel musters a huge force (v. 2), is resolute (vv. 8, 11), and has a plan (vv. 9–10). But complications immediately ensue. Negotiations fail (vv. 12–13) and Benjamin mobilizes (vv. 14–17). Complications increase in vv. 18–25. Two inquiries of Yahweh are followed by two defeats of Israel

 Judges 20

319

at the hands of Benjamin. Only then does a more appropriate inquiry and a more promising divine response lead into a complicated back and forth battle report. The three battle episodes are unified by repeated reference to a timetable of three days (vv. 22, 24, 25, 30). This chronology is supplemented and supported by the phrases as before (kpm bpm; vv. 30, 31), as at the first time (v. 32), the first battle (v. 39), and repeated reference to that day (vv. 15, 21, 26, 35, 46). Climax comes with victory in vv. 42–44. This is hammered home by the three asyndetic perfect verbs in v. 43: they surrounded…pursued…trampled. The denouement (vv. 45–48) describes massive retribution, but also the survival of a remnant that will serve as the seed for the further narrative problem that unfolds in ch. 21. [1–17] Looking at the narrative structure in a more detailed fashion, we perceive that, ironically, the Levite has more success in calling out all Israel than any of the judges had. Verse 1 continues the action of ch. 19 by means of a waw consecutive. Adding the land of Gilead prepares for the Jabesh-gilead incident in ch. 21. The language of total muster is used (1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 17:11; 1 Kgs 4:25; etc.). As a single person, emphasizing unanimity and coordinated effort, is restated in Judg 20:8 and 11 (see 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Sam 19:15 [ET 14]). The whole people in Judg 20:2 reappears in v. 8, and all the tribes of Israel recurs in v. 10 and in 21:5. Judges 20:1 also stresses legitimacy by using the theologically important term congregation (ēdâ, reappearing in 21:10, 13, 16). The Mizpah locale points forward to 21:1, 5, and 8, thus tying together chs. 20 and 21. In an instance of delayed exposition, v. 3 introduces a contrast between Israel and Benjamin that permeates the chapter. Benjamin then remains in the storyline background until v. 13, where, in contrast their behavior in v. 3 (heard), they decline to listen to the voice. It is unclear whether the speakers in v. 3b are asking about the Levite’s gruesome act of dismemberment or the crime it publicizes. Similar ambiguity appears in 19:30. The rhetoric of the Levite’s reported speech in vv. 4–6 is self-serving and likely to annoy the reader who has become emotionally invested in the atrocity reported in the previous chapter. He focuses on himself. First person singular language dominates vv. 4–6. Word order and emphatic first person pronouns foreground the predicament of the Levite, contrasts his fate with that of the woman, and obscures the circumstances of her death. He foregrounds Gibeah in v. 4 with the word order “to Gibeah I came, I and my concubine.” He pointedly reminds his audience that Gibeah belongs to Benjamin. Saying that they went to spend the night glosses over a complex chain of events. Verse 5 is particularly egregious: against me the citizens of Gibeah rose up…against me…. It was me

320 Judges

(emphatic pronoun) they planned to kill, but my concubine (object-first word order) they raped. He claims to have been the primary target of the crime. He falsely asserts that the assailants’ aim was to kill him, and does not get into the embarrassing matter of same-sex rape. He glosses over the presence of his servant. The lawless elements of Gibeah (19:22) become the city’s respected citizens or ruling class (baalîm; Josh 24:11; Judg 9; 1 Sam 23:11; 2 Sam 24:12; compare COS 3.51:129). In v. 6, the Levite turns up the emotional heat by using the incendiary language of zimmâ and nebālâ (vile and depraved act). The exact circumstances of the woman’s death, about which the reader may have been puzzling since Judg 19:28–29, are not touched on and its timing and cause are left open. NJPS “they ravished my concubine until she died” goes too far. In Hebrew, it is simply then she died or (as a stative verb) “is dead” (ESV). The Levite presents her as merely collateral damage. The narrator, in contrast, refuses to ignore the concubine. The Levite is identified in her terms, as husband of the woman who was murdered (20:4), using the verb for accidental or deliberate homicide. The Levite does reveal some elements of the truth, however. In v. 6 he says that he seized her, using the same verb involved in throwing her out to her fate (19:25, see also v. 29). He also utilizes the same butchering verb used in 19:29 (ntḥ piel). His rhetoric in 20:6–7 continues to be effective. He describes the geographical extent of his shocking communication in greater emotive depth than the twelve-fold tribal structure alluded to in 19:29. The phrase entire inherited territory employs vocabulary that shares experience and heritage with his audience. His appeal in 20:7 echoes 19:30 by reusing from there the pronoun lākem and using the nouns dābār (advice) and ēṣâ (counsel) in 20:7 related to the verbal roots dbr (speak) and wṣ (take counsel) from 19:30. Then the Levite, having completed his narrative function of inciting the Israelites, completely disappears from the story. The response in 20:8 again reflects unanimity (as a single person) and uses a poetic couplet marked by merismus. The Israelites agree that neither pastoralists who live in tents nor sedentary folk who dwell in houses will abandon military action and return home. Or perhaps this couplet communicates a vow not to return even to the temporary encampment of the militia, much less to the permanent accommodations of normal life. In v. 10, all agree with the Levite that the misconduct is a nəbālâ, an affront to Israel’s foundational principles, and that an equally extreme response is called for in order to balance matters out. The immediate context suggests that the lot referred to in the pointed outburst

 Judges 20

321

or exclamation of v. 9b is a reference to how the ten percent of the next verse will be chosen. This foraging party, with the purpose of supplying the main force, is rhetorical indicator of both the huge size of the Israelite army (vv. 2, 17) and their intent to focus exclusively on fighting rather than being sidetracking into matters of supply. On the other hand, the preposition al (against) suggests that v. 9b might refer to a lot cast to determine strategy and order of battle. If so, this matter will actually be handled by means of an oracle (v. 18). The description of the speakers of vv. 8–10 (whole people…. all the tribes) supports the unanimity theme introduced by the narrator in vv. 1 and 8a and continued in vv. 11, 26, 33, and 34. The collocation in v. 11, kəiš eḥād ḥăbērîm, translated as comrades together as one, is especially emphatic, using the noun ḥābēr “companion, associate” to strengthen the as a single person expression of vv. 1 and 8. The narrator’s perspective is that when a terrible crime has been committed national solidarity must take precedence over tribal or local loyalties. This is underscored by language of shared, nationwide family relationship (kinfolk, Hebrew: “brothers”), first by the narrator (v. 13), and eventually by the Israelites themselves (vv. 23, 26). But there is no king in Israel, and the standoff, apparently inevitably, leads to civil war. Both sides are armed and ready. The text repeats insistently that these men are armed with swords and capable of using them (vv. 2, 15, 17, 25, 35, 46; Hebrew: “who drew the sword”). They are warriors (v. 17, Hebrew: “men of war”; vv. 44, 46 “men of valor”). Lest the reader think that the odds against Benjamin are too great (400,000 against 26,000), Israel’s impressive force must face a contingent of slingers who are superb marksmen. Benjamin was famously known for left-handed or ambidextrous warriors, seen as an advantage in combat (3:15; 1 Chr 12:2). Judges 20:17 (subject-verb word order in Hebrew) balances and contrasts the muster of Israel with that of Benjamin in v. 15 (verb-subject order). [18–48] The so-called rule of three, common in folktales, operates here. Israel fails twice only to succeed on the third try. Verses 18–21 (inquiry, answer, encounter, defeat) constitute the first attempt to solve the narrative problem of the atrocity, a problem exacerbated by Benjamin’s intransigence. Israel inquires of God, and Yahweh answers. In vv. 23 and 27 they will ask Yahweh. There seems to be no significance to this difference. Which of us…first is the same question that Israel asked at the beginning of the book in 1:1. Judah is designated, again as in 1:2. But the choice

322 Judges

here is for civil war rather than conquest of the land. The narrator does not indicate how Yahweh responds, whether by lot or priestly oracle. Oddly, no special role for Judah is mentioned in what follows. The answer Judah probably reflects the ingrained hostility between the house of David and Benjamin-based supporters of Saulide claims in the monarchy period. It is striking that Israel does not ask the more basic question about whether they should even go to war against Benjamin in the first place. It is as though Benjamin’s behavior has made warfare a foregone conclusion. Strong rhetoric in v. 21 (and later in v. 25) describes the slaughter; annihilate down to the ground, which means that Benjamin struck Israel down so they fall dead. The second failure cycle consists of vv. 22–25. Although no place of inquiry is mentioned in v. 23, repetition of the act of weeping before Yahweh in v. 26 suggests this took place at Bethel. Logically the events of v. 23 must take place before v. 22. The commentary translation uses the past perfect tense to show this (as does NJPS). Many modern versions transpose the two verses (NRSV REB) to improve the narrative flow. Israel’s evolving attitude can be traced as a change from an initial attack (vv. 18–21) growing out of the determination expressed in vv. 8–10 to some loss of confidence mixed with renewed courage in vv. 22–25, and then to a properly prepared-for and thought-out attack the third time. There is a step-up in rhetoric from v. 18 (inquired) to v. 23 (wept and inquired) to v. 26 (wept, fasted, offered and inquired). In their first appearance before Yahweh they refer to the enemy as simply Benjaminites and limited their question to the order of the battle they confidently intend to pursue. There is an increase in emotional involvement in the second request (courage, wept) and the adversary becomes Benjaminites my kinfolk (brother). Only in the third inquiry does Israel ask the appropriate and fuller question: shall I go…or shall I cease? Now the possibility of breaking off the conflict is raised, which they had vowed never to do in v. 8. This third time around, Israel follows a more complete and proper procedure. Inquiry now involves an authorized Aaronic priest, the ark, fasting, and multiple sacrifices. The request now is made by all the Israelites, repeated for emphasis as the whole army (Hebrew: “all the people”). The circumstantial clause about Phinehas and the ark (vv. 27b–28a) implies that Israel asked its question through the agency of those accredited divinatory channels. Reference to battle against my kinfolk (v. 28 as in v. 23) shows that Israel is cognizant of their ethical dilemma. Only now does Yahweh give a definite promise of victory: tomorrow I will give them into your hand.

 Judges 20

323

The description of the all-important third engagement is by far the most detailed. The first two battles describe an uncomplicated Israelite line up and a successful Benjaminite attack. The third battle is a complex affair of ambush, feigned withdrawal, and signal. The events of the third battle are presented in an order that is not completely chronological. Modern translations sometimes feel obligated to rely on the past perfect tense to fashion a readable text (for example, CEB or NJPS). The events of vv. 26–44 are presented in such a jumbled sequence that rhetorical success requires that readers know what to expect at least in a general way when they have reached v. 26. This is the third try after two failures. The reader can be sure that, following the conventions of storytelling, this will finally be a success (compare 1 Sam 3:8). The first two battles have established “battle narrative” as the expected genre, and on this basis the reader can confidently anticipate assembly, oracle inquiry, divine answer, Israelite approach, and Benjaminite counteroffensive. Since the reader knows that an Israelite victory in is view, other aspects of the sacral war format can also be foreseen: assurance of victory, enemy panic and flight, pursuit, and application of some form of the ḥērem ban. The management of the third battle storyline works reasonably well until v. 36b or perhaps v. 37 is reached. Inquiry, answer, ambush setup, encounter, and the corresponding actions of main army and ambush unfold naturally, although Israel’s entrapment strategy is unveiled only through delayed exposition in v. 32b. Except for the ambush, everything is presented as a replay of the first two encounters: as before, as at the first time. The narrative would run more logically, perhaps, if vv. 29 and 30 were reversed. However, putting ambush first keeps it the distance of one verse from the Benjaminite response to the main attack in v. 31–32 and in a sense “hides” it for a time from both the reader and Benjamin until the trap is sprung in v. 33. Although in the end the reader has no serious difficulty in understanding what is being described, various structural analyses of the third battle are possible. One possibility is to treat vv. 36b–41 as a sort of cinematic flashback as though using a different camera angle. This section goes over much of the same ground as vv. 29b–36a, although one notes that the narrative pace has been telescoped in v. 34b through v. 36a, moving remarkably quickly to Benjamin’s discovery of defeat. The flashback section is set off by a resumptive repetition and a striking chiastic structure that catches the reader up into the climactic moment of victory:

324 Judges Benjamin saw – v. 36a men of Israel gave ground – v. 36b signal – v. 38 men of Israel would turn – v. 39a signal – v. 40 men of Israel turned – v. 41a Benjamin…saw – v. 41b

The flashback section introduces and focuses on the matter of the signal. It also stresses the important role of turning (vv. 39 and 41, along with Benjamin looked back in v. 40). Israel can carry out its ruse because it trusts the ambush they had set around Gibeah (v. 36b), a phrase which reuses and reverses the word order of the first action of their campaign in v. 29: set an ambush. The normal course of a battle narrative only picks up again in v. 42: retreat, pursuit, death totals, comprehensive slaughter, and torching the city. Analyzed in this way, the main story breaks off and then restarts at the point of Benjamin’s consciousness of defeat, which is repeated in v. 41b from v. 36a. Another way to analyze the structure is to focus on the components of the combat, seeing them as being presented in a non-sequential manner. The ambush element appears in vv. 29b, 33b–34a, and 37. The first stage of the main battle (tactical withdrawal) unfolds in vv. 30–32, 33a, 36b, 38–39, and its second stage (springing the trap) in vv. 34b–35, 40–42. This may be labeled as “rhetoric of simultaneity.” It describes the parallel actions of Benjamin and Israel’s two contingents by means of a rapid shift in perspective and grammatical subject. The battle narratives of 1 Kgs 20:16–21 and 2 Kgs 3:21–27 provide similar examples of this pattern. Yet a third approach, somewhat akin to this, is to suggest that the text presents the event from two viewpoints, that of Israel and that of Benjamin. One could suggest that the Israelite point of view is presented in vv. 29–30, 32b, 34a, and 35–39a and the Benjaminite perspective in vv. 31–32a, 34b, 36a, and 39b–41. However one chooses to trace structure in vv. 26–48, it is clear that the reader is faced with a complex arrangement in which different temporal perspectives and viewpoints are set forth in something other than a purely chronological order. Certainly, the several examples of repetition and delayed exposition (of Israel’s strategy in v. 32b, of the fire signal in v. 38) build narrative tension and create an interesting level of suspense. The geography of v. 31 is somewhat obscure. If two separate roads are intended, then the idea seems to be that the battle happens around a branching of the road north out of Gibeah, one branch being the road northward to Bethel and the other northeastward toward Geba (taking

 Judges 20

325

Gibeah as an error for Geba in this verse). However, it is much more likely that the expression seeks to communicate two directions along a single road running between Gibeah and Bethel. When v. 35 is reached, Yahweh is no longer merely the source of sacral war oracles. Now the Divine Warrior takes the field and wins victory. One notes, in contrast, that the narrator never explicitly credited Benjamin’s victories to Yahweh and remains silent about any divine role in Israel’s defeats. The body count calls attention to the scale of Benjamin’s defeat and the tragedy of civil war. The summary death total in v. 46 (25,000; 18,000 plus 5000 plus 7000) is close to Benjamin’s starting total (26,700; vv. 15–16). Israel lost 40,000 troops (vv. 21 and 25), one-tenth of its total force, plus the thirty who died during the retreat subterfuge. However, a review of the various statistics in the narrative creates some unease in the reader in that they do not add up. Out of its original muster of 26,700, Benjamin lost 25,100 according to v. 35—a different total from the 25,000 of vv. 44–46—and preserved 600 survivors according to v. 47. At least a thousand have fallen through the cracks. In spite of their difference, both v. 35 and v. 46 sound like grand totals for the entire day: on that day and thus correspond to vv. 15 and 21. No completely convincing explanation for this incoherence has been advanced, but in any case the rhetorical function of these numbers is clear enough. Israel’s losses in the first two battles were enormous, but minimal in the third. Benjamin’s losses in the final encounter were catastrophic. The massacre of Benjamin is hammered home by splitting the total into three instalments: 18,000 caught in the trap and in the pursuit to the east of Gibeah, 5000 on the roads, and 2000 in the chase to Gidom. The death tolls decrease as the Benjaminite force gets smaller. That only 600 survive sets up the matrimonial crisis of the next chapter. The remnants of Benjamin flee westward from Geba. They go down the Wadi es-Suweinit or perhaps take the ancient road traceable from Ai and Michmas down to the neighborhood of Jericho (Josh 8:15). There may be a subtle Saulide connection with the Rock of Rimmon (Pomegranate). A landmark pomegranate tree in this neighborhood is associated with Saul in 1 Sam 14:2, and one Rimmon was father of the assassins of Ishbaal (2 Sam 4:2, 5, 9). What is described in v. 48 is not explicitly a ḥērem event (unlike 21:10–11), but an inventory of destruction similar to lists summarizing explicit enforcements of the ban (Deut 2:34; 3:6; Josh 6:21; 8:2; 1 Sam 15:3). For the overall narrative, what is particularly important is that this slaughter means that there are remaining neither existing wives nor even any women at all to serve as candidates for marriage. Although the noun

326 Judges

mēt (see note on v. 48) properly indicates “males,” it can be used by extension for people in general (NRSV NJPS, Deut 26:5; 28:62; Ps 26:4; Job 22:15). When the reader reaches 21:7, any ambiguity about this is cleared up. Genre and Composition Somewhere in the background of the story of Benjamin’s near-obliteration is a tribal etiology intended to rationalize the small size of Benjamin. This would seem to be the core tradition behind the present text, which itself is a highly literary authorial creation. In regard to intent, at least, one can compare the story of Reuben sleeping with his father’s concubine (Gen 35:22; 49:3–4), a crime that purportedly explained the shrinkage of that venerable tribe. In Judg 20:18, Israel’s initial inquiry (Which of us…first) and Yahweh’s response (Judah) create a structural link between ch. 1 and chs. 17–21. Because the matter of Judah is immediately dropped after this single mention, it seems obvious that author(s) of ch. 20 drew both answer and question from ch. 1, where Judah does play the leading role. This parallel appears to be a scribal signal that the civil war story is to be read as complementary in some way to Israel’s initial disorganized efforts to possess the land. Parallel plot elements concerning confrontation between portions of Israel over alleged misdeeds can be found in Josh 22:10–34. Joshua 22:12–16 is a similar narrative situation in which one tribal group is questioned on behavior that undermines national solidarity. There too the sacral congregation (ēdâ) gathers to threaten war (compare Josh 22:12 with Judg 20:1). Joshua 22 establishes that the proper way to deal with such a problem is explanation and negotiation. Judges 20 reports the wrong way to go about things. The priest Phinehas is present in each story, but plays different roles (Josh 22:30–32; Judg 20:28). In an unmistakable example of intertextuality, total war against Gibeah and Benjamin—and especially use in Judg 20:40 of the distinctive word kālîl (translated whole)—cross-references Deut 13:13–17 [ET 12–16], although the issue in Deuteronomy is worship of other gods. In addition, bənê-bəlîyaal (scoundrels) in Judg 20:13 looks like an allusion to Deut 13:14 [ET 13]. The punishment prescribed by Deut 13:16–17 [ET 15–16] is what Gibeah suffers. Judges 20:13, with its reference to purge evil (Deut 13:6 [ET 5]), seems to point also to the adjacent text Deut 13:7–11 [ET 6–10], which insists that national solidarity must take precedence over family or local loyalties. Benjamin should have handed over the criminals.

 Judges 20

327

One reason that the narrative disarray of Judges 20 can still work as an understandable story is that culturally knowledgeable readers would have been aware of other tales of military reverse remedied by a strategy of retreat and ambush. The clearest example in the Hebrew Bible is the story told in Josh 7:2–8:23, the conquest of Ai. Both narratives are marked by use of temporal flashback and characterized by initial defeat (Josh 7:2–5; Judg 20:19–25), lament (Josh 7:6–9; Judg 20:23, 26–27), oracle (Josh 8:1–2; Judg 20:18, 23, 28), ambush positioning (Josh 8:3–9; Judg 20:29; enemy engagement and strategic flight on the part of Israel’s main army (Josh 8:10–17; Judg 20:32, 36b), springing the trap (Josh 8:19; Judg 20:33b–34a, 37), and smoke of a burning city as signal (Josh 8:20–21; Judg 20:38, 40). In each version, the stratagem is pre-planned (Josh 8:5–6; Judg 20:32), the enemy is lured (verbal root ntq in Josh 8:6, 18 and Judg 20:31, 32), the direction of the wasteland is mentioned (Josh 8:14; Judg 20:42), and the enemy does not know the real situation (Josh 8:14; Judg 20:34). In the end the enemy is depopulated and its city (cities) burned (Josh 8:25, 28; Judg 20:45–48). Probably the otherwise puzzling Judg 20:42 (those who were from the cities were among them) may be understood as a confused intertextual reflection of the same language in Josh 8:22, where it makes sense. It is hardly surprising that some scholars would seek to explain the irregularities of Judges 20 by positing two sources edited in a confusing manner. This approach fails to address the question as to why there should have been two written compositions of a story so clearly tailored to be an integral part of the whole plot of chs. 19–21. From a synchronic perspective, the interpreter may assert that the disarray and rapid alternation of viewpoint in the battle report has a destabilizing effect on the reader, an effect that that can be seen as mimicking the chaos of a real battle. However, to call such disarray an example of “narrative artistry” threatens to commit the intentional fallacy and certainly stretches credibility. It is more reasonable to envision an earlier, somewhat more coherent text that over time attracted expansions and incorporated glosses. Although this must remain in the realm of conjecture, evidence for such an impulse does exist in the active, interventionist transmission process of this difficult text that characterizes the text-critical data. The Greek tradition incorporates substantial clarifying plusses at vv. 28, 31, (both LXXL), and 39 (LXXB). What may have taken place is this: a text transmitter, having reached v. 36a, missed a fuller description of the ambush procedure and, with Josh 7:2–8:23 in mind, composed a supplementary expansion consisting of vv. 36b–41. Verse 36b has both vv. 29 and 32 in view. The phrase the

328 Judges

ambush they had set in v. 36b may be understood as a reversed reference to set an ambush in v. 29, a scribal indicator that the story is being reiterated from that chronological point forward. The added vv. 36b–41 retold the content of vv. 31, 33b–34b, and 36a, but in a revised order. The supplement also added the element of the smoke signal (vv. 38, 40) on the basis of the portrayal and vocabulary of Josh 8:21–22. Finally, with v. 41 (they saw), the expansion concluded by returning the story to the situation of v. 36a (the Benjaminites saw). As a scribal signal that the expansionistic intervention has concluded, v. 41 reverses the sequence of grammatical subjects from v. 36: Benjaminites…men of Israel being reversed to men of Israel… men of Benjamin.

J ud g es 21

Wives for Benjamin from Jabesh-gilead Now the men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah, saying “None of us will give his daughter as wife to Benjamin. 2 The people came to Bethel and sat there before God until evening. They raised their voices and wept bitterly. 3  They said, “O Yahweh God of Israel, why has this happened in Israel, that one tribe should be missing from Israel?” 4 The people got up early the next day, built an altar there, and offered burnt offerings and sacrifices of wellbeing. 5 The Israelites said, “Out of all the tribes of Israel, who is there who did not go up to Yahweh for the assembly?” This was because there was a great oath concerning anyone who did not go up to Yahweh at Mizpah: “This one shall be put to death.” 6 The Israelites felt sorry about Benjamin their kinfolk and said, “This day one tribe has been cut off from Israel. 7  What shall we do to provide wives for the ones left, since we are the ones who have taken an oath to Yahweh not to give any of our daughters to them as wives?” 8 So they said, “Is there anyone from the tribes of Israel who did not go up to Yahweh at Mizpah?” It turned out that no one from Jabeshgilead had come to the camp for the assembly. 9 The people were counted and it turned out that there was no one there from the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead. 10 So the congregation sent 12,000 warriors there. They instructed them saying, “Go and strike down the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, including women and children. 11 This is what you are to do: devote to destruction every male and every woman who has had sex with a man.” 12 Among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead they found 400 young virgin women who had not had sex by sleeping with a man. They brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. 13 Then the whole congregation sent word to the Benjaminites who were at the rock of Rimmon and offered them terms of peace. 14 Benjamin returned at that time, and they gave them wives from the women of Jabesh-gilead whom they had permitted to live. But they were not sufficient for them. 1

330 Judges

Wives for Benjamin from Shiloh Now the people felt sorry about Benjamin because Yahweh had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 So the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women have been wiped out of Benjamin? 17 They said, “A possession for the remaining Benjaminites! So that a tribe not be blotted out of Israel. 18 We cannot give any of our daughters to them as wives.” This was because the Israelites had taken an oath, saying “Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to Benjamin.” 19 So they said, “Look, the annual festival of Yahweh is at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel on the east of the road that goes up from Bethel to Shechem and south of Lebonah. 20 They instructed the Benjaminites, saying “Go and set an ambush in the vineyards. 21 Keep watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to join in the dances, then go out from the vineyard and each of you abduct for yourself his wife from the daughters of Shiloh. Then go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers come out to complain to us, we shall say to them, “Be generous to them for our sake, because we could not take a wife for any of them in battle and because you for your part could not give wives to them at this time without incurring guilt.” 23 The Benjaminites did so. They carried off wives equal to their own number from the dancers whom they seized. Then they returned to their inherited territory and rebuilt the cities and lived in them. 24 The Israelites scattered from there, each to his own inherited territory. 25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what seemed right in his or her own judgment. 15

Notes 3 missing] The verb pqd niphal has to do with setting and meeting quotas for military service. Were Israel to be counted out in muster, it would be seen that Benjamin was not there (compare Num 31:49; 2 Sam 2:36). 5 who is there] The reference is to absent persons. The NRSV translation, “which of all the tribes of Israel,” is misleading. 6 felt sorry for] As NRSV NIV. Alternative translations: “were disconsolate over” (NABRE) or “had remorse over” (REB). Israel regrets the situation, but may or may not have felt any compassion for Benjamin. NJPS and REB go even further, construing the verb as relented. Yet another possibility might be “consoled themselves over” (see HALOT 2:688), with the resolution at the conclusion of their deliberations in view. cut off] Follows MT and LXXB (“hacked off”) as the more difficult text. Some Hebrew manuscripts, along with OG and V, read the niphal of gr “be left out” by way of an resh for daleth error. 8 and 9 it turned out] Translating hinneh, conventionally “behold.”

 Judges 21

331

8 Which one of the tribes] Alternatively, “who is it and from what tribe?” (HALOT 2:575) Jabesh-gilead] Almost certainly Tell el-Maqlub (2144 2011) at a ford of the Wadi Yabis. 9 counted] In hithpael stem, pqd is a technical term for the enumeration done at a military assembly. The proof of their absence is that when a formal mustering count is taken, no one from Jabesh-gilead is there. The commentary translation is similar to that of NABRE. Most contemporary versions read v. 9 as an explanation for v. 8, connecting the verses with “for.” The past perfect of CEB seems to understand v. 9 as a reference to the count taken at the initial Mizpah assembly in ch. 20: “When attendance…was taken…not one had been there.” 11] Follows MT LXXA (perhaps OG) V as the shorter text. At the end of the verse, NJB REB adopt “but you shall let the virgins live. And they did so,” witnessed by LXXB (and LXXL without the last phrase). MT might conceivably have originated from a haplography caused by a similarity of verb forms in a text like that of LXXL: tḥrymw [wt-hbtwlwt thyw]. However, the Greek plus is more likely an incorporated gloss or explanatory addition preparing for the next verse. 12 young virgin women] The appositional nouns “young woman” and “virgin” work together as a class noun so that the verb had not had sex (Hebrew: “had not known”) is singular in number. 14 not sufficient for them] Follows MT LXXL V Syr T. LXXAB “they were content” witnesses either to a text without the negative particle or to a misunderstanding the Hebrew of MT. 17 A possession for…Benjamin!] Follows the concise MT LXXAB, conveying a terse slogan or ceremonial proclamation. The translator faces two problems. First there is no verb in v. 17a and second the meaning of the construct expression yəruššat pəlêṭâ must be unpacked. These words may be rendered as “[there must be] an inherited possession for survivors,” declaring that those who survive must have heirs who inherit their legacy. To have heirs, Benjaminites must have wives, which are the topic of the surrounding vv. 16 and 18. In addition, yeruššat (as a bequeathed possession for which no return or payment is made) implies that Benjamin is to have no financial obligation (bride price, compensation to fathers) with regard to these women. As a translation strategy, a doublet preserved in LXXL fills out the sense by making this a question: “How can we preserve a remnant for Benjamin?” This generated the conjecture in BHK êk tiššāēr (“how will a remnant be preserved,” adopted by NJB). However 4QJudgb apparently has no room for extra letters. NRSV construes yeruššat as “heirs” rather than “heritage,” which is problematic. The issue is Benjamin’s land of promise, conquered, possessed, and now needing to be bestowed to inheritors. “Surviving line” of CEB and “saving remnant” of NJPS are interpretive. 18 This was because…to Benjamin] Space considerations suggest that this explanation was not present in 4QJudgb.

332 Judges 19 Look] The particle hinneh is not a surprise word here as it is in vv. 8 and 9, but communicates that the event is happening at that very moment, as recognized by NRSV (“is taking place”) and NJPS (“is now being held”). north…and south] Masoretic punctuation contrasts the phrases north of Bethel and south of Lebonah, subordinating the information that Shiloh is east of the ridge highway. Lebonah is Lubban esh-Sherqiyeh (1730 1642). 20 They instructed] Follows qere as plural, which is witnessed by the ancient versions. Ketiv is singular. 21 Keep watch. If] Most modern translations treat this conditional protasis (im and imperfect verb) as “when” rather than if, which is not impossible and based on a context suggesting a workable plan. The NJPS translation, “as soon as you see,” seeks to capture what may be called the “here and now” implications of hinneh (conventionally “behold”). daughters of Shiloh] The phrase daughters of [place name] describes the young women of a locality involved in a communal action (2 Sam 1:20, 24; Jer 49:3; Ezek 16:57). join in the dances] NJB translates agreeably: “come out in groups to dance.” The verb for come out is masculine rather than feminine (IBHS 6.6c). 22 When] Given the context, the introductory wəhāyâ kî is most likely when, not “if,” in spite of NRSV NJPS. Be generous to them for our sake] Construing the difficult grammar as plural imperative plus first person plural suffix as a “datival” accusative (compare Zech 7:5) and masculine plural pronoun as direct object (NJPS, see HALOT 1:334). OG V S followed a less difficult text without the first person plural suffix and preferred by BHQ: “be gracious to them.” Dittography or haplography caused the difference: MT ḥnwnw; Greek ḥnw. LXXB translates the object pronoun as feminine (the young women) rather than masculine (the Benjaminites), which is not impossible since the pronoun suffixes modifying their brothers and their fathers are masculine in form but refer to the women (see also the object pronoun in v. 12 and the verb in v. 21). NRSV is interpretive but appropriate: “Be generous and allow us to have them.” REB may be following OG: “Let them keep them with your approval.” we could not take] Follows MT LXXAB. The commentary translation construes the two perfect verbs modally (could not take…could not give). But either or both could be treated simply as indicative statements of fact: “we did not take…you did not [actually] give.” The young women of Shiloh were not given voluntarily by their families; they were kidnaped. NJPS nicely communicates the last point as “you would have incurred guilt if you yourselves had given them wives” [italics indicating that Hebrew lacks “wives”]. NJPS suggests that war in general (and thus the vow and the eradication of all Benjaminite women) is the problem that blocked the elders’ ability to provide wives, and not the shortfall in the campaign against Jabesh-gilead. OG V S witness to an easier text: “they could not take,” meaning that the Benjaminites deserve leniency because there were not enough women of Jabesh-gilead available for them all. LXXL reflects this text, but does not reproduce the negative, giving “they did

 Judges 21

333

take.” This perhaps conceives of the capture of brides at Shiloh as something permissible under the terms of Deut 21:10–13, since LXXL adds a supplement that absolves the Benjaminites of sin in that they did not take foreign wives. 23 rebuilt] Follows the shorter text of MT and the space requirements of 4QJudgb. OG and a few Hebrew MS add “for themselves” as a translation tactic (compare Gen 11:4). 24 scattered] The hithpael stem of hlk suggests translations such as “part ways,” “disperse,” “wander back as a disconnected group.”

Structure and Rhetoric The narrative arc moves from v. 1 (oath), v. 3 (lament), and v. 6 (distress) to v. 23 (wives, returned) by means of two successive plans. The first procedure comes to an end with only partial success at v. 14b (not sufficient). The second strategy successfully attains the numerical goal. Both actions are violent and undermine the social value of inter-tribal and familial connections. These actions provide stark examples of doing what seems right in one’s own judgment (v. 25). The action of the chapter is begun by movement by the actors to a new locale in v. 2. It is concluded by return home in vv. 23b (Benjamin) and v. 24 (Israel). Verses 1 and 15 both begin with disjunctive waw plus grammatical subject plus perfect verb sequences. These serve as paragraph markers, successively introducing the two solutions to the problem concerning Benjamin. Verse 3 is the first of many examples of reported speech (waw consecutive “and they said,” vv. 3, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19; “and they commanded,” vv. 10, 20) that move the story forward. The main sequence of action is described with reporting speech in vv. 2, 4, 6a, 9–10a, 12–14a, 23–24, and reported speech in vv. 3, 5a, 6b–8a, 10b–11, 16–18a, and 19–22. Verses 5b, 14b, 18b, and 25 provide background and commentary from the narrator. [1–14] Verses 1–5 may be considered exposition, introducing location, active characters, and the narrative problem. The problem results from the violent action of 20:48, which was compounded by a foolish oath revealed through delayed exposition in 21:1. Prohibition of marriage with Benjaminites has not been mentioned before this. Refusal of intermarriage effectively treats the Benjaminites as foreigners. The characters in the story consider this oath to be unbreakable, as was the case with Jephthah’s oath. Mention of Mizpah circles the story back to 20:1–3.

334 Judges

The disjunctive syntax of 21:1 moves the narrative into a new phase. Once more the protagonists are the men of Israel (îš yiśrāēl), who were mentioned thirteen times in ch. 20. The oath of v. 1 refocuses the problem of Benjamin’s near-obliteration into the problem of finding wives for the Benjaminites, something that materializes explicitly in vv. 7 and 16–18. This dilemma is emphasized by framing it in vv. 1 and 5 with mention of two drastic oaths taken at or focused on Mizpah. The issue of what to do about a problematic oath similarly drives the story about Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14. The scene of lamentation in Judg 21:2–3 and the cultic activity of v. 4 embody a narrative tactic that emphasizes the gravity of the predicament. But these verses also provide the first hope of a resolution by way of Israel’s sorrowful attitude. Verses 2–4 parallel Israel’s actions at Bethel in 20:26, as well as those of 2:1, 5 at Bochim. Repeating the two Bethel lament scenes instructs the reader to compare the two crises. Judges 20:26 MT draws attention to the parallel with 21:2 by sharpening weeping and fasting with and sat there and until evening (see note on 20:26). The connection to the Bochim incident is also strong. The phrase raised their voices and wept in 21:2 connects directly back to 2:4. Verse 3 reports a traditionally formed expression of grief and hints at oracular inquiry. However, if inquiry is intended, there is no divine answer. To discover a way out of the situation it has caused, Israel appears to be on its own. Why has this happened? is certainly ironic in light of Israel’s earlier problematic choices. Are the people really blaming Yahweh? An ancient reader would more likely understand v. 3 as standard lament language (Pss 10:1; 88:15 [ET 14], etc.) and accept a more general assumption that Yahweh is the causative factor behind all events, especially those of sacral war (compare 20:35). The construction of an altar at Bethel in v. 4 is surprising in light of 20:26, where the same sacrifices have already been offered, to say nothing of Bethel’s venerable status as a holy site. Certainly nothing is made of this altar in an etiological sense. Perhaps this special altar is a signal that these are especially serious sacrifices. It may be that temporary or ad hoc altars were sometimes erected for special occasions (Elijah’s rebuilt altar on Mount Carmel, 1 Kgs 18:32; Solomon’s overflow altar in 1 Kgs 8:64). Exposition concludes with Judg 21:5, introducing (again is a tardy fashion) a second oath focused on Mizpah. The question concerning absentees hints obscurely at the nature of the coming resolution. Perhaps a threat of death directed at those not in attendance had been implied by the chopped up corpse used to marshal the troops (1 Sam 11:7). Use of

 Judges 21

335

the evocative noun assembly (qāhāl) in Judg 21:5 and 8 takes the reader back to 20:2. Mentioning to Yahweh twice in 21:5 emphasizes the importance of that assembly. That the question who? and disclosure of the oath in v. 5 comes before the restatement of Israel’s sorrowful attitude and aspirations in vv. 6–7 may seem odd. This sequence means that the oath sounds only menacing at first to the reader, and that any completely unambiguous suggestion of hope is put off until vv. 11 or 12. When the gist of the question is repeated in v. 8 in light of Israel’s transformed attitude, however, the reader may sense a glimmer of hope and anticipate that events are moving toward a resolution of the Benjaminite problem, even if further bloodshed is to be expected. The reader knows that Israel will go to violent lengths in order to achieve its ends. There was a great oath (v. 5; Hebrew: “an oath exists”) points to this second oath as an objective, “out there,” reality that functions apart from human motivations. Israel cannot undo its oath, but perhaps can use it to its advantage. This oath leads to put to death (the deadly serious formula of apodictic law), which in turn implicitly leads to an implementation of ḥērem. Slaughter of all males and almost all females can be twisted into a way of securing wives. The discovery that the target is to be Jabeshgilead further alerts the ancient audience to such a possibility. They know about the traditionally friendly relations between that town and Benjamin through Saul, whose hometown was Gibeah (1 Sam 10:27– 11:15; 31:11–13). The first plot sequence leading to resolution is presented in Judg 21:6–14. Verse 6a reports Israel’s attitude, and v. 6b reiterates the over-all problem of Benjamin’s small number. The verb cut off (gd niphal) is robust: “hacked off.” A continuation of reported speech in v. 7 defines and specifies the problem as wives and reaffirms the blockage created by the oath of v. 1. With their first person plural question, Israel takes responsibility for providing wives. The Hebrew of v. 7a artistically employs three l prepositions in a row: “for them for the remaining ones for wives.” Responsibility is forcefully confirmed in v. 7b, a syntax employing an explicit pronoun subject: we are the ones who have taken an oath. In the Hebrew, both v. 7a and v. 7b end with lənāšîm (“for wives”). In v. 8, another speech act repeats the burden of the question of v. 5a (tribes of Israel did not go up to Yahweh). Although others from Gilead had participated (20:1), Jabesh-gilead did not. The assembly now also becomes a camp (also 21:12), as though the narrative is preparing the reader for war. An investigational muster in v. 9 proves v. 8 and puts the bull’s eye on Jabesh-gilead.

336 Judges

The battle report proper begins with v. 10a, but before the action continues, instructions are given in vv. 10b–11. Atypically, these war directives are conveyed not by Yahweh, but by Israel. The application of ḥērem implies the prosecution of sacral war. Perhaps this could be seen as a result of the apodictic vow of v. 5 (shall be put to death), but the ancient reader would likely judge the resulting massacre as excessive, inappropriate, and duplicitous. Verse 11 places a restriction on the total slaughter prescribed by v. 10. The women targets of the ḥērem slaughter of v. 10b turn out to be limited to those who have had sex with a man. The battle report skips over the actual military engagement and picks up again in vv. 12–14a with the results: they found…brought…. peace… returned…gave. Shiloh is in the land of Canaan (v. 12), which is to say on the west side of Jordan as opposed to Gilead to the east (Josh 14:11; 22:9–11). Judges 21:11 evoked the surviving women only by default; v.  12 specifies them. The captured brides are young virgin women, that is to say, those who have never been married and are socially available to be married. To clarify matters further, they have “not known a man by way of the bed of a male,” as the Hebrew expression has it. To be exact, lest there be any doubt, they are not just virgins in terms of societal category but physically. At this point, Israel would seem to be still at Bethel (also seemingly true of v. 19). Yet the potential brides are taken to Shiloh. It is as though the narrator is pointing us forward to what will happen in the next episode. Perhaps the idea is that Shiloh, as a pan-tribal sanctuary, represents more neutral territory than Bethel. In v. 14, movement on the part of Benjamin (presumably to Shiloh) closes the curtain on the initial resolution episode. The reader who thinks back to 20:47 and has done the calculation will already be ready for the information of v. 14b. Four hundred captive wives are not going to be enough for the six hundred surviving males. Not sufficient in v. 14b is actually “they did not find…enough,” linking back to they found in v. 12. Hence repetition creates a little inclusio out of vv. 12–14: “and they found…and they did not find.” Not sufficient leads naturally to the narrator’s observation in v. 15 that Yahweh had made a gap in the tribes of Israel and moves the story on to the next phase. The problem continues and the narrative must cycle back to explore further resolution. [15–25] The second stage of resolution is presented in vv. 15–23a. The disjunctive syntax of v. 15 goes back to v. 6 (repeating the verb sorry and reversing the waw consecutive imperfect into perfect tense). The narrator states in v. 15b that it is Yahweh who has created the gap in Israel, thus making the divine passive of v. 6 explicit. This is a good example of

 Judges 21

337

double causation theology: Israel’s violent folly created this dilemma, but because the events of ch. 20 were part of a sacral war, Yahweh is also responsible (compare 20:35). Then 21:16 returns to v. 7. It is the elders who now restate the problem from v. 7 (what shall we do). This signals a rhetorical escalation in seriousness from the strategizing of the general population of Israel to that of its leadership. The elders of Israel appear for the first time since 2:7. There they denoted an entire older generation. Here they function as wise leaders. The reader is reminded once again that the indigenous women of Benjamin have been killed off. The words of the elders in vv. 17–18a once more define and specify the core problem of being blotted out in terms of thwarted marriage possibilities (see v. 7), and the narrator in v. 18b reminds readers that this way out is blocked by the oath of v. 1. This time the elders’ exclamation of v. 17 identifies the issue even more precisely as one of inheritance and not just matrimony. No wives would mean no heirs to possess the legacy of the land, which in turn would mean that the names and remembrance of those unfortunate Benjaminites will be wiped out for good. Blotted out (mḥt) refers the removal of someone’s name from social memory, the fate of a man without an inheritance or children to become his heirs. Thus, the issue of v. 17a is about affording the Benjaminite remnant a future lineage of heirs. The elders in v. 18 offer a variation on the oath reported in vv. 1 and 7. The actual wording of the oath turns out to have been that of a grave and formalized apodictic curse statement (ārûr, see Deut 27). Obviously, the proposed scheme must avoid any agreement on the part of fathers to give daughters as wives. Further reported speech in v. 19 begins movement toward resolution. Directions to the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh sound an odd note. Are the Benjaminites presented as being unfamiliar with this location, even though they ostensibly have just received their new wives there? Had Shiloh been abandoned so long ago that readers needed this guidance? The elders provide no information as to whether this event is a local festival or a national observance, but these extended directions lead the reader into imagining the former possibility. Perhaps this effort to pinpoint a well-known sanctuary has the effect of connecting Shiloh back to the Levite’s hometown in a “remote part of Mount Ephraim” and his activity involving a “house of Yahweh” (19:1, 18). Critical readers will of course evaluate this as an incorporated erudite gloss originating in the transmission process. The plan of ambush in vv. 20–21 demonstrates notable features. First, the Benjaminites are to hide in the vineyards, which suggests that the dancing takes place near them and that this is a vintage celebration.

338 Judges

Harvest is often a time when social constraints are relaxed (compare Ruth). Second, the occurrence of the festival dances are a given, but whether the targeted young women will actually join in them is set into a conditional protasis (im and imperfect verb; see the translation of RSV ESV and the note on v. 21). This means that the men must remain observant for this possibility, and this uncertainty introduces a degree of narrative tension. Third, each ravager is to seize a wife for himself, which indicates that the ambush is constituted of 200 men, not the entire 600. Fourth, the kidnappers are to head immediately back to Benjaminite territory (v. 21b), thus avoiding the predictable paternal and brotherly reaction. Obviously, the residents of Shiloh must not be privy to the plan, so perhaps this is being staged as a clandestine executive decision made by the elders alone. The need for secrecy seems to explain why elders were brought into the narrative in the first place. The annual (Hebrew: “year by year”) nature of this festival invites comparison with the women’s mourning observance in Judg 11:40 and the yearly trip to Shiloh observed by Hannah’s family (1 Sam 1:3; 2:19). Abduction by marriage is presented as an extraordinary and, given the judgmental context of Judg 21:25, outrageous barbarity. The verb used for abduct (ḥṭp) has violent connotations (HALOT 1:307; Ps 10:9), and the same thing is true of seize (gzl) in Judg 21:23 (“snatch away by force,” often “rob,” HALOT 1:186; Gen 31:31). Ironically perhaps, this is something of a counter-ambush to the one that doomed Gibeah and Benjamin. Verse 22 is a subordinate scheme for the response of the Israelites when confronted by fathers and brothers. This resolves a potential problem certainly already in the minds of readers. Social status as virgins means that the young women would be under the control of male relatives. Brothers are natural protectors of their unmarried sisters (Song 8:8–9), and fathers would be dishonored and suffer financially because these marriages are bypassing the usual negotiations over bride price. Moreover, the question as to whether these fathers would themselves come under the deadly curse of v. 18 must be sorted out. The oath and curse would fall on anyone who “gave” their daughter (the verb ntn; vv. 1, 7, 18). Although v. 22 is awkward to translate (see notes), context requires that the elders make three points. These are expressed by means of an imperative verb that is justified on the basis of two balanced, contrasting perfect verb clauses, each introduced by because…not (kî lō). First, with the imperative be generous to them for our sake, the elders are asking the relatives to do them a gracious favor in regard to the Benjaminites (the pronoun them is masculine). Perhaps the elders are implying that their respected status warrants such exceptional courtesy. Then the two because…not

 Judges 21

339

motivations for the imperative request focus on the contrasts between take and give and we and you. We did not take enough wives in the attack on Jabesh-gilead, and you (emphatic pronoun) fathers did not actually give your daughters. Because you did not do anything voluntarily, you are innocent of the curse. Only an outcome in which you fathers do not insist on normal marriage processes, but rather passively accept these marriages by capture, will be in everybody’s interest. There also seems to be an implied threat. For the fathers to insist on compensation for this fait accompli might place them under the curse as active agents. The narrative climax finally arrives in v. 23a when the Benjaminites act. Equal to their own number specifies that a complete solution to vv. 7, 14b, and 17 has been achieved. Resolution is assured in the denouement presented in vv. 23b–24 as the rival parties engage in movement home, thus ending the narrative unit. Benjaminite territory threatened in v. 17 is reoccupied. Benjaminite cities burned in 20:48 are rebuilt. The Israelites can now finally move past the sanction they had put on themselves in 20:8 and go home as well. The theologically loaded expression inherited territory (naḥālâ) is repeated for both Benjamin and Israel. The book of Judges ends on what the inattentive reader might construe as a positive note of reconciliation and peace. For modern readers, this possible impression is undermined by the outrageous way women are treated. The surviving young women of Jabesh-gilead, who have lost their entire families, are left as silent as the Levite’s concubine (19:28). The Shiloh incident is told only from the perspective of the elders, the deprived Benjaminites, and the male relatives, but not from that of the women themselves. Both narratives rationalize atrocity by means of legal niceties. Ends justify means. The whole tone of the chapter indicates that we are intended to see through this and disapprove. Bitter irony pervades the whole. This negative thrust is strengthened by reading ch. 21 against its companion piece concerning the Levite’s concubine. Chapter 19 implicitly criticizes seizing women for sex; ch. 21 appears to encourage it. The concubine dies to benefit males, and so do the sexually experienced women of Jabesh-gilead. The Ephraimite old man’s virgin daughter is spared; Shiloh’s virgin daughters are carried off. Nevertheless, the critical reader must also acknowledge that pre-modern readers and hearers were used to marriages that did not involve the bride’s agreement or completely voluntary participation. The first audience would have judged the involuntary marriage of captured women whose kinfolk were dead or whose fathers’ approval has not been obtained as a less serious outrage than the dishonoring rape and murder of a man’s concubine wife.

340 Judges

Genre and Composition Several standard stock phrases are used in this chapter. Examples are the lament question why? addressed to Yahweh in v. 3, the apodictic death formula in v. 5, the standard curse (ārûr) language in v. 18, and the ḥērem inventory in vv. 10–11. This last genre lists who and what is to be killed in the application of the ban (Deut 2:35; 3:7; Josh 6:21; 8:2, 27; 11:14; 1 Sam 15:3, Mesha Inscription lines 16–17 [ANET, 320–21; COS 2.23:137–38]). Somewhere under the surface of the Jabesh-gilead battle report is an etiology for the affiliation that obtained between that town and the family of Saul, the hero of Benjamin, whose hometown was Gibeah. This historical memory is preserved in 1 Samuel 10 and 31 and 2 Sam 21:12. Judges 21 explains that alliance as a result of kinship through forced marriage. Comparative anthropology discloses that giving and receiving women is a common way to build affiliation and achieve reconciliation. It is tempting to postulate behind vv. 19–21 the reuse of an etiology legend for an otherwise unknown custom of capturing wives. Perhaps such a custom was practiced through ritualized and perhaps simulated ambush at an annual vintage festival at Shiloh. Ritualized wife capture, by individuals or collective raids, has been described in other cultures, and marriage by abduction is not uncommonly mentioned in classical texts. A cogent parallel may be Pausanias’ description of an inappropriate episode involving the Messenians and Spartans (Description of Greece 4.16.9–10). The most well-known example is the capture of Sabine women as a Roman foundation legend. It is not impossible that some vague memory of a wife-by-capture custom lies behind the Shiloh narrative as something once considered acceptable. However, the rhetoric of this story is such that even the first readers would have judged it to be an outrage. For some interpreters, the lexical identity of dancing and writhing in labor suggests a background of fertility in the Shiloh festival. If it was a harvest or vintage celebration, this is entirely likely (Gen 30:14; Judg 15:1; Ruth). But again, authorial elements dominate. The motivation and outcome grow completely out of the literary context (wives, oath, equal in number, inherited territory). Neither episode can be considered a genuine folktale in the proper sense. They were composed to emphasize the disorder of the period, shaped to demonstrate the axiom that everyone and every group did what seems advantageous in the absence of external royal control. The Jabeshgilead episode does make use of elements of a sacral war narrative as conceptual material. There is something like an oracular inquiry (v. 3)

 Judges 21

341

and a devotion of the enemy population to destruction (v. 11). But the culturally competent reader can easily see what is problematic. Yahweh plays no role, the battle instructions are provided by Israel itself, and the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead are treated as non-Israelite foreigners. Nevertheless, the story elements involving wives as war booty and captured brides could have functioned as narratives of social control. The second story asserts that the personal wishes of the fathers and brothers of marriageable young women (to say nothing of their own desires) should be subordinated to community interests. Social theory describes how a process of scapegoating can allow for the reconciliation and reincorporation of an estranged group. The Benjaminites, who have distanced themselves from the larger community, are re-integrated by sacrificing a third party, the population of marginal Jabesh-gilead. Similarly, the prospects of a marriage close to home and family for hundreds of young woman are sacrificed to achieve the reintegration of Benjamin. Moreover, telling stories such as there would protect the principle that intra-tribal marriage is possible, although pressures toward clan and tribal endogamy would oppose this. The narrative that describes Benjamin’s capture of wives is presented using a paralleling technique. That is to say, elements and structures of the first part of the chapter were recycled in the authorial process to shape the second episode: 1. vv. 15 and 18 parallel v. 5 by presenting background information about the problem in a kî (because) clause: because Yahweh had made a gap this was because the Israelites had taken an oath compare v. 5: this was because there was a great oath 2. vv. 15–16 recycle vv. 6–7 in that they follow Israel’s compassion with a question about what should be done: the people felt sorry about Benjamin…“What shall we do for wives for those who are left?” compare vv. 6–7: The Israelites felt sorry about Benjamin… and said… What shall we do to provide wives for the ones left…?” 3. v. 19 is like v. 8 in using hinneh (conventionally “behold”) to move matters forward toward resolution: “Look (hinneh), the annual festival of Yahweh is at Shiloh” compare v. 8: It turned out (hinneh) that no one from Jabeshgilead had come

342 Judges

4. v. 20 repeats elements of v. 10b: They instructed the Benjaminites, saying “Go and set an ambush” compare v. 10b: They instructed them saying, “Go and strike down” 5. v. 23 echoes v. 14: They carried off wives…they returned compare v. 14: Benjamin returned…they gave them wives The two episodes thus form a sort of diptych, held together by an insistent repetition of themes: oath (vv. 1, 5, 7, 18), wives and virgins (vv. 1, 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21–23), Benjamin’s plight (vv. 3, 6, 15, 16), questions (vv. 5, 8, 16), compassion (vv. 6, 15), instructions (vv. 10, 20), return (vv. 14, 21, 23, 24), and inheritance (vv. 17, 23, 24). Dialogues and events are narrated against the background of other biblical texts, some of which sound like misread possible justifications for Israel’s behaviors. The interdiction of marriage, along with the ḥērem-like slaughter of Benjamin in ch. 20, sounds like an ironic obedience of Deut 7:1–5, as though Benjamin were a foreign, non-Yahwistic pagan group. The verb ḥnn from Deut 7:2 (“do not show mercy”) appears in Judg 21:22 when a gracious act is requested for Benjamin. Similarly, Lev 27:28–29 uses the apodictic death formula employed in Judg 21:5 for persons classified into the ḥērem category. However, the Jabesh-gilead campaign involves an inappropriate exception to the application of ḥērem. A proper “ḥērem inventory” is set forth in Judg 21:10, consistent with Deut 2:34; 3:6. Children are also listed in the Midian inventory of Num 31:15–18 (17–18). The special limitation on slaughter in order to exempt virgins, as directed in Judg 21:11 and carried out in v. 12, echoes the battle with Midian in Numbers 31. Judges 21:11–12 uses language employed in Num 31:17–18, 35 to distinguish between Midianite women killed and those spared as wives for the victors. These women either have or have not “known the bed of a male” or “known a man through the bed of a male.” Judges 21:11 reflects Num 31:18 and 35 and Judg 21:12 echoes Num 31:17 and 35. This is certainly an intertextual reverberation of some sort. Perhaps the Judges text is ironically offering the example from Numbers 31 (which does not explicitly mention ḥērem) as a potential justification for the ḥērem procedure used at Jabesh-gilead. The wording describing the offer of peace in Judg 21:13 is close to that of Deut 20:10 (qr and šālôm). Deuteronomy 21:10–13 mandates a procedure for brides captured in battle. Some early readers might have

 Judges 21

343

considered the possibility that Deut 22:28–29 and Exod 22:15–16 [ET 16–17], laws concerning forced sex or seduction, could have offered a way out for the fathers of Shiloh. In any case, these laws at least provide some cultural background for our understanding of the situation. One wonders whether early readers would have seen this abduction as a violation of Exod 21:16 and Deut 24:7.

J u d g es 17–21 a s E pi logue

The last five chapters of Judges are noticeably different from the core of the book. A structure created by the no king in Israel formula replaces the cyclic pattern of disobedience, punishment, and deliverance. Individual heroes are replaced by group actions. A concern for apostasy with other gods is superseded by illustrations of social breakdown (theft, images, inhospitality, brutal atrocity, and the conduct and results of civil war). Yahweh is no longer a direct actor, but (with the exception of 20:35; 21:15) appears in the narratives only through the mechanism of oracle or in the opinion of story characters (18:10). Israel’s troubles are of their own making. The only Levites or priests in Judges appear in chs. 17–20. A clear anti-Benjamin (and more subtle anti-Saul) ideology permeates chs. 19–21, something not present at all in the core chapters. By implication at least these last chapters promote monarchy; the earlier chapters, above all ch. 9, do not. After the interruption of Judges 17–21, the themes of Judges 2–16 reappear in 1 Samuel (Philistines, individual military leadership, deliverance from enemy hands (7:3, 14), judging Israel (4:18). The last five chapters represent a temporal distortion. Josephus recognized this and transposed these events to the period before Othniel (Ant. 5.136–178). Rabbinic interpretation assigned these chapters to the time of Othniel because Jonathan the priest of Dan was only a grandson of Moses (18:30). From a synchronic perspective, the epilogue stories do still belong temporally within the Judges period, because the house of Yahweh is still in Shiloh (18:31), and Jerusalem is a foreign city (contrast 1:8). Chapters 17–21 are bracketed and held together by the formulae of 17:6 and 21:25, together with its shorter form at 18:1 and 19:1. The short form divides the preliminary events of ch. 17 from the central action of ch. 18, and then to introduce the Gibeonite outrage and its associated episodes in chs. 19–21. Common themes unify the final five chapters: two Levites from Bethlehem, a connection between Bethlehem and the hill country of Ephraim, oracular inquiry (18:5–6; 20:18, 23, 26–27; 21:2–3), and concluding references to Shiloh (18:31; 21:12, 19, 21). The cult of Dan is central to chs. 17–18 and the sacred role of Bethel is important in chs. 20 and 21.

 Judges 17–21 as Epilogue

345

The recurring phrases indicate that the last five chapters were gathered by a conscious compositional process into a thematic unit. The repeated “in those days” (17:6; 18:1 [twice]; 19:1; 21:25; and also 20:27–28) reference the period of the judges and imply that this epilogue was composed with the intention of adding it to the end of Judges. The death of the Danite hero Samson (16:30) provided an attachment point for chs. 17–18 about Dan’s quest. The parallel characters of Levites connected to Bethlehem in Judah helped attach chs. 19–20 into the whole (17:7; 19:1). The structural element of journey holds together the plots of chs. 17–18 and 19 (17:8; 18:5, 6, 26; 19:9, 27). Perhaps this supplement was added to Judges after it had been disconnected from Samuel to become an independent book, or perhaps the supplement was the cause of the separation. The epilogue of Judges 17–21 shares several features with the prologue that consists of 1:1–2:5: 1. Judges 1:1–2 and 20:18 parallel pre-battle oracle episodes. The questions have similar wording and the answer in each case is Judah, but the results are very different. The question and answer beginning ch. 1 is tightly bound into the plot of Judah’s success (1:3–20). In contrast, defeat follows the oracle in ch. 20, and the question asked is clearly premature, as demonstrated by 20:23. Judah in fact plays no special role anywhere in the war with Benjamin. 2. The language of weeping at Bochim, raised their voices and wept (2:4), reappears in 21:2 with reference to Bethel (see also 20:23, 26). 3. Sacral war vocabulary is appropriate in ch. 1 as Israel attempts to seize the land of promise. It reappears in the epilogue with implicit disapproval: ḥērem (1:17 and 21:11) and striking down with the edge of the sword (1:8, 25 and 18:27; 20:37, 48; 21:10). 4. Benjamin’s incapacity to capture Jerusalem in 1:21 provides a foundation for its reappearance as a city of foreigners in 19:12. 5. Chapters 19–21 reflect the same consciousness of Israel’s tribal nature and the potential for non-cooperation as found in ch. 1. The twelve pieces of 19:29 mirror the number of tribes in ch. 1 (and not the total of Judg 5). 6. The illustrious marriage of Achsah is set into a context of war victory, a pledge to give in marriage, and the concept of blessing (1:12, 13, 15). The irregular marriages of the epilogue have a similar but skewed setting (victory: 21:10; oath not to give in marriage: 21:1, 7; curse: 21:18).

346 Judges

7. Spying leads to the conquest of Bethel in 1:22–26 and to the conquest of Dan, its counterpart as a national shrine, in 18:2, 7, 27. The former name of each city is remembered (Luz, Laish). Dan’s failure in ch. 1 is reversed into success in chs. 18–19. The nature of these connections (most clearly the comparative role of Judah) indicates that the epilogue was authored with an already-formed prologue in view. Not surprisingly, the epilogue also echoes elements of the core section of Judg 3:7–16:21. One may point to left-handed Benjaminites (3:15, 21; 20:16), the offer of kingship to Gideon and its attainment by Abimelech (17:6; 21:25), Maheneh-dan (13:25; 18:12), Zorah and Eshtaol (13:25; 18:2, 8, 11), the deaths of Jephthah’s daughter and the Levite’s concubine, and the rash and unbreakable oaths sworn by Jephthah and the Israelites. Virgins dance in 11:34 and 21:21. Gideon’s ephod (8:27) and Micah’s image and ephod reflect a shared realization that Yahwistic religion once utilized images. Both Samson in ch. 15 and the Levite of ch. 19 seek to win back an estranged wife who betrayed them, then abandon her to death, and finally seek retribution. The last part of the epilogue displays an anti-Saul and anti-Benjamin polemic. This is obvious in the way Gibeah and Benjamin are handled. Another more subtle deprecation occurs in the role of Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam 11; 31:11; 2 Sam 2:4–5; 21:12). The 600 fugitives sheltering at the Rock of Rimmon (Pomegranate) in Judg 20:45 sounds like an intertextual cross-reference to Saul’s staying with 600 troops at the Pomegranate Cave (or Tree?) on the outskirts of Gibeah (1 Sam 14:2). The dismemberment and distribution of the concubine points to Saul’s muster of Israel in 1 Samuel 11. It may be significant that Mizpah in Benjamin (Judg 21:1, 5, 8) was the assembly point where Saul was proclaimed king (1 Sam 10:17) and was eventually the Babylonian-period administrative capital (2 Kgs 25:23). The negative tone in which the episodes of chs. 17–21 are narrated influences how the reader construes the framework statement of 17:6 and 21:25. These evaluations include the observation that everyone did what seemed right in his or her own judgment (Hebrew: “eyes”). Interpreters have sometimes advanced the notion that this is nothing more than a statement of neutral fact, with no value judgment being implied. According to this construal, the statement communicates that this was a time of more freedom of choice in behavior and standards were simply different from those of the monarchical period. The alert reader is unlikely to follow this line of reasoning. All these stories have a negative flavor,

 Judges 17–21 as Epilogue

347

describing monetary loss (theft?), images, sexual assault and murder, civil war, ethnic cleansing, and kidnapping. Even if early readers were unconcerned with such matters and unable to see through the sarcasm and irony of the presentation, context pushes the characteristic phrase, “right in his own eyes” into a negative direction. Within Judges itself, the wording links back to Samson’s yearnings for his Philistine wife (14:3, 7) and the proposition made by the old man in Gibeon to the rapists (19:24). The reader will certainly associate the phrase with the structural refrain of the core of the book. Eight times Israel’s apostasy is condemned as “evil in the eyes (judgment) of Yahweh.” “In the eyes” could hardly be a neutral expression for authors and readers inspired by Deuteronomy (see Deut 12:8). The other statement of 17:6 and 21:25, there was no king, is also repeated as a paragraph marker within the epilogue at 18:1 and 19:1. Once again, some suggest that this is simply a statement of fact and not an ideological appraisal. Following this line of reasoning, the formula in neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of monarchy, but instead simply an explanation. The violent and irregular situations reported should be understood in light of the political situation. That is just the way things were back then. This is how the expression “there was no…” is used in Gen 2:5 (no plants), 1 Sam 1:3 (no frequent vision), and 1 Sam 13:19 (no smith). One problem with this reading, however, is that monarchy is almost always a value-laden topic in the Hebrew Bible. The core book of Judges itself has an anti-monarchy flavor, reflected in Gideon’s objection in 8:23 and the case study of Abimelech’s disastrous experiment. The list of the minor judges gives evidence that an unbroken continuity of prosperous and peaceful rule can be achieved without hereditary kingship. Absence of a king can be viewed as a positive situation. There was no king could assert the principle that Yahweh is the only king Israel should have. However, it is most natural to read this as a pro-monarchy commentary. National life without kings is likely to be chaotic, apostate, unregulated, and violent. As such the formula could be an endorsement of the rise of the house of David or of the policies of Hezekiah or Josiah. The narratives themselves certainly suggest that a king from Benjamin like Saul is not what is needed, but rather leadership from Judah (20:18). The formulaic phrase could also point to hopes for the restoration of a native monarchy in the Babylonian or Persian period. However, a middle-of-theroad position on monarchy is also plausible. The no king expression may be simple realism rather than a ringing endorsement or condemnation. Kingship has its problems, but anarchy is worse.

348 Judges

Of course in the final shape of Judges, the framework statements of 17:6; 18:1; 19:1, and 21:5 also can be seen as a summary of the entire book. The leadership qualities of the judges have degenerated over the course of time. Israel’s situation with respect to Yahweh also has deteriorated and the nation finds itself under ongoing Philistine oppression at the close of ch. 16. The reader who has read Judges from start to finish is likely to conclude that Israel needs a king more like Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah and less like the succeeding judges. Certainly when read in the context of the rest of the book, the no king formula and the stories it brackets can hardly be taken as a recommendation for the continued rule of judges, since the judges never control social or religious behavior.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s

Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1:29 7 2:5 347 2:23 181 3:5 121 4:24 19, 165 8:10 53 8:12 53 10:8–9 66 11 228 11:4 333 11:30 236, 239 12:6 81 12:15–19 307 12:20 50 13:7 7, 19 13:9 72 13:11 72 14 57 14:1 107 14:13 7 15:3 209 15:4 209 15:9–11 310 15:15 169, 199 15:17 310 16:1 236 16:7–14 239 16:11 232 18:1 81, 138 18:3–8 238 18:3 81, 138 18:4–8 138 18:4–5 305 18:4 81, 306 18:6–8 81 18:8 81 18:10 235

18:16 50 18:23–32 138 18:32 138 19 310 19:1 138 19:2 81, 306 19:3 81 19:7 307 19:9 307 19:16 310 19:32–35 111 19:36–37 68 20:9 160 20:15 213 21:10 184 21:30 280 21:33 81 22 218 22:2 218, 219 22:14 139 23:17–18 81 24 304 24:10 58 24:32 306 24:54–56 304 24:64 22 25:8 169 25:21 236 25:32 259 26:8 234, 265, 271 26:27 208 27:25 132 27:28 137 28:11–19 138 28:19 26 29 236 29:4 307 29:10 181 29:15–30 256

29:31 236 30 236 30:1 236 30:3 269 30:14 256, 340 31:7 160 31:13 183 31:25 73 31:27 50 31:31 338 32:29 238 32:30 132, 233, 238, 239 33:10 280 33:19 180, 181 33:20 139, 239 34 7, 187 34:2 271, 308 34:6 181 34:7 301, 307, 311 34:12 54 34:14 274 34:15–18 180 34:25 164 34:30 7, 19 34:31 208 35:1–7 138 35:1 26 35:2–4 201 35:3 26 35:4 81, 128, 182 35:8 31, 78, 203 35:19–20 203 35:22 299, 326 35:27 278 35:29 199 36:31–39 203

350 Genesis (cont.) 37 155 37:9 155 38 236 40 155 40:5 155 41 155 41:4–5 50 41:8 239 41:24 248 41:42 136 42:2 7 42:35 132 43:24 306 44:15 155 45:8 283 45:22 247 46:13 195, 198 46:14 226, 229 46:14 199 46:16 225 46:21 50 46:23 295 47:2 287 49:3–4 326 49:13 114 49:14 114 49:17 293 49:26 240 Exodus 1:15–22 86 2:1–10 86 2:2 236 2:16–22 86 2:19 7 2:22 289 2:23–24 128 2:24 38 3:6 128 3:9–12 131 3:11–4:17 128 3:11 129 3:12–14 131, 233 3:12 78, 120, 121, 128 3:17 40

Index of References 4:10 129 4:13 129 4:18 9 4:24–26 86 8:10 255 8:14 ET 255 9:20 120 13:10 244 13:15 121 14 84 14:5 84 14:24–25 77 14:24 83, 84 14:25 110 14:27 84 14:28 84 14:30 84 14:31 132 15 113, 114 15:1 106, 113 15:4–6 113 15:5 113 15:6 113 15:8–10 113 15:9 113 15:11 233 15:12 113 15:14–16 113 15:19 113 15:20–21 218 15:20 87 16:13–14 137 17 126 17:2 137 17:15 139 18:1 9 18:13 78 20:2–3 127 21:7–11 299 21:16 343 21:18 90 21:23–25 257 22:15–16 343 22:15 263 22:16–17 ET 343 22:16 248 23:12 184

23:20–33 32, 40 23:20–22 40 23:20 41, 72 23:22 40 23:24 32 23:29–30 32 23:29 39 23:30 40 23:31 221 23:32 40 29:6 240 29:36 183 30:26 183 32:2–3 168 32:4 168, 277, 280 32:6 265 32:8 289 32:31 289 33:2 41 33:20 239 34:11–17 40 34:11–15 32, 40 34:12–13 36 34:12 40 34:13 32, 40 34:15 40 35:15 183 Leviticus 1:17 246 2:8 132 4:21 122 8:14 132 8:24 19 9:24 132 11:24–40 240 20:10 310 21:12 240 25:5 240 25:11 240 26:3–4 184 26:9 130 26:14–16 184 27:1–8 219

Numbers 6 240 6:3 240 6:5 240 6:6–8 240 6:7 240 6:9 240 6:11 240 6:18 240 6:19 240 8:8 122 10:29 9, 72 10:35–36 116 10:35 113 12:16–14:45 295 12:11 129 13 26, 295 13:18 295 13:21 26, 221 13:25–33 295 13:28 295 13:32 295 13:33 295 14:15 121 20:16 222 20:20–21 222 20:21 209, 222 20:22–23 222 21–22 222 21:1–3 28 21:4 222 21:2 218 21:7 110 21:9 168 21:13 222 21:21–24 209 21:22 209 21:23 215, 222 21:24 216, 222 21:25–26 222 21:26–30 214, 215 21:28 184 21:32 26 22 222 22:41 287 24:20–21 10 25:7–13 283, 294

351

Index of References 25:11–13 278 26:15 225 26:23–24 199 26:23 198 26:24 195 26:26 199, 226, 229 26:29 115 26:42 295 27:17 79 30:2 ET 219 30:3 219 31 342 31:15–18 342 31:17–18 342 31:18 342 31:35 342 31:49 330 32:1 198 32:35 158 32:41 195 32:42 158 33 107 33:55 32, 41 34:4 24 34:27 50 35:19–21 165 Deuteronomy 1 78 1:15 9 1:19–46 295 1:22–35 295 1:22 295 1:24 295 2 222 2:19 216 2:21 216 2:26–37 209 2:29 222 2:32 215 2:34 325, 342 2:35 340 2:36 271 2:37 216 3:3 271 3:5 266

3:6

55, 325, 342 3:7 340 4:39 110 6:10 40 6:12 57 6:16 137 7:1–5 40, 342 7:1 55 7:2 34, 36, 342 7:3–4 55 7:5 32, 34, 36, 50, 57, 128, 134 7:13 257 7:16 41 7:22 39 7:25 50, 57 8:11 57 8:14 57 8:18 162 8:19 57 11:24 26, 221 11:30 81 12 56 12:1–3 40 12:3 32, 50, 57, 128, 134 12:8 347 12:9–10 59 13:5 ET 315, 326 13:6–10 ET 326 13:6 315, 326 13:6 ET 165 13:7–11 326 13:7 165 13:10 121 13:12–16 326 13:13 ET 326 13:13–17 326 13:14 326 13:14 ET 134 13:15–16 ET 326 13:15 134

352 Deuteronomy (cont.) 13:16 ET 317 13:16–17 326 13:17 317 14 295 15:12 57 16:10 280 16:21 57, 134 17:7 315 17:12 315 17:14–15 167 17:17 167, 170, 199 18:4 123 18:5 278 18:6 278 18:15–22 78 18:22 238 20:8 143, 148, 151 21:10–13 333, 342 20:10–12 213 20:10 342 20:11 14 20:17 55 21:15 254 22:21 208, 301, 307 22:22–24 310 22:22 315 22:25–27 236 22:28–29 343 23:4 ET 58 23:5 58 23:10–15 51 23:21 ET 219 23:22 219 24:3 254 24:7 343 25:17 126 25:19 10, 59, 126 26:4 280 26:5 326 27:2–4 180 27:8 180 27:11–26 179

Index of References 27:15 180, 277 28:57 111 28:62 326 29:22 189 29:23 ET 189 30:16–18 184 31:23 131 32–33 284 32:1–43 221 32:20 255 32:32 311 32:42 241 33:2–3 113 33:8–11 278 33:13 137 33:16 240 33:18–19 114 33:20 111 33:22 293 33:23 114 33:24 111 34:3 61 Joshua 1–12 295 1:1 13, 26, 37 1:4 221 1:5 131 1:9 151 1:11 292 1:14 145 2 295 2:1 295 2:4–7 82 2:9–11 19 2:10 35, 41 2:11 110 2:12–14 25 2:12 37 2:14 37 2:17 265 2:23–24 295 3:7 131 3:16 146 4:12 145 4:19–20 36 4:20 50

5:9–10 36 5:13–15 36 5:13 152 6:2 67, 292 6:17 295 6:19 168 6:21 325, 340 6:22 295 6:24 168 6:25 295 7:2–8:23 327 7:2–5 327 7:2 295 7:3 295 7:6–9 327 7:8 129 7:15 307 8:1–2 327 8:1 67, 151, 292 8:2 325, 340 8:3–9 327 8:5–6 327 8:6 327 8:10–17 327 8:13 153 8:14 327 8:15 325 8:16 316 8:18 67, 152, 258, 327 8:19 327 8:20–21 327 8:21–22 328 8:22 327 8:24 160 8:25 327 8:27 340 8:28 327 8:30–35 179 9 37 9:1 55 9:6 36 9:7 54 9:23 76 9:25 201 9:27 76

10:1 25 10:8 151, 292 10:10 83, 160 10:11 154 10:12–13 110 10:17 7 10:19 154 10:24 208 10:40 19 10:41 222 11 76 11:7 158 11:8 160, 222 11:10–11 76 11:11 293 11:14 340 11:17 55, 221 11:21–22 11 11:21 21 11:43 59 12:1–5 221 12:7 221 13–19 14, 15 13:1 292 13:2–6 67 13:3–4 26, 221 13:3 10 13:5 55 13:6 221, 291 13:9 221 13:16–17 221 13:25 210 13:26 221 13:27 225 13:30 204 14–19 15 14–15 15 14:6–15 25, 28 14:6 28, 49 14:7 295 14:9 23 14:11 295, 336 14:12 11, 25 14:14 28 14:15 28, 59 15 27 15:1 15

Index of References 15:3 24 15:6 50, 296 15:13–19 8 15:13–14 7, 23, 28 15:13 18 15:14 7, 11, 28 15:15–19 28, 58 15:15 8, 28 15:18 8 15:19 28 15:19 MT 9 15:21 28 15:33 28, 232, 257, 273, 274 15:43 223 15:45–47 10, 28 15:48 28 15:49 21 15:57 257 15:59 LXX 254 15:61 23, 28 15:63 10, 11, 23, 28, 29 16–17 15 16:2 11, 26 16:4 24 16:5–10 24 16:8 199, 227, 229 16:10 11, 13, 29 16:16 23 17:1 24 17:3–6 25 17:3 25 17:7–13 24 17:7 29 17:8–10 29 17:9 199, 227, 229 17:11–13 11 17:11–12 29 17:11 29, 86, 222 17:12–13 29 17:12 10, 29 17:13 13, 29

353 17:14–18 25 17:16–18 23 17:16 23 17:18–19 23 18:13 11 18:16 11 18:17 296 18:22 23 18:28 11 19 12, 14, 24 19:9 7 19:11 195 19:14 223 19:15 12, 29, 195, 199, 226 19:20 85, 229 19:27 223 19:28 12, 229 19:29–30 12, 29 19:29 12 19:33 72, 81, 85, 229 19:38 12, 29 19:40–48 291 19:41–46 295 19:41–42 12, 29 19:41 232, 257, 274 19:42 229 19:43 229, 257 19:47–48 29 19:47 15, 295, 296 19:50 32 21 27 21:1–3 25 21:2 25 21:28 85 21:30 229 21:44 59 22 326 22:9–11 336 22:10–34 326 22:12–16 326 22:12 326 22:30–32 326

354 Joshua (cont.s) 23–24 15, 16 23 26, 37, 43 23:1 59 23:3–8 40 23:13 32, 34, 36, 41 24 26, 37, 284 24:7 140 24:8 140 24:11 175, 320 24:12 140 24:14 184, 201 24:15 124, 140 24:17 140 24:23 201 24:24–25 36 24:24 140 24:25 180 24:26 176, 182 24:28–31 25, 41 24:28 35, 41 24:29–33 203 24:29–31 41 24:29–30 199 24:29 37, 41 24:30 32, 41, 170 24:31 41 24:33 199 Judges 1 10, 13–19, 23–29, 34–36, 40, 41, 43, 55, 290, 326, 345, 346 1:1–3:6 35 1:1–2:5 3, 4, 16, 25, 35, 41, 345 1:1–36 17, 34, 35, 38, 42

Index of References 1:1–2 1:1

1:2–21 1:2–16 1:2

1:3–20 1:3–4 1:3 1:4–26 1:4–21 1:4–16 1:4–8 1:4–5 1:4 1:5–7 1:5 1:6–9 1:6–7 1:7 1:8

1:9–21 1:9–17 1:9 1:10–15 1:10–133 1:10–11

16, 345 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 26, 34–37, 58, 202, 321 15 17 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 36, 321 345 23 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 27, 36 13 17 27 8, 17 18, 27 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 27, 36 19, 27 13, 18, 19, 27 41 19 18, 19, 182 10, 11, 13, 17–19, 23, 24, 27, 296, 344, 345 27 8 17, 19, 23, 27, 28 28 19 27

1:10 1:11–15 1:11 1:12–13 1:12 1:13–14 1:13 1:14–15 1:14 1:15 1:16–21 1:16–17 1:16

1:17 1:18–19 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:21

1:22–35 1:22–26

13, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 41 8, 34, 58 18, 20, 24, 27–29 20 18, 20, 28, 345 20 8, 16, 18, 28, 49, 345 8, 20 20, 21, 73 18, 20, 21, 28, 345 22 28 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 34, 36, 50, 72, 81 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 345 28 23, 27, 28, 54, 274 10, 14, 16, 23, 34, 61 7, 13, 17, 23, 27, 28 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 27– 29, 34, 139, 345 15 13, 346

1:22

13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 36 1:23–26 25 1:23–25 295 1:24–25 26 1:24 17, 24, 25, 164, 295 1:25 13, 24, 25, 345 1:26 16, 23, 24, 27, 139 1:27–35 13 1:27–33 13, 23, 24, 29 1:27–29 11, 16, 23, 24 1:27–28 29 1:27 10, 11, 13, 27, 29, 34, 86, 222 1:28–29 34 1:28 34 1:29–33 29 1:29 13, 27, 29, 34 1:30 13, 27, 29, 34 1:31–32 34 1:31 27, 29, 34 1:32–33 55 1:32 13 1:33 13, 27, 29, 34 1:34–36 24, 291 1:34–35 15–17, 24, 29, 274 1:34 16, 24, 27, 34, 37, 290

355

Index of References 1:35 1:36 2–16 2 2:1–5

2:1–3 2:1–2 2:1 2:2 2:3

2:4–5 2:4 2:5 2:6–16:31 2:6–3:6 2:6–10 2:6–9 2:6–8 2:6–7 2:6 2:7–11 2:7

13, 14, 23, 27, 29, 34 14, 24 284, 344 34, 39, 40, 42– 44, 53 14, 17, 18, 23, 24, 34, 35, 39, 40, 43, 140, 200, 205 35, 36 32, 36, 40 34–37, 40, 42, 128, 334 36, 40, 120, 127, 134 13, 35, 36, 38, 40, 54, 168 35 17, 128, 334, 345 334 3 15 4, 25, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42 41 16 35 3, 16, 34, 35, 41, 44, 61 33 15, 34, 35, 37, 41, 45, 58, 337

2:8–9 2:8 2:10 2:11–3:6 2:11–23 2:11–20 2:11–19 2:11–18 2:11–16 2:11–13 2:11

2:12 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:16–19 2:16–18 2:16 2:17–19 2:17 2:18–19 2:18 2:19–23 2:19

34 16, 37, 41, 44 8, 15, 34, 37, 38, 41, 54 4 34, 35, 38 39 34, 35, 37–39, 41–43, 46 33 38, 43 37, 38, 43 35, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 200 38, 41, 42, 200 38, 42, 45, 49, 56, 200 37–39, 41–45 33, 38, 41 43, 45, 205 204 38, 42, 43, 45, 204 38, 42, 43 38, 41, 42, 45, 161, 168 43 16, 38, 44–46, 204, 216 33 14, 38, 41, 42, 60, 161, 216

356 Judges (cont.) 2:20–23 34, 35, 38, 43 2:20–21 17, 36, 38, 39 2:20 32, 35, 37–39, 42, 120 2:21–23 35 2:21 34, 35, 39, 42, 43, 48, 200 2:22 33, 39, 43, 54, 55 2:23 16, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43 3–16 41, 43 3 69, 228 3:1–6 15, 43, 53 3:1–4 54 3:1–2 54 3:1 39, 43, 49, 53, 54 3:2 39, 54 3:3 10, 43, 54, 55, 67, 267 3:4 39, 43, 54, 55 3:5–6 54, 55, 67 3:5 54, 55, 67 3:6 55, 57 3:7–16:31 4, 16, 34 3:7–16:21 346 3:7–15:20 42 3:7–11 53 3:7 34, 37, 42–44, 54, 56, 57, 125, 200 3:8–10 57

Index of References 3:8

3:9–10 3:9

3:10

3:11

3:12–30 3:12–15 3:12–14 3:12

3:13 3:14 3:15–26 3:15–25 3:15–17 3:15

3:16 3:17 3:18

34, 37, 43–46, 56–58, 75, 200, 204, 249 56 8, 16, 28, 42–46, 66, 123, 127, 204 43–45, 49, 58, 67, 75, 122, 125, 205, 216, 228, 246 43, 44, 46, 54, 56, 58, 67, 113, 169, 203, 204, 259 53 59, 67 59 37, 44, 54, 60, 61, 63, 125 16, 59, 61, 67, 126, 200 43, 44, 46, 61, 75, 204 59 74 60 42–46, 59–63, 66, 123, 127, 204, 321, 346 60, 61 53, 60, 61, 63, 64 43, 60, 62

3:19–22 3:19–20 3:19 3:20 3:21–23 3:21

3:22–23 3:22 3:23 3:24–25 3:24 3:25 3:26 3:27–29 3:27 3:28

3:29 3:30–31 3:30

3:30 LXX

68 22 50, 52, 59, 60, 62–64 50, 52, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65 62 60, 61, 63, 73, 79, 82, 346 68 51, 60, 62, 63 51, 60, 62, 64, 65 60, 62, 77, 112 51, 60, 62–65 60, 63 50, 59, 60, 63 59, 67 53, 63, 67, 136 16, 53, 61, 63, 66, 67, 146, 160, 228 50, 59, 60, 63, 67, 78 265 43, 44, 54, 59, 61, 63, 67, 83, 113, 123, 169, 203, 204, 217 69

3:31

3:31 MT 4–5 4

4:1–5 4:1–3 4:1–2 4:1

4:1 LXX 4:2–3 4:2 4:3

4:4–5 4:4

4:5 4:6–9 4:6–7 4:6 4:7

357

Index of References 45, 53, 54, 71, 81, 204, 265, 274, 292 69 54 76, 77, 84, 86– 89, 91, 108, 109, 111 74 73, 84, 86, 113 86 44, 46, 54, 59, 60, 63, 66, 75, 125, 200 69 57 37, 44, 74–76, 86 16, 43, 44, 75, 76, 78, 127, 203, 204 75, 79, 84 74, 75, 77, 78, 82, 127, 205, 229 24, 74, 78 79 74, 75, 79, 83 71, 76, 78, 79, 83–86 16, 67, 71, 74, 76, 78– 80, 83, 84, 87

4:8–10 4:8–9 4:8 4:9–11 4:9–10 4:9

4:10

4:11–18 4:11

4:12–16 4:12–14 4:12–13 4:12 4:13 4:14

4:15 4:16

4:17–21 4:17–19

83 74, 151 75, 79 85 85 74, 75, 77–80, 83, 85, 86, 190 74, 76, 80, 81, 85–87, 202 87 9, 16, 23, 34, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 85, 86, 229 78 74, 83 79 74, 76, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87 16, 74, 76, 77, 80, 87 67, 72, 75, 76, 78–80, 83, 87, 109, 151 74, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84 72, 74, 75, 77, 80, 83, 84, 86, 160 80 78

4:17

4:18–20 4:18 4:19–21 4:19 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:23–24 4:23

4:24 5 5:1 5:2–11 5:2–5 5:2 5:3 5:4–5 5:4 5:5 5:6–8 5:6–7

16, 23, 74, 75, 77, 80– 82, 84, 87 75 22, 74, 75, 88, 344 88 75, 76, 87, 88 75, 76, 88 9, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82, 89 68, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 84 74, 75, 83, 84, 86 44, 73, 75, 83, 84, 86, 88, 123, 217 75, 79, 83 86–89, 91, 114, 116, 345 86, 87, 91, 106 109 106 106, 108, 241 84, 106, 108, 113, 114 107, 108, 116 87, 107, 110 84, 107 86, 186 107, 108

358 Judges (cont.) 5:6 66, 69, 80, 107, 115 5:7 106, 112, 283 5:8 107, 108 5:9 106–108 5:10–11 114 5:10 108, 199 5:11–18 108 5:11 106, 108, 211 5:12 79, 86, 87, 106, 108 5:13 87, 106, 108, 109, 111, 130 5:14–18 115 5:14 10, 86, 87, 107, 109, 130, 226, 230 5:15–17 109 5:15–16 24, 115 5:15 24, 86, 87, 109, 130 5:16 116 5:17 230 5:18 86, 87, 109 5:19–23 108 5:19–21 86 5:19–20 110 5:19 84–87, 109, 112, 113, 115, 263 5:20–21 87, 110 5:20 107, 109 5:21 77, 87, 110, 113 5:22 86, 87, 110, 112 5:23 72, 87, 109, 111

Index of References 5:24–30 5:24–27 5:24

111 88, 111 9, 82, 87, 111, 227 5:25–27 87 5:25 87, 88, 111 5:26 89, 90, 111, 113 5:27 83, 89, 90, 111 5:28–30 111 5:28 53, 86, 112, 218 5:29–32 169 5:29 112 5:30–31 169 5:30 83, 109, 111–13, 255 5:31 43, 44, 86, 113, 169, 203, 204 5:33–35 169 5:35 169 5:36–37 130 6–8 171 6 78, 185 6:1–10 123, 161 6:1–6 124, 140 6:1–2 127 6:1 37, 44, 122–27, 130, 204 6:2–6 124 6:2 123, 125–28 6:3 61, 126, 127, 136, 152 6:4–6 126 6:4–5 124 6:4 126, 139, 148, 151 6:5 126

6:6

43, 44, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 140 6:7–10 40, 120, 124, 127, 140, 200, 205 6:7 120, 124, 127, 133, 140 6:8–10 36 6:8–9 140 6:8 127, 129 6:9 16, 123, 125, 127 6:10 32, 124, 127, 133, 161 6:11–24 40, 128, 138, 169, 236, 240 6:11 81, 124, 128–30, 132, 138, 160, 164 6:12–16 139 6:12 125, 129–32, 138, 161, 166, 212 6:13 121, 123, 126, 128–31, 139, 152, 161, 163 6:14 45, 123, 132–34, 136–39 6:15 45, 123, 128, 129, 131, 136, 139 6:16 125, 130, 131, 133, 137–39, 161

6:17

124, 131, 136 6:17 MT 120 6:17–24 139 6:17–18 138 6:18–19 131, 238 6:18 132 6:19–21 238 6:19 132, 138, 238 6:20 121, 131, 132, 138–40 6:21 128, 133 6:22–23 132, 239 6:22 121, 131, 132 6:23–24 138, 164 6:23 130, 132– 34, 139 6:24 124, 128, 139, 140, 160, 170 6:25–32 45, 139, 140 6:25–30 56 6:25–28 138, 169 6:25–26 133 6:25–32 6:25 121, 124, 133, 134, 139, 147, 151 6:26 121, 139, 140, 170 6:27 133, 134, 136, 151 6:28 121, 133, 134, 137, 139, 140 6:29 134, 163 6:30 134 6:31–32 163 6:31 123, 133–35, 161, 165 6:32 124, 140

359

Index of References 6:33

61, 124, 126, 136, 147, 148, 151, 152 6:34–35 136, 154, 202 6:34 43, 45, 63, 68, 123, 131, 136, 161, 216, 217, 246 6:35 122–24, 136, 140, 147 6:36–40 140, 148, 150 6:36–37 134, 148, 161 6:36 45, 59, 123, 124, 137, 138, 140 6:37 45, 123, 137, 138, 150 6:38 137 6:39 137, 138, 140 6:40 124, 133, 137, 140, 147 7 147 7:1–8 136, 147 7:1 124, 126, 137, 140, 147, 148, 151, 152 7:2–7 150 7:2 16, 45, 123, 125, 147, 148, 151, 161, 166 7:3 143, 148, 150, 151, 344

7:4 7:5–6 7:5 7:6 7:7

7:8

7:9–15 7:9–11 7:9

7:10–11 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:12 MT 7:13–15 7:13 7:14

7:15

7:16–23 7:16–22 7:16–17

143, 147, 150 148 143, 144, 148–50 144, 148, 149 16, 45, 67, 123, 125, 134, 147, 148, 151, 152, 161 124, 126, 147, 148, 151–53, 190 147 147, 151 67, 109, 123, 133, 147, 148, 151, 152, 161 152 144, 147, 151, 238, 270 144, 152 124–26, 152 120 125 152, 155 123, 131, 140, 148, 151, 152, 155, 161, 166, 190, 344 67, 123, 147, 148, 151, 152, 161 147 139 151

360 Judges (cont.) 7:16 123, 144, 147, 153 7:17–18 145, 153 7:18–19 140, 153 7:18 145, 147, 153 7:19–20 123 7:19 145, 147, 153 7:20–21 153 7:20 140, 145, 147, 152–54 7:21 147, 153 7:22 125, 147, 153, 154, 161, 164 7:23–25 160 7:23–24 67, 136, 154, 202 7:23 139, 140, 146, 147, 160, 162, 166, 190 7:24–8:3 147 7:24–25 160, 227 7:24 53, 63, 64, 109, 146, 147, 154 7:25 140, 147, 154, 162, 164 7:27 125 7:35 143 8 140, 147, 154, 180, 191 8:1–3 160, 162, 227 8:1–2 17 8:1 147, 163, 226 8:2 154, 169, 230, 290 8:3–17 160

Index of References 8:3

125, 140, 147 8:4–21 139, 161, 163 8:4–12 162 8:4–9 160, 163 8:4 123, 140, 154, 160, 163, 166 8:5–12 147 8:5–9 160 8:5 151, 158, 159, 163 8:6–7 123 8:6 123, 165, 170 8:7–10 290 8:7 123, 159, 164 8:8 123 8:9 133, 164, 165, 218 8:10–12 160, 163, 164 8:10 164, 170 8:11 164 8:12–13 38 8:12 147, 164 8:13–17 163, 164 8:13 160, 164 8:14 164, 182 8:15 123, 164, 165 8:16 159 8:17 160, 165 8:18–26 160 8:18–21 160, 163, 165 8:18 131, 169 8:19 165 8:20 131 8:21 79, 80, 160, 166, 167, 170 8:22–27 161 8:22–25 167

8:22–23

161, 166, 180 8:22 45, 123, 166, 167, 181, 183, 190, 204 8:23 125, 167, 170, 347 8:24 166, 167 8:25 168 8:26 160, 166, 167 8:26 MT 120 8:27 125, 138, 160, 161, 167–70, 346 8:28 43–45, 83, 113, 123, 140, 161, 170, 203, 204, 217 8:29 140, 161, 168 8:30–35 140 8:30–31 161, 167, 171 8:30 161, 167, 170, 180, 199, 203, 229 8:31 167, 180, 239, 299 8:32 46, 59, 120, 160, 161, 167, 169, 170, 203, 229, 272 8:33–35 161 8:33–34 161 8:33 38, 45, 135, 161, 168, 170, 171, 180 8:34–35 161

8:34

57, 123, 162, 169 8:35 125, 140, 161, 162, 168, 169, 171, 180 8:38 162 9 140, 163, 180, 191, 204, 344 9:1–6 179, 191 9:1–3 191 9:1 171, 179, 181 9:2–3 181 9:2 167, 171, 181, 187 9:3 171, 179, 181 9:4–6 181 9:4 180, 189, 193, 208, 212, 263 9:5–6 184 9:5 171, 179, 182, 190 9:6 176, 178, 181, 182, 189, 193 9:7–21 179 9:7–20 191 9:7 179, 182, 184–86, 190, 191, 193 9:8–15 182, 183, 191 9:8 183, 188 9:9 183 9:11 176 9:12 183 9:13 176, 177, 183 9:15 183–85 9:16–21 191 9:16–20 182 9:16–19 184

361

Index of References 9:16–17 9:16

169, 171 171, 182, 184, 185 9:17–18 184 9:17 180 9:18 171, 175, 179, 182, 184, 185, 187, 190 9:19 169, 171, 184, 185 9:20 176, 184, 185, 189, 190, 193 9:21 179, 185 9:22–49 185 9:22–41 179, 186 9:22–24 191 9:22 185, 191 9:23 179, 181, 186, 187 9:24 176, 179, 182, 186, 190 9:25–41 185, 186, 191 9:25 178, 179, 185–87 9:26–31 186 9:26 175, 179, 186 9:27–29 183 9:27 177, 179, 180, 187– 89, 193 9:28–29 187, 188, 191 9:28 177, 181, 187 9:29 187 9:30 186, 187 9:31–41 186 9:31–33 187, 191 9:31 179, 187 9:32–45 186 9:32 177, 179, 187, 193

9:33 9:34–41 9:34

187, 193 189, 193 187, 188, 193 9:35 178, 187, 188, 193 9:36–38 191 9:36 175, 187 9:37 188, 193 9:38 187 9:39 175, 187, 188 9:40 193 9:41–45 191 9:41 175, 177, 179, 186–88 9:42–45 179, 181, 185, 186, 193 9:42 179, 185, 187, 188 9:43 153, 179, 187, 188, 193 9:44 178, 179, 193 9:45–46 175, 176 9:45 179, 188–90 9:46–49 179, 181, 186, 189, 191 9:46 122, 171, 180, 189, 193 9:47 178, 179, 185, 189, 193 9:48–49 184 9:49 181, 189 9:50–57 179 9:50–54 191 9:52–54 86 9:52 184 9:53 113, 189

362 Judges (cont.) 9:54 80, 144, 190, 191, 270 9:55–57 191 9:55 180, 185, 190, 191 9:56–57 19, 179, 182, 190 9:56 179, 190 9:57 184–86 10 197, 226, 228, 230 10:1–5 3, 67, 197, 204, 230 10:1 24, 45, 199, 204, 227, 228, 296 10:2 45, 46, 67, 69, 161 10:3 45, 67 10:4 139, 204, 260 10:5 46, 161 10:6–12:7 196 10:6–18 199 10:6–16 197, 204 10:6–10 205 10:6 37, 44, 45, 49, 56, 60, 125, 199– 201, 205 10:7–8 57 10:7 37, 44, 45, 161, 199, 200, 234, 249, 274 10:8–9 199, 225 10:8 44, 196, 200, 204, 211

Index of References 10:9

196, 200, 205, 211, 217, 226 10:10–16 140 10:10–15 205 10:10–14 200 10:10 38, 43, 44, 199– 201, 205 10:11–15 205 10:11–14 39, 199 10:11–12 200, 205 10:11 67, 196, 274 10:12 16, 45, 54, 196 10:13–16 216 10:13–14 196 10:13 38, 45, 200, 201, 205 10:14–16 127 10:14 45, 200, 201, 205 10:15–16 201 10:15 199, 205 10:16 38, 196, 200, 201, 211, 220 10:17–18 197, 202 10:17 67, 196, 202, 211, 217 10:18 7, 196, 202, 208, 211–13 11 202, 204, 212, 225, 226 11:1–11 202 11:1–3 212 11:1 129, 221, 226 11:3 182 11:4 196, 212, 213, 243 11:5–11 22

11:5 212 11:6 213 11:7–11 218 11:7–10 227 11:7 205, 213, 227 11:8–9 208 11:8 208, 209, 213 11:9 213, 227 11:10 213 11:11 197, 202, 208, 213, 217 11:12–28 22, 211, 221 11:12–27 227 11:12–14 214 11:12–13 216 11:12 75, 197, 218, 221, 227 11:13 214, 221, 222 11:14 209 11:15–22 221 11:15 209, 214, 215, 222 11:16–26 214 11:16–22 214 11:16 216, 222 11:17–20 225 11:17 200, 209, 213, 216, 217, 222 11:18 200, 214, 215, 222 11:19–22 221 11:19–21 209 11:19 200, 213, 216, 217, 222 11:20 200, 209, 215, 217, 222 11:21–22 222 11:21 216

11:22

61, 214, 216, 221, 222 11:23–26 221, 227 11:23–24 214, 215 11:23 209, 216, 222 11:24 209, 214, 216 11:25 214–16, 222 11:26 210, 214–16, 222, 227 11:27–28 214 11:27 214, 216, 221, 227 11:28 197, 213, 216 11:29 45, 122, 197, 200, 202, 212, 216–18, 225, 246 11:30–31 197, 227 11:30 16, 217, 227 11:31 133, 217, 219 11:32–33 197, 202 11:32 119, 197, 200, 217, 219, 225 11:33 44, 83, 123, 210, 212, 217, 222 11:34 112, 217, 218, 219, 225, 346 11:35 210, 219, 227 11:36 86, 219 11:37–38 220 11:37 22, 223 11:39–40 197, 223 11:39 211, 221

363

Index of References 11:40

211, 221, 226, 244, 338 12 202 12:1–6 154, 200, 226 12:1–2 202 12:1 197, 200, 217, 225, 226 12:2–3 227 12:2 227 12:3 200, 217, 225, 227 12:4–6 17, 67, 228 12:4 154, 227, 228, 230 12:5–6 68 12:5 53, 64, 200, 217, 225, 227 12:6 78, 197, 228 12:7–15 3, 67, 197, 204, 230 12:7 45, 46, 67, 69, 197, 198, 204, 221, 226, 228 12:8 67, 204 12:9 45, 67, 198, 199 12:10 46, 161 12:11–12 197 12:11 45, 67, 204, 226 12:12 46, 161, 226, 229 12:13 67, 198, 204, 226 12:14 45, 67, 181, 198, 229

12:15 12:27 13–16 13 13:1

13:2 13:3–14 13:3–5 13:3 13:4 13:5

13:6–7 13:6 13:7 13:8–18 13:8 13:9 13:10 13:11 13:12 13:13–14

10, 46, 161, 226, 229 43 16 234, 235, 239, 244, 256, 273 37, 44, 60, 125, 200, 203, 204, 234, 235, 240, 244 234, 236, 239, 277, 280 238 235 234–37, 239, 273 232, 236, 238 7, 44, 45, 59, 204, 232, 234–36, 239–41, 244, 245, 259, 269, 271, 284 235 232, 234, 235, 237 235–37, 241 235 235, 237 138, 234– 37, 273 235–37 234, 237, 273 233, 237, 238, 287 235, 237, 238

364 Judges (cont.) 13:13 233–35, 273 13:14 236, 238 13:15–23 235 13:15–21 131, 138 13:15–20 240 13:15–18 235 13:15 233, 238 13:16 233, 235, 238, 245 13:17–18 237 13:17 233, 238 13:18 238 13:19–23 238 13:19–21 235 13:19 132, 238 13:20–21 132, 235 13:20 233 13:21–22 132 13:21 235 13:22–23 236 13:23 132, 234, 235, 239, 273 13:24–25 244 13:24 235, 239, 244 13:25 122, 234, 235, 239, 240, 244–46, 256, 258, 267, 271, 272, 274, 295, 346 14–15 234, 244 14 244–46, 256, 259, 272 14:1–15:20 244, 266 14:1–15:8 259 14:1–10 245 14:1–4 244 14:1–2 266

Index of References 14:1 14:2–6 14:2 14:3 14:4

14:5–9 14:5 14:6

14:7 14:8 14:9 14:10–20 14:10–18 14:10 14:11 14:12–17 14:12 14:14 14:15

14:16–17 14:16 14:17 14:18

235, 244–47, 249, 270 244 245–47 235, 246, 259, 270, 274, 347 78, 234, 235, 239, 245, 246, 252, 274 244 246, 247, 263 45, 122, 235, 240, 243, 245–47, 258, 270 246, 270, 347 243, 244, 247, 256 241, 244–47, 251, 252 244 246 240, 246, 247, 249 247 245, 247 247 244, 248 227, 244, 248, 249, 251, 254, 257, 259 269 244, 247, 248, 251, 266 244, 248 245, 248

14:19

45, 122, 235, 239, 240, 246, 247, 249, 256, 258, 270, 272 14:20 246, 249, 259 15 244, 249, 255, 259, 266, 346 15:1–8 244, 259 15:1–3 256 15:1 243, 244, 247, 256, 257, 266, 340 15:2 256 15:3 235, 256, 267 15:4–5 256, 271 15:4 247 15:5 257, 274 15:6–8 257 15:6 246, 248, 249, 256, 257 15:7 235, 256–58 15:8–19 259 15:8 155, 211, 245, 246, 256, 257, 259, 271, 272 15:9–19 244 15:9–17 257 15:9–10 257 15:9 246, 256, 274 15:10 235, 246, 256–58 15:11–13 257 15:11 235, 246, 247, 252, 256, 257, 274

15:12

246, 256, 258 15:13 245, 246, 256, 258, 268, 273 15:14–17 69, 257, 260 15:14 45, 122, 234, 235, 239, 240, 245, 246, 256, 258, 268, 270 15:15–17 69 15:15 258, 271, 272 15:16 258 15:17 258, 260 15:18–19 245, 259, 272 15:18 259 15:18 37 15:19 139, 260 15:20 43, 45, 205, 229, 234, 240, 259, 263, 275 15:21 246 15:31 235, 246 16 69, 228, 234, 244, 245, 266, 348 16:1–31 244 16:1–3 234, 259, 266 16:1 234, 235, 237, 244, 266, 270 16:2–3 266 16:2 266 16:3 267, 273 16:4–5 267 16:4 234, 251, 266, 274, 275

365

Index of References 16:5–13 16:5

258 266–69, 274, 277, 281 16:6–9 258, 268 16:6 22, 267, 268 16:7–8 258 16:7 258, 263, 267–69, 273 16:8 267, 268 16:9 245, 258, 264, 266, 268–70 16:10–12 268 16:10 22, 267, 268 16:11–12 258 16:11 258, 267– 69, 273 16:12 245, 258, 266–70 16:13–14 268 16:13 22, 263, 264, 267–69 16:14 264, 268–70 16:15–20 268 16:15–16 22, 269 16:15 235, 248, 256, 267 16:16 196 16:17 235, 241, 269, 270 16:18–21 267 16:18–20 269 16:18 235, 256, 266, 267, 269, 270 16:19–20 269 16:19 83, 234, 263, 264, 269–71

16:20 16:21 16:22 16:23–24 16:23–24 16:23 16:24–27 16:24 16:25 16:26 16:27 16:28 16:30–31 16:30 16:31

16:31 LXX 17–21

17–20 17–18

52, 235, 256, 267, 269–71 234, 235, 258, 267, 270, 271 270, 271 114 267 271, 272 271 235, 265, 271 234, 256, 264, 265, 270–72 22, 270 271, 272 19, 235, 256, 267, 272 270 46, 234, 237, 345 42, 43, 45, 46, 69, 71, 167, 203, 205, 229, 234, 240, 245, 259, 263, 265, 270, 272, 274, 275 69 4, 15, 16, 18, 25, 280, 284, 294, 299, 326, 344–46 344 4, 16, 24, 294–96, 302, 344, 345

366 Judges (cont.) 17 278–80, 283, 290, 302, 304, 344 17:1–21:25 3 17:1–6 279 17:1–5 17 17:1–2 294 17:1 236, 279, 282 17:2–5 280 17:2–4 279 17:2–3 263, 281 17:2 263, 277, 279–83 17:3–12 282 17:3–4 281 17:3 277, 280, 281 17:4–5 168 17:4 277, 279, 281, 288, 289 17:5 133, 279, 281, 283 17:6 4, 246, 279, 280, 282, 284, 308, 344–48 17:7–13 279, 282, 290 17:7–8 302 17:7 282, 304, 345 17:8 279, 282, 345 17:9 282, 294, 304 17:10 263, 267, 278, 279, 282, 283, 293 17:11 278, 279, 282 17:12 279, 282, 283

Index of References 17:13 279, 281–83 18–19 346 18 278–81, 283, 290, 344 18:1 4, 280, 284, 290–92, 344, 345, 347, 348 18:2–17 295 18:2–6 291 18:2–3 290 18:2 17, 278, 279, 291, 295, 346 18:3–6 290 18:3 279, 291 18:5–6 17, 344 18:5 345 18:6 292, 345 18:7 159, 164, 287–89, 291–93, 295, 346 18:8–10 295 18:8 291, 346 18:9–10 22, 291 18:9 61, 289 18:10 288, 291, 293, 344 18:11–13 290 18:11 69, 278, 291, 292, 346 18:12 139, 239, 260, 295, 346 18:13–26 282 18:13 279, 290–92 18:14–20 290 18:14 277, 289, 291, 292, 295 18:15 279, 291, 292

18:16–18 18:16 18:17–18 18:17

289, 294 288, 292 277 279, 288, 293, 295 18:18 279, 291, 293 18:19–20 294 18:19 22, 279, 283 18:20 277, 279, 284, 293 18:20 MT 289 18:21 290, 293 18:22–26 290, 293 18:22 279, 290, 291, 317 18:24 279, 281, 294 18:25 293 18:26 279, 345 18:27–28 290 18:27 279, 290, 292, 293, 296, 345, 346 18:28–30 293 18:28–29 290 18:28 288, 292, 293 18:29 290 18:30 168, 278, 290, 294, 296, 344 18:31 180, 281, 290, 294, 296, 344 19–21 4, 17, 294, 296, 302, 311, 327, 344, 345 19–20 345 19 302, 311, 319, 339, 345, 346 19:1–2 302

19:1

4, 236, 280, 284, 306, 337, 344, 345, 347, 348 19:2–3 302 19:2 303, 304, 308 19:3–9 302, 311 19:3 299, 302– 304, 308 19:4–10 303 19:4–9 303, 304, 308 19:4 300, 303, 304 19:5–7 304, 305 19:5 299, 303, 304 19:6 300, 303–306 19:7 303, 305 19:8–9 304, 305 19:8 304, 307, 310 19:9 303–306, 309, 345 19:10–15 302, 303 19:10–14 303 19:10–13 305 19:10–12 19 19:10 17, 303, 305 19:11–13 303, 304 19:11–12 305 19:11 61, 303, 305, 308 19:12 17, 305, 345 19:13 303, 311 19:14 303, 305, 308 19:15–26 302 19:15–25 303 19:15 303, 306 19:16–21 303

367

Index of References 19:16

277, 303, 305, 306, 308 19:17–19 306 19:17 306 19:18 304, 337 19:19 306 19:20–21 305 19:20 303, 306 19:21 306 19:22–24 303 19:22 306, 320 19:23 301, 307 19:24–29 308 19:24 264, 271, 301, 306– 308, 347 19:25–28 303 19:25 303, 308, 320 19:26–30 303 19:26–29 303 19:26 303, 308 19:27–29 303 19:27–28 302, 309 19:27 306, 308, 309, 345 19:28–29 320 19:28 303, 309, 339 19:29–20:1 310 19:29–30 302, 309 19:29 300, 309, 320, 345 19:30 301, 302, 319, 320 20–21 302 20 18, 302, 303, 319, 326, 327, 331, 334, 337, 342, 344, 345 20:1–3 318, 333 20:1 121, 295, 301, 318, 319, 321, 326, 335

20:2

318, 319, 321, 335 20:3 301, 318, 319 20:4–7 318 20:4–6 319 20:4 315, 319, 320 20:4–7 22 20:5 175, 263, 264, 309, 319 20:6–7 320 20:6 301, 320 20:7 320 20:8–10 321, 322 20:8 121, 318– 22, 339 20:9–10 318 20:9 17, 321 20:10 301, 318–20 20:11 121, 318, 321 20:12–13 318 20:13 318, 319, 326 20:14–17 318 20:14–15 317 20:15–16 325 20:15 315, 316, 319, 321, 325 20:16 50, 63, 315, 346 20:17 321 20:18–25 318 20:18–21 321, 322 20:18 17, 18, 24, 26, 321, 322, 326, 327, 344, 345, 347 20:19–25 327 20:19 316 20:21 319, 322, 325

368 Judges (cont.) 20:22–25 322 20:22 319, 322 20:23 17, 31, 316, 321, 322, 327, 345 20:24 319 20:25 319, 321, 322, 325 20:26–48 324 20:26–44 323 20:26–27 327, 344 20:26 17, 24, 26, 31, 319, 321–23, 334, 345 20:27–28 322, 345 20:27 291, 321 20:28 16, 17, 67, 322, 326, 327 20:29–36 323 20:29–30 324 20:29 316, 323, 324, 327, 328 20:30–32 324 20:30 319, 323 20:31–32 323 20:31 26, 319, 324, 327, 328 20:32 319, 323, 324, 327 20:33–34 324, 327, 328 20:33 315, 321, 323, 324 20:34–35 324 20:34 321, 323, 324, 327 20:35 315, 319, 321, 325, 334, 337, 344

Index of References 20:36–41 20:36 20:37 20:38–39 20:38 20:39–41 20:39 20:40–42 20:40 20:41 20:42–44 20:42 20:43 20:44–46 20:44 20:45–48 20:45 20:46 20:47 20:48

21 21:1–5 21:1

21:2–4 21:2–3

323, 327, 328 323, 324, 327, 328 323, 324, 327, 345 324 316, 317, 324, 327, 328 324 319, 324, 327 324 316, 324, 326–28 324, 328 319 317, 324, 327 160, 319 315, 325 318, 321 319, 327 68, 154, 315, 317, 318 315, 319, 321, 325 292, 325, 336 17, 318, 325, 326, 333, 339, 345 302, 319, 339, 340, 344 333 319, 333, 334, 337, 338, 342, 345, 346 334 334, 344

21:2

17, 24, 31, 32, 316, 333, 334, 345 21:3 333, 334, 340, 342 21:4 333, 334 21:5 319, 333–36, 340–42, 346, 348 21:6–14 335 21:6–8 333 21:6–7 335, 341 21:6 318, 333, 335, 336, 342 21:7 326, 334, 335, 337–39, 342, 345 21:8 319, 331– 33, 335, 342, 346 21:9–10 333 21:9 331, 332, 335 21:10–11 325, 333, 336, 340 21:10 319, 333, 336, 342, 345 21:11–12 342 21:11 17, 335, 336, 341, 342, 345 21:12–14 333, 336 21:12 332, 335, 336, 342, 344 21:13 319, 342 21:14 333, 336, 339, 342 21:15–23 336 21:15 333, 336, 341, 342, 344

21:16–18 21:16–17 21:16 21:17–18 21:17 21:18

21:19–22 21:19–21 21:19 21:20–21 21:20 21:21–23 21:21 21:22 21:23–24 21:23 21:24 21:25

Index of References 333, 334 341 319, 331, 333, 337, 342 337 219, 331, 333, 337, 339, 342 331, 333, 337, 338, 340–42, 345 333 340 333, 336, 337, 341, 344 177, 337 36, 333, 342 342 332, 338, 342, 344, 346 301, 338, 342 333, 339 333, 338, 339, 342 333, 342 4, 246, 280, 284, 308, 333, 338, 344–47

Ruth 1:1 43, 45 1:10 121 1:15 215 2 188 2:1 129 2:2 188 2:4 129 2:17 128 2:21–22 256

3:3 211 3:7 73 3:11 129 4:6 280 21:3 340 1 Samuel 1:1

18, 236, 277, 280 1:3 338, 347 1:11 240 1:17 291 1:20 236, 239 1:22 240 1:26 129 2:1 18, 108 2:5 236 2:17 132 2:19 338 2:20 278 2:21 199, 239 2:26 239 2:27–36 40 2:35 278, 283, 294 3:8 323 3:19 239 3:20 319 3:21 233 4 290 4:7–9 112 4:9 33 4:18 45 4:19 149 5:1–7 272 6:7 273 6:13 256 6:15 132 7:3–4 234 7:3 284 7:4 56 7:10 83 7:10–13 234 7:13 44, 83, 284 7:15–17 45, 78, 203

369 8:6–7 219 8:7 167 8:11–17 167, 237 8:20 79 9:1 236, 280 9:4 226 9:6 238 9:21 128, 129, 131 9:26 50 10 340 10:2 170, 203 10:6 246 10:10 246 10:17 346 10:18 140 10:27–11:15 335 11 346 11:1 284 11:4 300 11:6 246 11:7–11 7 11:7 310, 319, 334 11:10 201 12:7 114, 256 12:9–11 86 12:9 44, 57, 75 12:10–11 167 12:10 56 12:11 77, 140, 229 12:12–15 167 12:12 167 13:6 126, 179 13:15 292 13:19 347 14 63, 155, 311, 334 14:1 144 14:2 292, 325, 346 14:6 144, 148 14:12 159 14:14 260 14:18 168 14:29 247

370 1 Samuel (cont.) 14:33–34 182 14:33 175 14:38 314 14:44–45 219 15 126 15:3 325, 340 15:6 9, 10 15:33 184 15:34 311 15:58 120 16:6–7 131 16:11 131 16:13 246 16:14 186, 270 17 63 17:9 7 17:25 19 17:34–36 260 17:40 287 17:43 166 17:47 107, 153 17:49 259 18 311 18:6 112 18:7 114, 271 18:10 246 18:12 270 18:17–29 256 18:17–27 19 19:12 86 20:9 292 20:38 7 21:3 287 21:15–22 69 22:2 182, 208, 212 22:20–21 182 23 186 23:2 83 23:4 7, 83 23:7 266 23:9–12 168 23:11 175, 320 23:13 292 24 155 24:5 73

Index of References 24:15 216 25:1 199, 203 25:2 237 25:3 21 25:10 170, 187 25:18–35 21 25:20 21, 199 25:23 21, 22 25:24 181 25:25 307 25:42 22, 287 26:19 215 27:8 10 27:10 10, 22 28 311 28:5 132 28:21 225 28:22 305 30:7–8 168 30:11–15 25 30:11 7 30:23 307 30:26 113 31 340 31:4 190 31:11–13 335 31:11 346 2 Samuel 1:1 13 1:19–27 114 1:20 332 1:23 251 1:24 332 1:26 186 2:4–5 346 2:9 115 2:14 271 2:21–22 166 3:2–5 199 3:5 65 3:32 170 2:36 330 3:7 299 4:2 182, 325 4:5 325 4:9 325

4:12 19 5:1 181 5:3 185 5:8 26 5:23–24 83 5:23 31 5:25 222 6:5 271 6:11 283 6:16 112 6:17 168 6:20–22 271 6:20 182 7 59 7:7 45 7:11 43, 45 8:18 282 9:11 283 10:4 270 10:4–5 19 10:11 18 11:21 140, 190 11:25 169, 287 12:7–14 40 12:24 239 12:30 166 13:9–10 83 13:10 254 13:12–13 307 13:12 301, 308, 311 13:14 308 13:20 220 13:22 308 13:29 199 13:32 308 13:38 186 14:2 86 15:8 292 16:2 199 16:5 50 16:10 209 16:21–22 299 17:8 293 17:11 319 18:6 296 19:14 ET 319

19:15 319 19:23 209 17:17–20 82 20:1 311 20:9–10 68 20:16–22 113 20:16 86 20:18 282 20:21 277 20:22 86 20:26 198 21–24 284 21:12–14 170 21:12 175, 340, 346 21:15–22 260, 274 22:5–6 301 22:15 83 22:38 318 23:3–39 69 23:6 193 23:8–23 274 23:8 260 23:9 69 23:11–12 69, 255, 260 23:11 69 23:18 260 23:20–21 260 23:20 260 24:2 26, 221 24:9 164 24:12 320 24:16–25 138 1 Kings 1:33 199, 229 1:38 199 2:26–27 283, 294 2:32 184 2:35 283, 294 3:12 7 3:17 129 3:26 129 4:9 229 4:12 146, 195 4:13 198

371

Index of References 4:25 319 5:6 184 5:10 126 5:26 72 6:1 44, 68, 205 6:9 52 7:2–8 272 7:41–42 9 7:46 146 8:23 110 8:28 130 8:54 149 8:64 334 8:65 55 9:18 22 9:20–21 14 10:1 248 10:3 248 11:1–4 199 11:1 229 11:5 215 11:7 215 11:13–26 222 11:24 182, 212 11:26 146 11:33 56, 215 12 193 12:1 180 12:25 193 12:28 168 14:5 287 14:7 9 15:3 56 15:22 314, 315 17:18 209 17:19 51 17:23 51 16:31 229 18:17 210 18:19 56 18:28 287 18:29 263 18:30 134 18:32 334 18:34–35 132 18:38 132

19:4 264 20 84 20:1–11 213 20:13–14 83 20:16–21 324 22:1 186 22:5–6 83 22:10 136 22:15 83 22:20 248 22:41–42 203 22:50 ET 203 22:51 203 2 Kings 1:1 13 1:9 145 2:12 283 2:17 53 2:20 273 2:24 228 3 84, 214 3:13 209 3:21–27 324 3:25 189 3:27 215, 218 4:10–11 51 4:16 235 4:20 269 4:38–44 152 4:39 188 5:5 247 5:22–23 247 6:18 211 7:13 287 8:11 53 9:2 186 9:24 90 9:28 167 9:30 112 10:1–11 182 10:1 19, 167, 181, 199, 229 10:7 181, 228 10:14 228 10:27 134

372 2 Kings (cont.) 11:1 182 11:3 182 11:17 185 11:18 134 12:21 167 13:5 59 13:14 283 13:20–21 170, 203 13:21 182 13:23 130 14:7–12 40 14:7 12, 25 14:8–10 213 14:9 191, 193 14:25 55 15:29 107 16:3 218 17 42 17:7–23 42 17:11 42 17:14 42 17:16 42 17:17 42 17:20 42 17:25 247 17:33 287 17:34 160 17:35 42 18:4 168 18:12 36 19 107 19:9–13 213 19:18 134 21 42 21:3 42, 134 21:5 110 21:6 42 21:9 42 21:15–16 42 21:15 42 21:22 42 22:14 77 23:3 185 23:4–5 110 23:4 56 23:11–12 110 23:12–15 134

Index of References 23:17–18 170, 203 23:22 43, 45 25:7 270 25:23 346 1 Chronicles 2:1 8 2:7 210 2:21–23 198 2:49 25 2:53 236 2:54 236 4:2 236 4:13 49 4:32 254 4:39–43 25 5:18–26 25 6:57 85 6:59 229 7:1–2 198 7:3 149 7:4 ET 229 7:10 50 8:2 318 8:3 50 8:8 295 9:10 135 11:13–14 260 12:2 321 12:19 122 12:37 164 15:29 271 21:20 256 21:26 132 27:15 49 2 Chronicles 4:12–13 9 4:17 146 7:1 132 11:21 199 13:21 199 18:2 8 20:1 196 24:20 122 26:7 196 28:6 164 35:21 209

Ezra 2:53 76 4:8 239 Nehemiah 7:8 111 7:55 76 9:7 160 9:27 201 Esther 7:8 83 9:19 19 Job 1:2 199 1:15 158, 182 3:12 269 5:13 234 13:14 225 22:15 326 23:16 108 26:12 110 31:10 111, 149, 234, 271 38:23 201 39:6 189 39:25 263 42:13 199 Psalms 2:10 106 9:1 129 7:14 83 10:1 334 10:9 338 15:2 184 17:8 184 18:4 301 19:4–6 ET 113 19:4–5 ET 239 19:5–7 113 19:5–6 239 19:6 ET 239 19:7 239 23:5 183 25:7 272

25:16 130 26:4 326 26:7 129 29:5 184 36:7 184 37:39 201 44:1 129 44:23–24 ET 129 44:24–25 129 45:14 247 45:14 ET 223 45:15 223 46:5 183 46:10 ET 153 46:11 153 48:3 304 49:2 106 49:4 ET 248 49:5 248 50:20 165 58:10 192 63:7 184 66:6 110 68 114, 116 68:1 116 68:7–8 ET 116 68:7 ET 79 68:8–9 116 68:8 79 68:12 ET 110 68:13 110 68:13 ET 116 68:14 89, 116 68:21 ET 90 68:22 90 68:26–27 218 68:27 ET 116 68:28 116 69:8 ET 165 69:9 165 69:16 ET 130 69:17 130 72:9 149 73:4 50 74:1 129 74:11 129 74:13–15 110

373

Index of References 75:1 129 77:7–9 ET 129 77:8–10 129 77:18–19 ET 113 77:18 83 77:19–20 113 78:1 106 78:3–4 129 78:60 294 80:12 ET 129 80:13 129 83:9–11 ET 155 83:9–10 ET 86 83:9 ET 170 83:9 ET 75 83:10–11 86 83:10 75, 170 83:10 ET 143 83:10–12 155 83:11 143 84:11 239 86:16 130 88:14 ET 334 88:15 334 89:10 ET 113 89:11 113 91:1–2 184 92:9 ET 113 92:10 113 96:3 129 97:2–5 113 104:3 51 104:15–16 183 104:15 183 106:4 272 110:3 137 113:9 236 118:12 192, 263 121:6 239 122:5 78 144:6 83 149:3 218 171 184 Proverbs 5:15–18 250 5:19 252

7:6 112 7:10 83 7:15 83 7:16–18 83 7:22 20 9:16 83 11:29 210 12:9 169 15:16 169 15:17 169 15:27 210 16:3 237 16:18 19 16:23–24 251 16:24 251 16:32 169 18:1 72 19:4 72 20:25 219 22:1 169 24:13–14 251 24:13 251 26:9 193 26:27 190 27:22 255 30:16 236 30:20 250 31:24 247 Qohelet 7:1 169 7:6 192 10:4 157 10:18 51 10:19 183 12:6 9 Song of Songs 1:4 254 2:3 251 2:9 112 3:4 254 4:3 73 4:11 251 5:1 251 6:7 73

374 Isaiah 1:1–2:5 221 1:2 106 1:9–10 311 1:18 195 2:13 184 2:19 126 2:20 289 3:3 145 3:16 20 3:18 20, 166 3:20 166 3:23 247 4:6 184 6:1–5 239 6:5 132 6:8 7 7:4 151 7:12 137 7:14 236 7:20 270 8:3 236 8:23 71 9:1 ET 71 9:3 155 9:4 170 9:4 ET 155 9:5 233 10:26 155, 170 14:12–13 110 14:13 304 15:4 215 16:1 12 16:3 184 25:4–5 184 26:19 137 28:11 228 29:3 176 30:2 184 32:2 184 32:14 317 33:4 126 33:20 72 34:6 145 37:39 201 38:13 251 40:26 110 44:2 236

Index of References 44:19 134 46:6 277 47:2–3 271 48:1 184 49:18 122 49:20 181 51:9 109 54:1 220 62:4 220 64:1 183 64:2 ET 183 66:12 90, 269 Jeremiah 1:4–10 131 1:6 129 1:9 7 4:2 184 4:23 126 4:30 111 5:15 228 6:1 317 6:3 73 6:9 318 7:29 240 7:30 180 8:16 110 12:12 145 14:8 201 15:10 227 17:2 134 17:6 189 25:3–11 40 26:15 181 28:1 200 28:17 200 29:23 307 31:4 218 31:20 201 32:37 287 33:22 110 34:18–19 310 35:7 238 41:7 228 44:3 33 46:20 251 47:3 110 47:4 90

47:6 145 48:34 215 49:28 90 49:3 332 50:11 110, 251 51:14 126 51:27 126 53:10 228 Lamentations 2:9 266 3:15 264 4:5 195 4:6 311 5:11 271, 308 5:13 270 Ezekiel 3:5–6 228 3:6 120 16:3 305 16:21 228 16:57 332 17:2 248 17:23 184 18:2 252 20:25–26:31 218 21:26 7, 281 22:10–11 264 25:4 126 31:3 193 32:21 90 38:11 19 38:12 178 43:26 283 47:19 22 Daniel 1:7 160 1:15 50 2 155 2:1 239 2:3 155, 239 4 155 4:12 184 5:29 136

Hosea 1 236 1:4 184 2:14 ET 248 2:16 248 3:4 281 4:13 128 5:1 88, 114 8:4 184 9:10 40 11:8 201 12:4 ET 40 12:5 40 13:2 289 13:10–11 167 14:7 184 Joel 1:4–7 126 1:6–7 126 1:10 257 3:12 78 Amos 2:11–12 240 4:11 311 5:23 106 5:26 110 7:17 208 8:14 294 Jonah 4:8

375

Index of References

264

Micah 1:3–4 113 1:5 251 2:6–11 221 6:5 114 6:8 251 6:15 183 7:1 162 Nahum 1:14 277 3:14–15 126 3:15 126

Habakkuk 1:10 106 2:6 248 3 113 3:7 57 3:11 83 3:12–13 107 3:13 90 Zephaniah 1:4–6 215 2:9 189 Zechariah 2:8 19 4:3 9 6:11 168 6:14 168 7:5 332 9:9 199, 229 9:14 83 10:12 281 11:2 90 11:8 196 13:7 109 14:11 287 New Testament Matthew 5:27 19 18:22 165, 182 Luke 24:31

132

John 1:28

146

Acts 5:38–39

135

Hebrews 11:32 77 Apocrypha 1 Esdras 3

249

Tobit 12:19 132 12:21 132 Judith 2:5 164 7:3 195 12:10–13:10 74 12:16 83 13:7–8 113 Sirach 42:11 44:11 46:12 50:14

112 45 170 122

2 Maccabees 12:20

164

Pseudepigrapha LAB 39.11 210 Mishnah Yeb. 16.7 22 Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 109b 290 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 5.128 11 5.137 299 5.143–149 308 5.145 301 5.149 301 5.205–206 1105.208 73 5.216–217 143, 150 5.219 145 5.228 159 5.241–246 177 5.263 210 5.270 225

376

Index of References

Josephus, Ant. (cont.) 5.276–284 237 5.308 263 5.314 265 11.302–312 289 Against Apion 1.156–158 203 Jewish War 3.3.5 178 Classical Herodotus Histories 1.214 5.114

86 247

Homer Iliad 3.160–244

115

Odyssey 17.309 19 21.5–8 52 21.42–50 52

Inscriptions and Ostraca Lachish 4 317

Livy 22.16 257

Mesha lines 16–17

Ovid Fasti 4.679–712

Wadi Hammamat Line 19 68

257

Pausanius Description of Greece 4.16.9–10 340 Sappho frag. 124

244

Virgil Gerogica 4

247

340

Mesad Hashavyahu lines 10–12 186