Word Biblical Commentary: Judges

�

WordBiBlical

commentary

WBC JUDGES.FINAL.02.05.09.indd 1 2/5/09 10:06:00 PM

��

General EditorsBruce M. Metzger †David A. Hubbard †Glenn W. Barker †

Old Testament EditorJohn D. W. Watts

New Testament EditorRalph P. Martin

Associate EditorsJames W. Watts, Old Testament

Lynn Allan Losie, New Testament


��

WordBiBlical

commentaryVolume 8

Judges

trent c. Butler


�v

To the Spears bunch, who have supported me through a new stage of life Bobby and Cordell

Ben and Mary Martin and Allison

Adeline and

Evelyn and Beatrice

/tr:bug“Bi vm,V,h' taxeK] wyb;h}aow“May those who love him be like the mighty sun as it rises. (Judg 5:31)

© 2009 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

All r�ghts reserved. No port�on of th�s book may be reproduced, stored �n a retr�eval system, or transm�tted �n any form or by any means—electron�c, mechan�cal, photocopy, record�ng, scann�ng, or other—except for br�ef quotat�ons �n cr�t�cal rev�ews or art�cles, w�thout the pr�or wr�tten perm�s-s�on of the publ�sher.

Publ�shed �n Nashv�lle, Tennessee, by Thomas Nelson. Thomas Nelson �s a trademark of Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Thomas Nelson, Inc., t�tles may be purchased �n bulk for educat�onal, bus�ness, fund-ra�s�ng, or sales promot�onal use. For �nformat�on, please e-ma�l Spec�[email protected].

Scr�pture quotat�ons �n the body of the commentary marked nrsv are from the New Rev�sed Stan-dard Vers�on of the B�ble, copyr�ght © 1989 by the D�v�s�on of Chr�st�an Educat�on of the Nat�onal Counc�l of the Churches of Chr�st �n the USA and are used by perm�ss�on. The author’s own transla-t�on of the text appears �n �tal�c type under the head�ng Translation.

L�brary of Congress Catalog�ng-�n-Publ�cat�on DataMa�n entry under t�tle:

Word b�bl�cal commentary.

Includes b�bl�ograph�es.1. B�ble—Commentar�es—Collected works.

BS491.2.W67 220.7' 7 80–71768ISBN 10: 084990207x (v. 8) AACR2

ISBN 13: 9780849902079

Pr�nted �n Colomb�a

1 2 3 4 5 6 QWB 12 11 10 09


Contents

List of Tables v��Editorial Preface v��Author’s Preface �xAbbreviations x

Main BibliographyCommentary Bibliography xv��General Bibliography xx�

IntroductionIntroduct�on to the R�ddle of Judges xxxv�Introduct�on to the Text of Judges xxx�xIntroduct�on to the Narrat�ve Compos�t�on of Judges xl��

The Larger Context: The Deuteronom�st�c H�story xl�� The Immed�ate Context: The Structure of the Book of Judges l�

Introduct�on to the H�stor�cal Context: The Sett�ng and Nature of the Judges Narrat�ves lx�v

Introduct�on to the Chronology of Judges lx�v Introduct�on to the H�story beh�nd Judges lxv� Introduct�on to Dat�ng the Book of Judges lxx��

Introduct�on to the Purpose of Judges lxx�vOutl�ne of the Book of Judges lxxx�v

Commentary I. The S�tuat�on after Joshua (1:1–2:23) 1 A. The Terr�tor�al S�tuat�on (1:1–36) 1 B. The Rel�g�ous S�tuat�on (2:1–23) 34 II. Israel’s Sagg�ng Fortunes under the Judges (3:1–16:31) 50 A. Br�ght Beg�nn�ng �n the South (3:1–31) 50 B. Forebod�ng Fa�lures �n the North (4:1–16:31) 75 1. Barak: Surrender�ng Glory to a Woman (4:1–5:31) 75 a. The Prose Vers�on (4:1–24) 75 b. The Poet�c Vers�on (5:1–31) 110Excursus: Unique Attributes of the Two Deborah Stories 159Excursus: The Nature of Old Testament Historical Narrative 172 2. G�deon and Ab�melech: Struggl�ng to Be K�ng (6:1–9:57) 178 a. G�deon Overcomes the M�d�an�tes (6:1–8:35) 178 b. Ab�melech: Illeg�t�mate, Self-seek�ng Rogue Warr�or (9:1–57) 225 3. Jephthah w�th M�nor Judges (10:1–12:15) 252 a. Inter�m Report (10:1–18) 252 b. Jephthah: Sacr�fic�ng Fam�ly and a

Tr�be for V�ctory (11:1–12:15) 268


v�

4. Samson’s Self-centered F�ght w�th Ph�l�st�nes and Women (13:1–16:31) 301

III. Ep�logue: “Who �s k�ng when all �s r�ght �n my eyes?” (17:1–21:25) 361 A. Sav�ng Dan, the Cult Th�ef (17:1–18:31) 361 B. Sav�ng Benjam�n�tes, the Guest Rapers (19:1–21:25) 402 1. Un�quely Ev�l Benjam�n V�olates Law of Hosp�tal�ty (19:1–30) 402 2. All Israel Ga�ns Revenge on Benjam�n (20:1–48) 430 3. Israel�tes Work around Vow (21:1–25) 451

Appendix of Tables 478Map: Judges of Israel 531Indexes 532

Contents


List of Tables

Tables for IntroductionI.1. Compar�son of Joshua and Judges 479I.2. Themat�c Incons�stency �n the Book of Judges 482I.3. New Elements from the “Ideal Narrat�ve” 485I.4. The Israel�tes’ Fa�lures �n the Book of Judges 486I.5. Chronology from the Exodus through Solomon’s Re�gn 487I.6. Use of Assumpt�ons to Reconc�le Chronology �n Judges 488I.7. R�chter’s Calculat�on of the H�stor�cal Years of Israel’s H�story 489I.8. Ste�nmann’s Calculat�on of the H�stor�cal Years of Israel 489I.9. A Proposed Relat�ve Chronology for the Book of Judges 490I.10. Dat�ng the Book of Judges and Its Sources 491I.11. The Narrat�ves of Judges 496

Tables for Commentary1.1. Syntact�cal Breaks �n Judg 1 4971.2. Tr�bal Conquests and Fa�lures �n Judg 1 4981.3. Instances of bvy, “to Res�de, L�ve,” �n Judg 1 4991.4. Compar�son of Judges 1 w�th Joshua 5002.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chap. 2 5023.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chap. 3 5034.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chap. 4 5054.2. Structural Formulas �n Judg 4 5075.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chap. 5 5096.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chaps. 6–9 51010.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chaps. 10–12 51413.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chaps. 13–16 51717.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chaps. 17–18 52419.1. Narrat�ve and Genre Compar�sons for Chaps. 19–21 52620.1. Compar�son of Ambush Narrat�ves �n Joshua and Judges 530


Editorial Preface

The launch�ng of the Word B�bl�cal Commentary br�ngs to fulfillment an enter-pr�se of several years’ plann�ng. The publ�shers and the members of the ed�tor�al board met �n 1977 to explore the poss�b�l�ty of a new commentary on the books of the B�ble that would �ncorporate several d�st�nct�ve features. Prospect�ve readers of these volumes are ent�tled to know what such features were �ntended to be; whether the a�ms of the commentary have been fully ach�eved t�me alone w�ll tell.

F�rst, we have tr�ed to cast a w�de net to �nclude as contr�butors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our a�ms, but are �n the ma�n engaged �n the m�n�stry of teach�ng �n un�vers�ty, college, and sem�nary. They represent a r�ch d�vers�ty of denom�nat�onal alleg�ance. The broad stance of our contr�butors can r�ghtly be called evangel�cal, and th�s term �s to be understood �n �ts pos�t�ve, h�stor�c sense of a comm�tment to Scr�pture as d�v�ne revelat�on and to the truth and power of the Chr�st�an gospel.

Then, the commentar�es �n our ser�es are all comm�ss�oned and wr�tten for the purpose of �nclus�on �n the Word B�bl�cal Commentary. Unl�ke several of our d�s-t�ngu�shed counterparts �n the field of commentary wr�t�ng, there are no translated works, or�g�nally wr�tten �n a non-Engl�sh language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare the�r own render�ng of the or�g�nal b�bl�cal text and to use the b�bl�-cal languages as the bas�s of the�r own comments and exeges�s. What may be cla�med as d�st�nct�ve w�th th�s ser�es �s that �t �s based on the b�bl�cal languages, yet �t seeks to make the techn�cal and scholarly approach to a theolog�cal understand�ng of Scr�pture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgl�ng student, the work�ng m�n�ster, and colleagues �n the gu�ld of profess�onal scholars and teachers as well.

F�nally, a word must be sa�d about the format of the ser�es. The layout, �n clearly defined sect�ons, has been consc�ously dev�sed to ass�st readers at d�fferent levels. Those w�sh�ng to learn about the textual w�tnesses on wh�ch the translat�on �s offered are �nv�ted to consult the sect�on headed Notes. If the readers’ concern �s w�th the state of modern scholarsh�p on any g�ven port�on of Scr�pture, they should turn to the sect�ons on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear expos�t�on of the passage’s mean�ng and �ts relevance to the ongo�ng b�bl�cal revelat�on, the Comment and conclud�ng Explanation are des�gned expressly to meet that need. There �s there-fore someth�ng for everyone who may p�ck up and use these volumes.

If these a�ms come anywhere near real�zat�on, the �ntent�on of the ed�tors w�ll have been met, and the labor of our team of contr�butors rewarded.

General Ed�tors: Bruce M. Metzger†David A. Hubbard†

Glenn W. Barker†Old Testament Ed�tor: John D. W. Watts

Assoc�ate Ed�tor: James W. WattsNew Testament Ed�tor: Ralph P. Martin

Assoc�ate Ed�tor: Lynn Allan Losie


Author’s Preface

Should fun be the first word that comes to m�nd when descr�b�ng the wr�t�ng of a commentary? For th�s wr�ter the word fun �s qu�te apt. The book of Judges has a drear�some message of fa�lure and d�sobed�ence, but �t presents the theme through �rony, sat�re, and humor. At t�mes we have to laugh at others’ m�stakes and then at ourselves as we fool�shly repeat the story we just honored w�th sarcast�c laughter. Thus seek�ng to ferret out the �nstances of �rony and humor and to solve the scholarly r�ddles the book so frequently presents have often engendered fun and laughter, both at the contents of the book and at my own feeble efforts to learn �ts lessons and avo�d �ts m�stakes.

The fun came at a most �mportant moment �n l�fe as I adjusted to the loss of a w�fe, remarr�age, adapt�ng to a new fam�ly, be�ng preserved from a deadly tornado w�th only the loss of a house, and then struggl�ng through the process of mov�ng �nto a temporary res�dence, find�ng bu�lders, and construct�ng a new home. In all such endeavors I have made many m�stakes and had to laugh at myself �n do�ng so. Many t�mes I sought refuge from l�fe’s demands beh�nd a computer mon�tor as I tr�ed to place new thoughts and helpful �deas on �t.

Through �t all, my sons, Curt�s and Kev�n; granddaughter Brynn; and new fam�ly, Mary Mart�n and Mary Webb, have g�ven strong encouragement and love. Mary Mart�n’s adult ch�ldren and fam�l�es have also supported me �n ways beyond all expectat�ons. Thus th�s book �s ded�cated to the Spears fam�ly, the�r fa�thfulness to the Judge of all the earth, the�r strong relat�onsh�ps to one another, and the�r example of love and acceptance for the new member of the fam�ly.

Trent C. Butler

Gallatin, TennesseeSpring 2008


I. The Situation after Joshua (1:1–2:23)

A. The Territorial Situation (1:1–36)

Bibliography

Abramsky, S. “On the Ken�te-M�d�an�te Background of Moses’ Leadersh�p” (Heb.). ErIsr 12 (1975) 35–39. Aharoni, Y. “New Aspects of the Israel�te Occupat�on of the North.” In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. FS N. Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden C�ty, NY: Doubleday, 1970. 254–67. ———. “The Strat�ficat�on of Israel�te Meg�ddo.” JNES 31 (1972) 302–11. Auerbach, E. “Untersuchungen zum R�chterbuch 1.” ZAW 48 (1930) 286–95. Auld, A. G. “Judges 1 and H�story: A Recons�derat�on.” VT 25 (1975) 261–85. Bar-redo, M. A. “Convergenc�as redacc�onales sobre la conqu�sta de la t�erra promet�da en Jue 1,1–2,5.” Car 14 (1998) 1–42. Belz, W. Die Caleb-Traditionen im Alten Testament. BWANT 5.18. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974. Bieberstein, K. Josua—Jordan—Jericho: Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6. OBO 143. Gött�ngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Blum, E. “Der kompos�t�onelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu R�chter: E�n Entflechtungsvorschlag.” In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. FS C. H. W. Brekel-mans, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. 181–212. Brettler, M. Z. “Jud 1,1–2:10: From Append�x to Prologue.” ZAW 101 (1989) 433–35. Cortese, E. “G�os. 21 e G�ud. 1 (TM o LXX?) e l’‘abbottonaura’ del ‘Tetrateuco’ con l’‘Opera deuter-onom�st�ca.’” RivB 33 (1985) 375–94. Dahood, M. “Scr�pt�o Defect�va �n Judges 1:19.” Bib 60 (1979) 570. DeVries, L. F. Cities of the Biblical World. Peabody, MA: Hendr�ckson, 1997. Doherty, E. “The L�terary Problem of Judges I,1–III,6.” CBQ 18 (1956) 1–7. Drews, R. “The ‘Char�ots of Iron’ of Joshua and Judges.” JSOT 45 (1989) 15–23. Elitzur, Y. “Two Adjacent and Contrad�ctory Verses (Judges 1:18–19)” (Heb.). In Sefer Deem. Publ�cat�ons of the Is-rael B�ble Soc�ety 5. Jerusalem, 1958. 192–97. Eslinger, L. M. “A New Generat�on �n Israel.” In Into the Hands of the Living God. SBLStBl 24. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. 55–80. Fensham, F. C. “D�d a Treaty between the Israel�tes and the Ken�tes Ex�st?” BASOR 175 (1964) 51–54. Fewell, D. N. “Deconstruct�ve Cr�t�c�sm: Achsah and the (E)razed C�ty of Wr�t�ng.” In Judges and Method. Ed. G. A. Yee. 119–45. Fleishman, J. “A Daughter’s Demand and a Father’s Compl�ance: The Legal Background to Achsah’s Cla�m and Caleb’s Agreement (Joshua 15,16–19; Judges 1:12–15).” ZAW 118 (2006) 354–73. Fritz, V. “Das ‘negat�ve Bes�tzverze�ch-n�s’ �m Jud�cum 1.” In Gott und Mensch im Dialog. FS O. Ka�ser, ed. M. W�tte. 2 vols. BZAW 345. Berl�n: de Gruyter, 2005. 375–89. Gal, Z. “The Settlement of Issachar, Some New Observat�ons.” TA 9 (1982) 79–86. Garsiel, M., and I. Finkelstein. “The Westward Expan-s�on of the House of Joseph �n the L�ght of the >Izbet Sartah Excavat�ons.” TA 5 (1978) 192–98. Geus, C. H. J. de. “R�chteren 1.1–2.5.” Vox Theologica 36 (1966) 32–53. Gibson, A. “ÍNÓ �n Judges 1:14: neb and av Translat�ons.” VT 26 (1975) 275–83. Gitin, S. “The R�se and Fall of Ekron of the Ph�l�st�nes: Recent Excavat�ons at an Urban Border S�te.” BA 50 (1987) 197–222. Goff, B. “The Lost Jahw�st�c Account of the Conquest of Canaan.” JBL 53 (1934) 241–49. Gomes, J. F. The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity. BZAW 368. Berl�n: de Gruyter, 2006. Grintz, J. M. “Judges Ch. I.” In Studies in the Bible. FS M. H. Segal, ed. J. M. Gr�ntz and J. L�ver. Jerusalem: K�ryat Sepher, 1964. 42–71. Guillaume, P. “An Ant�-Judean Man�festo �n Judges 1?” BN 95 (1998) 12–17. ———. “Dat�ng the Nega-tive Besitzverzeichnis (Judges 1,27–34): The Case of S�don.” Hen 23 (2001) 131–37. Gunn, D.


2

M., and D. N. Fewell. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. 158–63. Gurewicz, S. B. “The Bear�ng of Judges �–�� 5 on the Authorsh�p of the Book of Judges.” ABR 7 (1959) 37–40. Haag, H. “Von Jahweh geführt: Auslegung von R�. 1,21–2,5.” BibLeb 4 (1963) 174–84. Hamlin, E. J. “Ado-n�-Bezek—What’s �n a Name (Judges 1:4–7)?” PEGLMBS 4 (1984) 146–52. ———. “The S�gn�ficance of Bethel �n Judges 1:22–26.” PEGLMBS 5 (1985) 67–72. Hawkins, R. K. “The Survey of Manasseh and the Or�g�ns of the Central H�ll-Country Settlers.” In Critical Issues in the Early History of Israel. Ed. R. S. Hess, G. A. Kl�ngshe�l, and P. J. Ray. 165–79. Hertzberg, H. S. “Adon�beseq.” JPOS 6 (1926) 213–21. Repr�nted �n Beiträge zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (Gött�ngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 28–35. Hess, R. S. “Judges 1–5 and Its Translat�on.” In Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects. Ed. S. E. Porter and R. S. Hess. JSNTSup 173. Sheffield: Sheffield Academ�c, 1999. 142–60. Hubbard, R. P., et al. “The Topography of Anc�ent Jerusalem.” PEQ (1966) 137. Jost, R. “Achsas Quellen: Fem�n�st�sch-soz�algesch�chtl�che Überlegungen zu Jos 15,15–20/R� 1,12–15.” In ‘Ihr Völker alle, klatscht in die Hände!’ FS E. S. Gerstenberger, ed. R. Kessler et al. Münster: LIT, 1997. 110–25. Kalimi, I. “Three Assumpt�ons about the Ken�tes.” ZAW 100 (1988) 386–420. Kaswalder, P. A. “Le tr�bù �n Gdc 1,1–2,5 e �n Gdc 4–5.” LASBF 43 (1993) 80–113. Keel, O. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. 2 vols. Gött�ngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Kenyon, K. Digging Up Jerusalem. New York: Praeger, 1974. ———. Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History. New York: McGraw H�ll, 1967. Klein, L. “Achsah: What Pr�ce Th�s Pr�ze?” In Judges (1999). Ed. A. Brenner. 18–26. Knauf, E. A. “Jerusalem �n the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal.” TA 27 (2000) 75–90. ———. “Bethel: The Israel�te Impact on Judean Language and L�terature.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Ed. A. L�psch�ts and M. Oem�ng. W�nona Lake, IN: E�senbrauns, 2006. 291–349. Kochavi, M. “Mal˙ata, Tel.” EAEHL, 3:771–75. Köhlmoos, M. Bet-El-Erinnerungen an eine Stadt: Perspektiven der alttestamentlichen Bet-el-Überlieferungen. FAT 49. Tüb�ngen: Mohr S�ebeck, 2006. Könen, K. Bethel: Geschichte, Kult, und Theologie. OBO 192. Fre�burg: Un�ver-s�tätsverlag; Gött�ngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Landy, F. “Judges 1: The C�ty of Wr�t�ng, the Sacred, and the Fragmentat�on of the Body.” In Voyages in Uncharted Waters. FS D. Jobl�ng, ed. W. J. Bergen and A. S�edleck�. Hebrew B�ble Monographs 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoen�x, 2006. Lindars, B. “Some Septuag�nt Read�ngs �n Judges.” JTS 22 (1971) 1–14. Livingston, D. “The Locat�on of B�bl�cal Bethel and A� Recons�dered.” WTJ 33 (1970) 20–44. ———. “Trad�t�onal S�te of Bethel Quest�oned.” WTJ 34 (1971) 39–50. Long, B. O. I Kings. FOTL 9. Grand Rap�ds: Eerdmans, 1984. ———. 2 Kings. FOTL 10. Grand Rap�ds: Eerdmans, 1991. Lurie, B. Z. “Bezek and Adon�-Bezek.” Beit-Miqra 29 (1982–1983) 103–6. ———. “Early and Late �n Judges 1.” In Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Jewish Studies: Period of the Bible. Ed. R. G�veon et al. Jerusalem: World Un�on of Jew�sh Stud�es, 1986. 65–72. Mazar, A. “Jerusalem �n the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full.” In Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context. FS N. Na’aman, ed. Y. Am�t et al. W�nona Lake, IN: E�senbrauns, 2006. 255–72. Mazar, B. “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Fam�ly of Hobab the Ken�te.” JNES 24 (1965) 297–303. Meyers, C. “Of Seasons and Sold�ers: A Topolog�cal Ap-pra�sal of the Premonarch�c Tr�bes of Gal�lee.” BASOR 252 (1983) 47–59. Miller, J. M. “Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of M�staken Ident�ty.” ZDPV 90 (1974) 115–27. Minkoff, H. “Coarse Language �n the B�ble: It’s Culture Shock�ng.” BRev (1989) 22–27, 44. Mittman, S. “R�. 1,16f und das S�edlungsgeb�et der Ken�t�schen S�ppe Hobab.” ZDPV 93 (1977) 213–35. Mojola, A. O. “The ‘Tr�bes’ of Israel? A B�ble Translator’s D�lemma.” JSOT 91 (1998) 15–29. Mosca, P. G. “Who Seduced Whom? A Note on Joshua 15:18//Judges 1:14.” CBQ 46 (1984) 18–22. Mullen, E. T., Jr. “Judges 1:1–36: The Deuteronom�st�c Re�ntroduct�on of the Book of Judges.” HTR 77 (1984) 33–54. Na’aman, N. “Bethel and Beth-aven: An Invest�gat�on �nto the Locat�on of the Early Israel�te Cult Places” (Heb.). Zion 50 (1985) 15–25. ———. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Jerusalem B�bl�cal Stud�es 4. Jerusalem: S�mor, 1986. ———. “Canaan�te Jerusalem and Its Central H�ll Country Ne�ghbours �n the Second M�llenn�um b.c.e.” UF 24 (1992) 275–91. ———. “Canaan�tes and Per�zz�tes.” BN 335 (1988)

Judges 1:1–36


3

42–47. ———. “The Inher�tance of the Sons of S�meon.” ZDPV 96 (1980) 136–52. ———. “When and How D�d Jerusalem Become a Great C�ty? The R�se of Jerusalem as Judah’s Prem�er C�ty �n the E�ghth-Seventh Centur�es b.c.e.” BASOR 347 (2007) 21–56. Neef, H.-D. Studien zur Geschichte des Stammes Ephraim von der Landnahme bis zur frühen Königszeit. BZAW 238. Berl�n: de Gruyter, 1996. Nelson, R. D. Double Redaction. 43–53. Nicholson, E. W. “The Problem of ßn˙.” ZAW 89 (1977) 259–65. Niditch, S. “Read�ng Stor�es �n Judges 1.” In The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation. FS R. C. Culley, ed. F. C. Black, R. Boer, and E. Run�ons. SBLSymS 36. Atlanta: SBL, 1999. 193–208. North, R. “Israel’s Tr�bes and Today’s Front�er.” CBQ 16 (1954) 146–53. Noth, M. “Jerusalem and the Israel�te Trad�t�on.” In The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Ph�ladelph�a: Fortress, 1966. 132–44. O’Doherty, E. “L�terary Problem of Judges 1:1–3:6.” CBQ 18 (1956) 1–7. Penna, A. “L’�ntroduz�one al l�bro de� G�ud�c� (1,1–3,6).” In Miscelánea Bíblica: Andrés Fernández. Ed. J. Sagües et al. Madr�d, 1961. 521–29. Poplutz, U. “Tel M�qne/Ekron: Gesch�chte und Kultur e�ner ph�l�stä�schen Stadt.” BN 87 (1997) 69–99. Rainey, A. F. “Look�ng for Bethel: An Exerc�se �n H�stor�cal Geography.” In Confronting the Past. FS W. G. Dever, ed. S. G�t�n, J. E. Wr�ght, and J. P. Dessel. W�nona Lake, IN: E�senbrauns, 2006. 269–74. Rake, M. ‘Juda wird aufsteigen!’ Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuches. BZAW 367. Berl�n: de Gruyter, 2006. Rose, M. “S�ebz�g Kön�ge aus Ephra�m.” VT 26 (1976) 447–52. Rösel, H. N. “Judges 1 and the Settlement of the Leah Tr�bes” (Heb.). In Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Un�on of Jew�sh Stud�es, 1982. 2:17–20. ———. “Das ‘Negat�ve Bes�tzverze�chn�s’—Trad�t�ongesch�chtl�che und h�stor�sche Überlegungen.” In Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Ed. M. August�n. Frankfurt: Lang, 1988. 121–34. ———. “D�e Überle�tungen von Josua zum R�chterbuch.” VT 30 (1980) 342–50. Rosenberg, R. “The God Íedeq.” HUCA 36 (1965) 161–77. Rowley, H. H. “Zadoq and Nehushtan.” JBL 58 (1939) 113–41. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit dem Bewohnern des Landes. BWANT 5.11 (1970) 39–41. Schunk, K. D. “Juda und Jerusalem �n vor- und früh�srael�t�scher Ze�t.” In Schalom: Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Israels. FS A. Jepsen. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1971. 50–57. Sima, A. “Nochmals zur Deutung des hebrä�schen Namens Otn�’el.” BN 106 (2001) 47–51. Spreafico, A. “G�ud 2,3 ‘Isdym.’” Bib 65 (1984) 390–92. Stevenson, J. S. “Judah’s Successes and Fa�lures �n Holy War: An Exeges�s of Judges 1:1–20.” ResQ 44 (2002) 43–54. Storch, W. “Zur Per�kope von der Syrophon�z�ern MK 7:28 und R�. 1:7.” BZ 14 (1970) 256–57. Streck, M. P., and S. Weninger. “Zur Deutung des hebraïsches Namens Otn�el.” BN 96 (1999) 21–29. Szpek, H. M. “Achsah’s Story: A Metaphor for Soc�etal Trans�t�on.” AUSS 40 (2002) 245–56. Talmon, S. “Judges Chapter 1” (Heb.). In Studies in the Book of Judges. Publ�cat�ons of the Israel B�ble Soc�ety 10. Jerusalem, 1966. 14–29. Ussishkin, D. “Was the Earl�est Ph�l�st�ne C�ty of Ekron Fort�fied?” BAR 32 (2006) 68–71, 76. Van Seters, J. “The Deuteronom�st from Joshua to Samuel.” In Reconsid-ering Israel and Judah. Ed. G. Knoppers and J. G. McConv�lle. 204–39. Vaux, R. de. “The Settlement of the Israel�tes �n Southern Palest�ne and the Or�g�ns of the Tr�be of Judah.” In Translating and Understanding the Old Testament. Ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed. Nashv�lle: Ab�ngdon, 1970. 108–34. Weinfeld, M. “Judges 1.1–2.5: The Conquest under the Leader-sh�p of the House of Judah.” In Understanding Poets and Prophets. FS G. W. Anderson, ed. A. G. Auld. JSOTSup 152. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. 388–400. Welten, P. “Bezeq.” ZDPV 81 (1965) 138–65. Westbrook, R. Property and the Family in Biblical Law. Wright, G. E. “The L�terary and H�stor�cal Problem of Joshua 10 and Judges 1.” JNES 5 (1946) 105–14. Young-er, K. L., Jr. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. JSOTSup 98. Sheffield: Sheffield Academ�c, 1990. ———. “The Configur�ng of Jud�c�al Prel�m�nar�es: Judges 1:1–2:5 and Its Dependence on Joshua.” JSOT 68 (1995) 75–92. ———. “Judges 1 �n Its Near Eastern L�terary Context.” In Faith, Tradition, History: Essays on Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context. Ed. A. R. M�llard, J. K. Hoff-me�er, and A. D. Baker. W�nona Lake, IN: E�senbrauns, 1994. 207–27.

Bibliography


4

Translation

1After Joshua a died, the sons of Israel inquired of b Yahweh, “Who will go up for us against the Canaanites c at the start of the fighting against them?” 2Yahweh said, “Judah will go up. See, I have given the land into his hand.” 3Judah said to Simeon, his brother, “Go up with me into my allotted territory so we may fight against the Canaanites.a Then I will surely go with you in your allotted territory.” And Simeon went with him.

4Judah went up, and Yahweh gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand. They struck a ten thousand b men dead in Bezek. 5In Bezek they found Adoni-bezek a and fought against him. They struck b the Canaanites and the Perizzites dead. 6Adoni-bezek fled, and they pursued a after him and caught him. They chopped off his thumbs and his big toes. 7Adoni-bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes chopped off are eating scraps under my table. Just as I have done, so God has repaid me.” They brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there.

8The sons of Judah fought against Jerusalem and captured it. They struck it dead with the edge of the sword and sent the city up in flames. 9Later the sons of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the Negev, and in the Shephelah. 10Judah a went against the Canaanites who resided in Hebron.b (Now the previous name of Hebron was Kiriath-arba.c) They d struck Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai e dead.

11From there they went a against the residents of Debir. (Now the previous name of Debir was Kiriath-sepher.b) 12Caleb said, “Whoever will strike Kiriath-sepher dead and capture it, to him I will give Achsah,a my daughter, as his wife. 13Othniel, son of Kenaz and youngest a brother of Caleb, captured it, and he b gave him Achsah, his daughter, as his wife.

14When she arrived,a she persuaded him b to ask her father for the c field. She dismounted d from her donkey, and Caleb said to her, “What do you want?” 15She a said to him, “Give me a blessing. Since you have given me land in the Negev, now give me flowing springs b of water.” Caleb gave her the upper and the lower springs.c

16At that time the sons of the Kenite,a Moses’ father-in-law,b had gone up from the city of palms with the sons of Judah to the Judean c wilderness that is into the Negev of Arad.d They e went and resided with the people.f

17Judah went with Simeon, his brother, and struck a the Canaanites who resided in Zephath dead. They devoted it to the ban and named the city Hormah.b 18Judah captured a Gaza and its surrounding territory, Ashkelon and its surrounding territory, and Ekron and its surrounding territory.b 19Yahweh was with Judah,a and he took over possession of the hill country, except for taking over possession b of the residents of the valley because they owned chariots utilizing iron.c

20They a gave Hebron to Caleb just as Moses promised. From there he b took over pos-session from the three sons of Anak. 21But the sons of Benjamin a could not take over possession b from the Jebusites, the residents c of Jerusalem, and the Jebusites reside with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem d to the present day.

22The house a of Joseph also went up against Bethel, and Yahweh b was with them. 23The house of Joseph spied out a Bethel. (Now the previous name of the city was Luz.) 24The spies saw a man going out of the city a and said to him, “Show us the entrance to the city, and we will deal with you in covenant faithfulness. 25He showed them the entrance to the city, and they struck the city dead with the edge of the sword. But the man and all his family they set free. 26The man went to a the land of the Hittites and built b a city. He called c its name Luz. That is its name to the present day.

Judges 1:1–36


5

27But Manasseh did not take over possession a of Beth-shan b with its dependent villages,c Taanach with its dependent villages, nor of the residents d of Dor and its dependent vil-lages, the residents of Ibleam e and its dependent villages, nor the residents of Megiddo f and its dependent villages. The Canaanites had determinedly prepared themselves to reside in this land. 28When Israel became strong, they put the Canaanites to corvée labor,a but they never took over possession from them.

29At that time Ephraim did not take over possession from the Canaanites who resided in Gezer. The Canaanites resided among them in Gezer.a 30Zebulun did not take over pos-session from the residents of Kitron a or from the residents of Nahalol.b The Canaanites resided among them and became subject c to corvée labor. 31Asher did not take over posses-sion from the residents of Acco a or the residents of Sidon or of Ahlab,b Achzib, Helbah,c Aphik,d or of Rehob. 32The Asherites resided among the Canaanites who resided in the land, but they did not take over a possession from them. 33Naphtali did not take over pos-session from the residents of Beth-shemesh or the residents of Beth-anath. They a resided among the Canaanites who resided in the land. The residents of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became corvée labor for them. 34The Amorites pushed the sons of Dan into the hill country. Indeed, they did not allow a them to go down into the valley. 35The Amorites were determined to reside in Har-heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim.a Then the hand of the house of Joseph grew heavy,b and they became corvée labor.

36At that time the Amorites’ territory went from the Ascent of Akrabbim, that is, from Sela and on up.a

Notes

1.a. BHS proposal to emend to Moses because of Judg 2:6 has no textual ev�dence and �s based str�ctly on l�terary and redact�onal theor�es. The Syr. adds from Josh 24:29, “the son of Nun the servant of the Lord.”

1.b. lxxA reads evn kurivw/, wh�le lxxB reads dia; tou` kurivou, obv�ous translat�on alternates.1.c. lxxA reads sg. w�th mt, wh�le lxxB reads pl., a proper render�ng of the Heb. collect�ve noun;

also �n v 3.3.a. lxxA reads polemhvswmen evn tw`/ Cananaivw/, “so that we may wage war w�th the Canaan�te,”

wh�le lxxB reads parataxwvmeqa pro;~ tou;~ Cananaivou~, “so that we may set up �n battle l�ne over aga�nst the Canaan�tes,” both acceptable translat�on var�ants used cons�stently throughout Judges (see L�ndars, 79–80).

4.a. lxxA reads e[dwken kuvrio~ to;n Cananaiòn kai; to;n Ferezaiòn ejn ceiri; aujtou` kai; ejpavtaxen aujtou;~ ejn Bezek, “gave the Canaan�te and the Per�zz�te �n h�s hand, and he struck them dead �n Be-zek,” wh�le lxxB reads parevdwken kuvrio~ to;n Cananaiòn kai; to;n Ferezaiòn eij~ ta;~ cei`ra~ aujtw`n kai; e[koyan aujtou;~ ejn Bezek, “the Lord gave over the Canaan�te and the Per�zz�te �nto the�r hands and cut them off �n Bezek.”

4.b. Some scholars th�nk πla refers to a m�l�tary company of sold�ers or a clan as a soc�al un�t above the fam�ly. See HALOT, 1:59–60; Hess, “Judges 1–5,” 144.

5.a. Or “the lord of Bezek.”5.b. lxxA reads kai; eu|ron to;n Adwnibezek ejn Bezek kai; ejpolevmhsan ejn aujtw`/ kai; ejpavtaxan, “they

found Adon�-bezek �n Bezek and warred w�th h�m and struck dead,” wh�le lxxB reads kai; katevlabon to;n Adwnibezek ejn th`/ Bezek kai; paretavxanto pro;~ aujto;n kai; e[koyan, “they overtook Adon�-bezek �n the Bezek and set up �n battle l�ne over aga�nst h�m and cut off.”

6.a. lxxA reads katedivwxan, “they pursued,” wh�le lxxB reads katevdramon, “they ran.”10.a. The BHS proposal to read Caleb w�th Josh 15:13 seeks to harmon�ze narrat�ves and m�sses

the tr�bal mot�f central to chap. 1.10.b. lxx adds kai; ejxh`lqen Cebrwn ejx ejnantiva~, “and Hebron went out aga�nst (h�m).” Th�s could

be seen as a narrat�ve clar�ficat�on by lxx, but s�nce lxx does not make such clar�ficat�ons elsewhere �n the chapter, th�s �s more probably a part of the or�g�nal text om�tted by haplography, though L�ndars (81–82) sees �t as a corrupt doublet of the follow�ng clause.

Notes


6

10.c. lxxA and lxxB use var�ant spell�ngs, each represent�ng a comb�nat�on of K�r�ath-arba and K�r�ath-sepher of v 11 �nto one name, a somewhat complex case of d�ttography.

10.d. lxxA reads sg., ma�nta�n�ng grammat�cal cons�stency, but should not be adopted as BHS proposes.

10.e. lxx reads “and Talma�, offspr�ng of Anak,” a gloss cop�ed from Num 13:22 and Josh 15:14; for a complex theory of the development of th�s text trad�t�on, see L�ndars (25). N�d�tch (33) sees such var�ants �n the trad�t�on as a test�mony “to the oral-world qual�ty of these wr�tten texts �n wh�ch mult�pl�c�ty �s not harmon�zed away and �n wh�ch var�ants coex�st w�th�n the trad�t�on.”

11.a. lxxB (compare OL) reads ajnevbhsan, “they went up.” Th�s comb�ned w�th l[yw of Josh 15:15 does not just�fy the BHS proposal of l[yw.

11.b. lxx and Arab�c translate c�ty name to “c�ty of letters (or) of wr�t�ngs”; also �n the follow�ng verse.

12.a. lxx transposes the name to Ascan throughout.13.a. Josh 15:17 does not have WNM,mi ̃ foQ;hæ, “younger than he,” lead�ng L�ndars (28) to see �ts awkward

syntax as ev�dence that �t �s not or�g�nal here but dependent on 3:9. Such m�nor syntact�cal awkward-ness does not just�fy such a complex read�ng of the textual h�story. lxxB makes Othn�el the nephew of Caleb, but OL and lxxA make them brothers. Th�s may aga�n reflect oral var�ants �n the trad�t�on.

13.b. lxxB reads “Caleb,” clar�fy�ng a poss�ble m�sunderstand�ng of pronom�nal antecedents.14.a. lxxA reads eijsporeuvesqai, wh�le lxxB reads eijsdw/, s�mply translat�on var�ants. Schne�der’s

read�ng of the Heb. as a “d�rect�onal h,” result�ng �n translat�ng “he came (sexually) to her,” �s stra�ned and unnecessary.

14.b. lxxA reads kai; ejpevseisen aujth;n aijth`sai, “and he persuaded her to ask”; lxxB clar�fies further, mak�ng the subject Othniel expl�c�t. In Josh 15:18 lxx supports mt; see Butler, Joshua, 180, on 15:18. On the poss�b�l�ty that the lxx read�ng �s or�g�nal �n Judges w�th mt re�ntroduc�ng the read�ng from Joshua, see Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:35–36. St�ll, the Judges lxx appears to be a s�mpl�ficat�on of the narrat�ve and not an or�g�nal read�ng. See Hess, “Judges 1–5,” 144.

14.c. Unl�ke lxx and OL here or mt or lxx of Josh 15:18, mt adds a defin�te art�cle, mak�ng th�s a request for a spec�fic p�ece of land. Th�s may be a part of the �ron�c touch of the Judges ed�tor.

14.d. lxxA reads kai; ejgovgguzen tou` uJpozugivou kai; e[kraxen ajpo; tou` uJpozugivou eij~ gh`n novtou, “she grumbled on the donkey and cr�ed out from the donkey, ‘You have handed me over to the south (or the Negev).’” lxxB does not have the first reference to donkey. Th�s apparently represents a complex textual h�story of d�ttography w�th�n the verse and w�th the next verse along w�th oral var�ants. N�d�tch (33) sees “sound-al�ke” var�at�ons on the root ßn˙ w�th lxx and OL translat�ng Heb. ßr˙ or ßw˙.

15.a. lxx reads “Ascha,” mak�ng clear the d�st�nct�on between her and Othn�el after mak�ng Othn�el the subject �n v 14a.

15.b. lxx reads luvtrwsin u{dato~, “the ransom of water,” apparently based on hear�ng Heb. lag rather than mt tloGU. N�d�tch (33) suggests that th�s could be scr�bal error or wordplay. OL has “bless-�ng of water.”

15.c. lxx (compare OL) reads, e[dwken aujth`/ Caleb kata; kardivan aujth`~ luvtrwsin metewvrwn kai; luvtrwsin tapeinw`n, “accord�ng to h�s heart, Caleb gave her the ransom of the upper ones and the ransom of the lower ones.” BHS suggests, probably correctly, that th�s may represent haplography of the Heb. HB;liK;. The Heb. adject�ves are sg. �n the Judges text but pl. �n the parallel �n Josh 15:19, where lxx uses adverbs. The Heb. term appears only �n these two passages and may be seen as a collect�ve noun for water sources or as a proper place name as �n the nrsv Upper Gulloth and Lower Gulloth or cev’s H�gher Pond and Lower Pond. OL reads “a redempt�on of the upper ponds and a redemp-t�on of the lower ponds.”

16.a. The Heb. requ�res an art�cle before ynIyqe, as seen �n 4:11, but note Barthélemy (Critique textuelle), who sees the lack of the art�cle transform�ng th�s �nto a quas� proper name.

16.b. lxxA reads oiJ uiJoi\ Iwbab tou` Kinaiou penqerou` Mwush`, “the sons of Hobab the Ken�te, Moses’ father-�n-law,” wh�le lxxB reads oiJ uiJoi; Ioqor tou` Kinaiou tou` gambrou` Mwusevw~, “the sons of Jethro the Ken�te, the father-�n-law of Moses.” Each trad�t�on �nserts �nformat�on from other passages—Jethro from Exod 18:9; for Hobab, compare Num 10:29 and Judg 4:11. In lxx penqerou ̀usually refers to the w�fe’s father-�n-law and gambrov~ to the husband’s father-�n-law (Kutsch, TDOT, 5:276). L�ndars, followed by nrsv and njb, �nserts Hobab as haplography, but th�s �s an unnecessary s�mpl�ficat�on, supply�ng �nformat�on the aud�ence was expected to know. Preliminary and Interim Report (2:70) allows two translat�ons: the descendants of the Ken�te <who was> Moses’ father-�n-law or the Ken�tes <who descended> from Moses’ father-�n-law. Ra�ney (Sacred Bridge, 134) creates a new text of vv 16–19 from the Septuag�nt: “the sons of Hobab the Ken�te, Moses’ father-�n-law, went up from the c�ty of Palms

Judges 1:1–36


7

to the sons of Judah to the w�lderness of Judah wh�ch �s �n the descent of Arad, and they went and l�ved w�th the Amalek�tes.”

16.c. lxxA reads pro;~ tou;~ uiJou;~ Iouda eij~ th;n e[rhmon th;n ou\san ejn tw/ novtw/ ejpi; katabavsew~ Arad kai; ejporeuvqh kai; katwv/khsen meta; tou` laou,̀ “to the sons of Judah to the w�lderness wh�ch was �n the south on the descent of Arad, and he went and l�ved w�th the people”; lxxB reads meta; tw`n uiJw`n Iouda eij~ th;n ejrhmon th;n ou\san ejn tw`/ novtw/ Iouda h{ ejstin ejpi; katabavsew~ Arad kai; katwv/kh-san meta; tou` laou,̀ “w�th the sons of Judah �nto the w�lderness wh�ch was �n the south of Judah that �s on the descent of Arad, and he l�ved w�th the people.” lxxA thus has the Ken�tes come to Judah rather than w�th Judah and does not w�tness Judah �n the descr�pt�on of the w�lderness. The phrase hd:Why“ rBæd“mi, “Judean w�lderness,” w�thout an �ntroductory prepos�t�on �s awkward �n Heb., lead�ng BHS to suggest delet�ng hd:Why“ rBæd“mi. Heb. apparently po�nts to the Negev of Arad as a more defin�te part of the w�lderness or desert of Judah.

16.d. Both Gk. w�tnesses po�nt to the descent of Arad rather than the Negev or south of Arad (see Num 21:1; 33:40), lead�ng to many scholarly hypotheses; see L�ndars, 37–39. Apparently lxx d�d not understand anc�ent geography, for “descent of Arad” �s not used elsewhere �n mt or �n lxx. However, novtw/ Iouda may represent a standard geograph�cal term, the Negev of Judah (1 Sam 27:10; 2 Sam 24:7). Gk. may thus represent a read�ng of the text from a d�fferent geograph�cal v�ewpo�nt.

16.e. L�t. “he went and l�ved w�th,” another of the grammat�cal d�fficult�es �n th�s text, wh�ch sw�tches from pl. to collect�ve sg. w�th some regular�ty. lxxB does not w�tness “and he went,” thus �gnor�ng a Heb. �d�om (compare Gen 21:16; 38:11; Judg 8:29; 9:21; 1 Kgs 17:5).

16.f. Some w�tnesses to lxxB and a few m�nor Heb. mss read Amalek�tes �n appos�t�on to “w�th the people.” Th�s leads many commentators, look�ng to 1 Sam 15:6, to subst�tute Amalek�tes for “w�th the people” (see BHS, cev, reb, nab, nrsv; Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:71; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:73–74; Sacred Bridge, 134). L�ndars (39–40) g�ves reasons for reject�ng the emendat�on, part�cularly the fact that the var�ous proposals do not correspond to any surv�v�ng text.

17.a. lxxA reads ejpavtaxan, “they struck,” wh�le lxxB reads e[koyen, “he cut down.” Two Heb. mss also read the sg., lead�ng to the proposal to read the sg. here, but th�s goes aga�nst the sense of the text, wh�ch �ncludes S�meon w�th Judah �n the pl. subject.

17.b. lxxA reads ajneqemavtisan aujth;n kai; ejxwlejqreusan aujth;n kai; ejkavlesan to; o[noma th`~ povlew~ ∆Exolevqreusi~, “they cursed (or devoted) �t and completely destroyed �t and called the name of the c�ty Destroyed,” wh�le lxxB reads ejxwlevqreusan aujtouv~ kai; ejkavlesen to; o[noma povlew~ ∆Anavqema, “they completely destroyed them, and he called the name of the c�ty Accursed.” OL has “completely destroyed and devoted �t to the ban and called the name of the c�ty Destroyed.” N�d�tch (33) sees here more �nd�cat�on of oral trad�t�on �ntroduc�ng alternate ways of express�ng the same �dea. Aga�n the sg./pl. �ncons�stency of the text appears, g�v�ng r�se to suggest�ons to read the pl. War:q]YIwÆ, but th�s m�sses the emphas�s on the act�on by Judah or can be expla�ned, w�th L�ndars (84), as an “�nherent �ndefin�te subject” often used w�th th�s verb. ajneqemavtisan aujth;n represents a double read�ng of the same Heb. verb and may �ncorporate a double trad�t�on �n the lxx render�ngs based on Num 21:3 (see L�ndars, 85).

18.a. lxx (compare OL and mt of Josh 13:3; Judg 3:3) reads kai; oujk ejklhronovmhsen, “and Judah d�d not �nher�t,” lead�ng BHS to read vyrI/h aløw“, parallel to v 18b. L�ndars (42–44) sees Gk. as obv�ously or�g�nal w�th mt rejected on l�terary and h�stor�cal grounds, see�ng vv 18 and 19 as contrad�ctory �n mt. Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:74) r�ghtly reta�ns mt as obv�ously the most d�fficult read�ng.

18.b. Gk. and OL add Ashdod to the l�st of Ph�l�st�ne c�t�es, an �nclus�on that Bol�ng sees as or�g�nal, lost by haplography. L�ndars (85) more correctly attr�butes �t to a glossator.

19.a. Tg. avo�ds l�teral�sm of God go�ng w�th Judah by say�ng h�s arm accompan�ed them.19.b. lxx reads o{ti oujk ejduvnato klhronomh`sai tou;~ katoikou`nta~ th;n koilavda o{ti Rhcab die-

steivlato aujthvn, “because he was not able to d�spossess (lxxB hjdunavsqhsan ejxoleqreu`sai, ‘they were not able to completely destroy’) the res�dents of the valley because Rechab (Heb. rekeb) separated (or ordered) �t (lxxB ‘them’).” The add�t�on of “were not able” clar�fies a Heb. text that appears to requ�re Wlk]y:, “to be able” (found �n a Heb. ms; compare GKC, §114l; Josh 17:12). But mt text can be �nterpreted as negat�ng a gerund�ve use of the construct �nfin�t�ve (R. J. W�ll�ams, Hebrew Syntax, § 397; compare Amos 6:10). N�d�tch (34) po�nts to “th�s formula�c �nd�cator of m�l�tary �nfer�or�ty” �n Josh 17:16, 18 appl�ed to Joseph. She sees th�s as a scr�bal error becom�ng “a new b�t of narrat�ve content. The result�ng mult�pl�c�ty �s w�th�n the purv�ew of an oral-world mental�ty.”

19.c. lxx has garbled the last l�ne, transl�terat�ng the Heb. bk,r< as “char�ot” and apparently read�ng lz<r“Bæ, “�ron,” as lydbh, “to separate.” See L�ndars, 85. Ra�ney (Sacred Bridge, 134) sees a contrad�ct�on between vv 18 and 19 and thus uses lxx to ga�n a new read�ng of these two verses: “Judah d�d not take

Notes


8

Gaza w�th �ts terr�tory and Ashkelon w�th �ts terr�tory and Ekron w�th �ts terr�tory. Now YHWH was w�th Judah, and they took possess�on of the h�ll country, but they could not d�spossess the �nhab�tants of the valley because they had �ron char�ots. Then they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had prom�sed, and he drove out from there the three sons of Anak.” Th�s s�mpl�fies the Heb. text, remov�ng the more d�fficult read�ng, and mak�ng unnecessary harmon�zat�ons.

20.a. lxxA reads “he”; the �ndefin�te pl. subject here would seem to refer e�ther to Judah and S�meon or to “the sons of Israel” of v 1. The Gk. sg. would make expl�c�t the �mpl�c�t act�on of God beh�nd all th�s. Both L�ndars (46) and Auld (VT 25 [1975] 273) �nterpret the �mpersonal plural as reference to God.

20.b. The BHS suggest�on that perhaps several words have dropped out �s based on Josh 11:21 or 15:13–14 but calls for unneeded harmon�zat�on. lxxA reads ejklhronovmhsen ejkei`qen ta;~ trei`~ povlei~ kai; ejxh`ren ejkei`qen tou;~ uiJou;~ Enak, “and he �nher�ted from there the three c�t�es, and he carr�ed away from there the three sons of Anak,” wh�le lxxB reads ejklhronovmhsen ejkei`qen ta;~ trei`~ povlei~ tw`n uiJow`n Enak, “he �nher�ted from there the three c�t�es of the sons of Anak,” lead�ng commentators such as Bol�ng to accept lxxA and see haplography caus�ng the om�ss�on �n mt. L�ndars (46–47) shows the growth of the Gk. text. mt certa�nly represents the more d�fficult read�ng.

21.a. BHS proposes to read “sons of Judah” w�th Josh 15:63, based on a theory of l�terary copy�ng and harmon�z�ng that cannot be establ�shed for Judg 1. See Auld, VT 25 (1975) 274–75. L�ndars (47) �s more to the po�nt �n understand�ng the �ssue to be Jerusalem’s �nclus�on �n Benjam�n�te terr�tory �n contrast to Jerusalem’s conquest by the tr�be of Judah.

21.b. lxxA reads ejxh`ran, “d�d not carry away.”21.c. Several mss read ybev]yO, wh�ch may be or�g�nal but �s the eas�er read�ng, whereas mt takes the

ysiWby“hæ as collect�ve. The d�sjunct�ve front�ng of the d�rect object shows the contrast to the prev�ous statements about Judah and Caleb.

21.d. lxxA does not have “�n Jerusalem.”22.a. lxx jo�ns several Heb. mss �n read�ng ynB, “sons of,” for tyBe, “house of,” harmon�z�ng the usage

to the rest of the chapter. mt represents the more d�fficult read�ng.22.b. lxxA and OL read, “Judah was w�th them,” adopted by Bol�ng as or�g�nal, w�th mt repeat�ng v

19 here, but that goes aga�nst the structure of the text that clearly separates the work of the northern tr�bes from that of the southern ones. N�d�tch sees th�s as a “common formula�c express�on of God’s approval and bless�ng,” d�srupted here, result�ng �n the enhancement of the human leader.

23.a. lxxA reads “the house of Israel set up camp,” wh�le lxxB reads “they set up camp and sp�ed out Bethel,” us�ng the normal structure of battle narrat�ves. OL has “and the sons of Israel began to fight.” See N�d�tch (34), who sees the “�nterest�ng m�nor var�at�ons, typ�cal of the sort of mult�pl�c�ty ava�lable to the trad�t�onal storyteller.”

24.a. lxx and OL read “and they took h�m and sa�d to h�m,” smooth�ng out the narrat�ve. See L�ndars, 54.

26.a. Some mss “�mprove” the grammar by add�ng a prepos�t�on here; lxx follows �ts grammat�cal structure w�th eij~ here, but the more d�fficult mt may be reta�ned.

26.b. lxx reads “ bu�lt there (ejkei)̀ a c�ty,” aga�n smooth�ng the narrat�ve flow. L�ndars (86) sees a m�splaced d�ttography from Hm;v].

26.c. Some mss add the s�gn of the d�rect object here.27.a. lxxB reads ejxh`ren, “d�d not carry away.”27.b. lxx (compare OL) reads Baiqsan h{ ejstin Skuqw`n povli~, “Beth-shan, c�ty of the Scyth�ans.”

As N�d�tch (35) notes, “throughout 1:27–36 the trad�t�ons exh�b�t var�at�ons �n the names ass�gned to places and �n the number of towns named.” Compare also Josh 17–19. N�d�tch correctly supposes that “such var�at�ons, no doubt, reflect d�ffer�ng v�ews of geography and ethnography w�th�n these anc�ent trad�t�ons.”

27.c. L�t. “and her daughters” cons�stently �n th�s chapter; lxx adds “nor the open country,” though the two vers�ons use d�fferent Gk. words.

27.d. K here represents acc�dental loss of y, wh�ch must be read w�th Q, Heb. mss, and vers�ons.27.e. For Ibleam, lxxA reads kai; tou;~ katoikou`nta~ Balaam kai; ta;~ qugatevra~ aujth`~, “and

the res�dents of Balaam and �ts daughters,” wh�le lxxB reads to;n katoikou`nta Balak oujde; ta; pe-rivoika aujth`~ oujde; ta;~ qugatevra~ aujth`~, “ne�ther the res�dents of Balak nor �ts open country nor �ts daughters.” Both are read�ngs of Ibleam us�ng an abbrev�ated vers�on of the story of Balaam and Balak from Num 22.

27.f. lxxA adds oujde; tou;~ katoikou`nta~ Ieblaam oujde; ta;~ qugatevra~ aujth`~, “nor the res�dents of Ibleam and �ts daughters,” wh�le lxxB reads oujde; tou;~ katoikou`nta~ Ieblaam oujde; ta; perivoika aujth`~

Judges 1:1–36


9

oujde; ta;~ qugatevra~ aujth`~, “nor the res�dents of Ibleam nor �ts open country nor �ts daughters.” Auld (VT 25 [1975] 279) may well be correct �n see�ng th�s as a “late ‘correct�on’ by an ed�tor who had not real�sed that Balaam (A)/Balak (B) �n fourth place render µ[lby �n fourth place �n the mt.”

28.a. lxx reads fovron, “tr�bute,” �ts cons�stent render�ng of Heb. sm, “corvée labor,” each vers�on us�ng a d�fferent verb before the noun.

29.a. lxx adds ejgevneto eij~ fovron, “he came �nto tr�bute,” apparently a d�ttography from the next verse �f not an �ntent�onal parallel�ng to that verse.

30.a. OL reads Hebron for K�tron.30.b. lxxB reads Domana; see L�ndars’ explanat�on (86).30.c. BHS suggests chang�ng Heb. pl. to sg., but the text takes the grammat�cally sg. subject as a

collect�ve pl.31.a. lxx adds kai; ejgevneto aujtw`/ eij~ fovron kai; tou;~ katoikou`nta~ Dwr, “and he came under

tr�bute to h�m, and the res�dents of Dor.” Aga�n the lxx appears to fill out texts from other contexts (vv 30 and 27, respect�vely).

31.b. lxx reads katoikounta~ Aalaf, “and the res�dents of Aalaph”; BHS suggests read�ng blej}mæ on the bas�s of transpos�ng two letters �n Josh 19:29 and �s supported by L�ndars (65). Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:58) finally concludes that �n th�s confused s�tuat�on �t �s better not to �nterfere w�th the mt. A firm dec�s�on here �s �mposs�ble due to the frequent m�sunderstand�ng or re�nterpretat�on of place names �n the ongo�ng textual trad�t�on.

31.c. lxxA reads “and Akz�b and Helba and Aphek and Roob,” wh�le lxxB reads “and Askaz� and Helbah and Na� and Ereo.” BHS suggests delet�ng Helbah as d�ttography from Ahlab and �s supported by L�ndars (65).

31.d. qypia} �s spelled qpea} �n Josh 19:30.32.a. lxx prov�des bas�s for �nsert�ng lkoy:, “to be able,” here, contrary to the structure of Judg 1.

See L�ndars, 66; Bol�ng, 66.33.a. L�t. “he l�ved”; lxxA reads “Israel,” wh�le lxxB reads “Naphtal�.”34.a. BHS uses lxx, Syr., and Tg. along w�th lxx of Josh 19:47 to change /nt;n“ to µWntn.35.a. lxxA reads h[rxato oJ Amorraiò~ katoikei`n ejn tw`/ o[rei tou` Mursinw`no~ ou| aiJJ a[rkoi kai; aiJ

ajlwvpeke~, “The Amor�tes began to l�ve �n the mounta�n of the myrtle grove where there are bears and foxes,” wh�le lxxB reads h[rxato oJ Amorraiò~ katoikei`n ejn tw`/ o[rei tw`/ ojstrakwvdei ejn w|/ aiJ a[rkoi kai; ejn w|/ aiJ ajlwvpeke~ ejn tw`/ Mursinw`ni kai; ejn Qalabin, “The Amor�tes began to l�ve �n the mounta�n full of potsherds �n wh�ch were the bears and �n wh�ch were the foxes �n the myrtle grove and �n Thalab�n.” Th�s represents a m�sunderstand�ng of the Heb. place names w�th attempts to translate some of them. See L�ndars, 87. N�d�tch (35) sees an �mag�nat�ve elaborat�on here.

35.b. lxx adds “on the Amor�tes” for clar�ty. BHS notes d�ffer�ng places �n the text of th�s verse where a prepos�t�onal phrase �s added to clar�fy the rec�p�ents of the powerful hand of Joseph.

36.a. lxxA reads “and the coast of the Amor�tes the Edom�te over the Akrab�n on Petra (or the rock) and upward,” wh�le lxxB reads “and the coast of the Amor�tes was from the ascent of Akrab�n from Petra and upward.” “The Edom�te” may well have fallen out by haplography. BHS and Barthé-lemy (Critique textuelle, 1:75) adopt th�s as the correct read�ng, but L�ndars �s more on target, see�ng �t as a corrupt d�ttography �n the Heb. text trad�t�on. Sela and Petra both mean “rock” and refer to a mounta�n stronghold �n Edom.

Form/Structure/Setting

The extent of the introductory section of Judges. Judg 1–2 opens the book to summar�ze br�efly the h�story of Israel between the death of Joshua and the onset of k�ngsh�p. Israel �s presented as a loose federat�on of tr�bes. The body of the narrat�ve w�ll then g�ve more deta�ls, back�ng up th�s summary report.

Current German scholarsh�p has moved from documentary/source theor�es to h�ghly �nvolved redact�on stud�es d�v�d�ng the b�bl�cal structures �nto an almost �nfin�te ser�es of the work of ed�tors, redactors, glossators, and later �nserters. The supreme examples of th�s come from Kratz (Composition) and Rake. The latter re-duces the pr�mary narrat�ve of chap. 1 to vv 1, 2a, 4a, 5, 6, 8b, 10a, 11, 19a, 21, 22, 23a, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 34a, 35, plac�ng �t �n the Pers�an per�od (‘Juda wird aufsteigen!’



10

156–57). The bas�c narrat�ve of 2:1–5 from another hand �nvolves only part of v 1 and 2a, the rest added by two subsequent ed�tors. Space does not allow arguments aga�nst the several var�et�es of such work �n each chapter. Rather, I s�mply do not see the presuppos�t�ons beh�nd such work as val�d. The process �gnores the l�ter-ary un�ty of b�bl�cal reports as d�splayed by modern l�terary cr�t�cs and generally results �n �solated sectors that do not represent complete narrat�ve un�ts or genres and that come from supposed dates far too long after the events reported to be anyth�ng but figments of an anonymous Hebrew scholar’s �mag�nat�on.

Other scholarly d�scuss�on centers on �solat�ng the narrat�ve breaks �n th�s open-�ng sect�on. Does the first ma�n narrat�ve extend through 2:5, or does �t end w�th the chapter break �n 1:36? Does the parallel �ntroduct�on beg�nn�ng at 2:1 (or 2:6) extend through 3:6 or conclude at the end of chap. 2? The Hebrew syntax appears to help us answer these quest�ons. As so often, conversat�on dom�nates much of the narrat�ve, yet the major syntact�cal thread rema�ns easy to follow. See table 1.1 �n the append�x for an exam�nat�on of the syntact�cal breaks �n Judg 1.

Chap. 1 forms a complete narrat�ve un�t w�thout 2:1–5. The major actor �s Israel (1:1, 28). In 1:1 Judah leads Israel. In 1:28–33 syntax may t�e Israel together w�th northern tr�bes. Ment�on of Joseph �n 1:22 and 1:35 sandw�ches all the northern act�on w�th�n the “house of Joseph” des�gnat�on. Yahweh appears only �n 1:1, 2, 4, 19, comm�ss�on�ng and br�ng�ng v�ctory to Judah, and �n 1:22, be�ng present w�th Joseph, who then sends out sp�es to see how to w�n the battle w�th Bethel. Iron�cally, the m�l�tary summary y�elds only three anecdotes: (1) The lord of Bezek confesses God’s just�ce. (2) Caleb ga�ns a w�fe for h�s daughter, who subtly takes center stage and ga�ns from h�m an add�t�on to her dowry. (3) Sp�es of the house of Joseph deal �n covenant fa�thfulness w�th the �nformant from Bethel by lett�ng h�m retreat to a fore�gn country and bu�ld a c�ty rather than lett�ng h�m become a part of the�r people as Joshua had w�th Rahab. The greatest �rony comes at the end as the Amor�tes take center stage and the narrator l�sts the�r terr�tory rather than that of Judah or Joseph, foreshadow�ng the stor�es to come when enem�es cont�nue to make �nroads on Israel�te terr�tory. W�th th�s, the m�l�tary story �s complete.

Scholarly debate rages over the relat�onsh�p of Judg 2:1–5 to what precedes and follows �t. Noth saw th�s as a secondary Deuteronom�st�c add�t�on (Überlief-erungsgeschichtliche Studien, 9). Smend (“Gesetz und d�e Völker,” 506–7, followed by Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 6) attr�buted �ts �nsert�on along w�th chap. 1 to h�s DtrN, who d�d no ed�t�ng on �t. For Bol�ng (30), Judg 2:1–5 serves as the �ntroduct�on to the seventh-century Deuteronom�st�c framework, as opposed to those who �dent�fy chap. 1 as the �ntroduct�on to the s�xth-century ed�t�on. Auld (“Rev�ew of Bol�ng’s Judges: The Framework of Judges and the Deuteronom�sts,” JSOT 1 [1976] 45) sees the ent�re outer framework of 1:1–2:5 and chaps. 17–21 as belong�ng to a post-Deuteronom�st�c Judean ed�tor.

Webb ([1987] 102–3), followed by Younger (62, 73; “Judges 1,” 215; and Dorsey, 105–6), argues that 2:1–5 �s t�ed to chap. 1 by the appearance of the Hebrew verb hloo[, “to go up”; by the parallel structure w�th 1:1–2; and by the rev�ew�ng of the go�ng up �n 1:3, 22. Th�s structural assessment �gnores the “go�ng up” of the sons of the Ken�te (v 16). Dorsey (105–6, n. 2) adm�ts 2:1–5 could be seen as an �nde-pendent un�t or as part of the follow�ng. Webb (104) notes that the d�v�ne speech here “ant�c�pates the d�v�ne speech �n 2:20–22” and that the lapse �nto apostasy

Judges 1:1–36


11

(2:11–19) “�s foreshadowed” �n 2:3d. Webb thus un�ntent�onally offers as much �f not more ev�dence to t�e 2:1–5 to the follow�ng verses than he does to t�e the pas-sage to the preced�ng chapter. Blum (“Kompos�t�onelle Knoten,” 192–93; compare Kratz, Composition, 208, 321) argues that 2:1–5 cannot be the conclus�on to chap. 1, wh�ch separates Judges from the Hexateuch and belongs to a post-Deuteron-om�st�c and postex�l�c ed�tor. Van Seters (In Search of History, 341–42) jo�ns 2:1–5 w�th chap. 1 but makes the verses part of the Pr�estly work.

L�ndars sees Judg 1:1–2:5 as a “prelude” smooth�ng the trans�t�on from Joshua’s conquest and land allocat�on to Judges’ war stor�es. Th�s prelude has three purposes: (1) 1:3–21 presents the story of Judah’s conquests s�nce Judah �s the “first tr�be to cla�m �ts terr�tory �n accordance w�th the l�st �n Joshua 15”; (2) 1:22–36 prepares for the subsequent wars �n Judges by show�ng the l�m�ts of Joshua’s conquest; and (3) 2:1–5 prepares the reader for what happened after Joshua’s t�me. Th�s prelude �s a l�terary “past�che” (L�ndars, 4–5) presuppos�ng the l�sts of tr�bal terr�tor�es �n Josh 13–19. Vv 1–3 are modeled on the conquest of land by an �mper�al conqueror such as Cyrus, who then d�str�butes the land to h�s l�eutenants. Vv 4–7 reflect an underly�ng Judah trad�t�on, wh�le v 8 �s an ed�tor�al �nsert�on of another trad�t�on tak�ng Judah’s campa�gn further south. V 9 then serves as a head�ng for the trad�-t�on of vv 10–16 (L�ndars, 15–16). For L�ndars, many archa�c-appear�ng anecdotes actually are �nserted by a “second hand of DtrN” that �s “concerned to preserve these scraps of �nformat�on by �nsert�ng them �nto appropr�ate parts of the tr�bal l�sts” (so Josh 15:13–19, 63; 16:10; 17:11–13; 19:47 and parallels �n Judges). DtrN �s respons�ble for l�nks between the prelude and Judg 20. But th�s l�terary “past�che” “has been carefully composed to ach�eve the two ma�n purposes of br�ng�ng Judah �nto the h�story and prepar�ng the reader for the s�tuat�on presupposed �n the follow�ng stor�es” (5–6). Th�s Judah�te b�as comes from �ts sett�ng �n the ex�l�c or early postex�l�c per�od. Th�s prelude �s �ntended “to g�ve a fuller account of the c�rcumstances of the per�od between the tr�bal assembly under Joshua and the end of the generat�on wh�ch outl�ved h�m” (6).

Gu�llaume (Waiting for Josiah, 113) separates the developmental h�story of Joshua and Judges, refus�ng to accept Noth’s Deuteronom�st�c H�story. Thus Judg 2:1–5, along w�th the oldest parts of Joshua and K�ngs, belongs to the Jos�an�c per�od and �nterprets the l�st of unconquered c�t�es �n chap. 1 �n a negat�ve l�ght. Th�s represents the th�rd of Gu�llaume’s (255) seven-stage h�story of the book reach�ng from 720 to 150 b.c.e.

Am�t adm�ts that 2:1–5 d�ffers from chap. 1 �n both content and form, but st�ll connects the two, see�ng the two connected by cause and effect so that 2:1–5 becomes a “summary of the results of non-possess�on and �ts conclus�ons” (Book of Judges, 152–53). Campbell connects 2:1–5 w�th chap. 1 but as “a somewhat d�sassoc�ated explanat�on” (Joshua to Chronicles, 73). Somehow he sees two state-ments of Joshua’s death bracket�ng 2:1–5, but the second statement occurs only �n 2:8. Thus Campbell and O’Br�en see 2:1–5 as a late �ndependent �nsert�on “to account for the s�tuat�on portrayed �n the trad�t�ons of 1:1–3:6” (Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History, 171).

Schne�der (26–27) sees 2:1–5 as beg�nn�ng a new un�t, prov�d�ng the back-ground mater�al for chap. 1, wh�ch set the stage for the major �ssues of the book, and �ntroduc�ng the characters and the new s�tuat�on. McCann (27) th�nks 1:1–2:5 presents a m�l�tary �ntroduct�on from Israel’s perspect�ve, wh�le 2:6–3:6 �ntroduces



12

God’s perspect�ve on rel�g�ous fa�lure. The problem here �s that 2:1–5 deals w�th blatantly rel�g�ous �ssues, part�cularly the covenant and altars and pagan gods. On the bas�s of Mullen (HTR 77 [1984] 33–54) and Stone (“From Tr�bal Con-federat�on to Monarch�c State,” 190–259), Olson (732) portrays 1:1–2:5 as a new �ntroduct�on draw�ng mater�al from Joshua. Block (76) summar�zes reasons for ty�ng 2:1–5 to chap. 1 but then shows conclus�vely why 2:1–5 belongs w�th chap. 2: �t uses theolog�cal language; the verses of Judg 2:1–23 are jo�ned by a sequence of wåw-consecut�ve clauses; Judg 2:6–10 g�ves an expos�t�on of 1:1a; and the speech �n 2:20–22 �s l�nked theolog�cally and l�ngu�st�cally w�th 2:1–3.

Thus the first bas�c un�t encompasses only chap. 1. Chap. 1 �s closely t�ed, how-ever, to the so-called second �ntroduct�on of chap. 2 or 2:1–3:6.

Th�s leads to the quest�on of where th�s second �ntroduct�on ends. Answer�ng that quest�on lets us determ�ne how the two �ntroduct�ons are parallel and how they funct�on �nd�v�dually and together. A complex syntax and narrat�ve structure t�es chap. 2 together. The narrat�ve features first the messenger of Yahweh (vv 1–3), then the sons of Israel (vv 4–9), and then a new generat�on of sons of Israel (vv 10–23). Joshua, Yahweh, ancestors, and judges all appear �n the narrat�ve, but the focus rema�ns on Israel.

Chap. 2 thus presents a contrast. F�rst Yahweh appears as a messenger and prom-�ses to keep the covenant w�th Israel as he d�d w�th the first fa�thful generat�on. Then Israel �s portrayed as an unfa�thful nat�on who passed over or transgressed the covenant. The nat�ons are set up as God’s ploy to prov�de Israel an opportun�ty to keep or transgress covenant. Only chap. 2 �n Judges ment�ons God’s covenant. Chap. 2 plays on the work of Joshua, even end�ng the chapter w�th Joshua as an �nclus�o to 1:1. The d�v�ne speech �n 2:20b–22 parallels s�m�lar vocabulary �n the d�v�ne messenger’s speech �n 2:1–3.

Syntax separates 3:1 from chap. 2, us�ng a d�sjunct�ve clause to �ntroduce the expos�t�on to a new narrat�ve and a trad�t�onal open�ng formula to beg�n the new un�t. Chap. 3 �gnores Joshua. The trans�t�on �n 3:7 �s parallel to 2:11, requ�r�ng �n both cases an expos�tory �ntroduct�on to set the stage. F�nally, chap. 2 focuses on nat�ons surround�ng Israel, the res�dents of the land, plunderers, enem�es, or nat�ons Joshua left. Chap. 3 centers on spec�fic nat�ons and geograph�cal reg�ons: Canaan, Ph�l�st�nes, S�don�ans, H�v�tes, Mount Lebanon, Mount Baal Hermon, Lebo-hamath, H�tt�tes, Amor�tes, Per�zz�tes, H�v�tes, Jebus�tes. Judg 3:1–6 funct�ons �n chap. 3 as 2:1–10 does �n chap. 2, sett�ng the stage for the act�on to follow, act�on that �nvolves the geograph�cal and nat�onal names. The structure of Judges then deals w�th 1:1–2:23 as a m�l�tary and then rel�g�ous �ntroduct�on w�th 3:1–16:31 as the body of the narrat�ve. (See the conclus�ve d�scuss�on by Block, 76–77, who argues for follow�ng the current chapter d�v�s�on and then �n h�s commentary works w�th 1:1–3:6.)

I conclude then that the first segment of Judges compr�ses only the first two chapters. Chap. 3 beg�ns the body of the narrat�ve proper. Chap. 1 g�ves the m�l�tary s�tuat�on of Israel �mmed�ately after Joshua’s death as a prologue to the m�l�tary exped�t�ons of the judges to follow. Chap. 2 g�ves the rel�g�ous s�tuat�on of Israel dur�ng the t�me of the judges and prepares for the d�v�ne pun�shment to come when the summary descr�pt�on becomes real�ty.

Supposed patterns in Judg 1. Judg 1 prov�des a most unusual narrat�ve �ntroduct�on to the ent�re book of Judges. Van Seters (“Deuteronom�st from Joshua to Samuel,”

Judges 1:1–36


13

220) dec�des that “the fundamental problem of the Hexateuch �s, perhaps, how to v�ew Judg 1:1–2:5 and �ts relat�onsh�p to what comes before and after �t.” Descr�b�ng a “rather advanced h�stor�ography” here, Van Seters notes the ongo�ng d�fficulty of source attr�but�on �n l�ght of the un�ty of the mater�al, the �mposs�b�l�ty of remov-�ng redact�onal frame mater�al, and the lack of any clear h�stor�cal genres. Van Seters (222) thus attr�butes both Josh 13–19 and Judg 1:1–2:5 to the same Pr�estly wr�ter who �ntent�onally repeated h�s account to emphas�ze that the land prom�se was not ent�rely kept. Comments about Jerusalem, Gezer, and forced labor come from the later Deuteronom�st�c H�stor�an based on 1 Kgs 9:20–21.

Younger shows that genre analys�s �s not �mposs�ble, compar�ng Judg 1 w�th Assyr�an summary �nscr�pt�ons �n contrast to Assyr�an annal�st�c texts. Summary �nscr�pt�ons are arranged geograph�cally, not chronolog�cally, and are shorter than the royal annals. Inscr�bed on a commemorat�ve stele or a slab, these summar�es conta�ned four parts: “(a) a prologue, cons�st�ng of �nvocat�on to the gods and the k�ng’s t�tulature; (b) a geograph�cally arranged summary of events; (c) the ma�n sect�on expla�n�ng the c�rcumstances lead�ng to the compos�t�on of the �nscr�p-t�on, �ntroduced by the formula ina umeshuma = ‘at that t�me’; (d) an ep�logue w�th maled�ct�ons” (“Judges 1,” 211). Younger, however, does not, and probably cannot, show how Judg 1 relates to th�s form, as N�d�tch (36) also notes, po�nt�ng to the first-person form of the Assyr�an mater�als. Rather, Younger �s �nterested �n parallel content �tems. He po�nts to the tendency to summar�ze t�me �n non-spec�fic and nonconcrete terms. S�m�larly Younger sees that Judg 1 “neutral�zes and reshapes our very sense of t�me and d�stance,” br�ng�ng together “under one umbrella events that are remote chronolog�cally” and cloth�ng “s�multane�ty �n the gu�se of sequence” (219). He also descr�bes how Assyr�an mater�als show that certa�n battles are conquest battles whereas others s�mply soften the enemy up for later conquest. Judg 1 �s thus presented as a second ser�es of battles �ntended to subjugate or destroy an enemy Joshua prev�ously softened up. L�ndars sees th�s from another d�rect�on. He reads the mater�al from a postex�l�c v�ewpo�nt and sees that “Joshua has acted l�ke an �mper�al conqueror, Cyrus perhaps, who breaks the res�stance of a whole nat�on and then d�v�des the land among h�s l�eutenants as the�r areas of rule” (10).

N�d�tch finds the closest parallel to Judg 1 �n the journey reports of Num 21, wh�ch she descr�bes as “a ser�es of br�ef annals that reflect r�cher and fuller trad�-t�ons about m�l�tary encounters and the�r part�c�pants.” But Num 21 as a whole �s a journey report or �t�nerary, not a battle report. The battles descr�bed feature enem�es attack�ng Israel, not Israel attack�ng enem�es. The battle reports here are not t�ed to the form D. M. Gunn (“The ‘Battle Report’: Oral or Scr�bal Conven-t�on?” JBL 93 [1974] 513–18) finds �n the books of Samuel. Rather, they do reflect the abbrev�ated skeletal form of a much r�cher trad�t�on. (See B. O. Long, I Kings, 244: “A schemat�c recount�ng of a m�l�tary encounter typ�cally organ�zed around the follow�ng elements: [1] the confrontat�on of forces, [2] the battle, [3] the consequences of battle, whether defeat or v�ctory, usually w�th summar�z�ng and character�z�ng statements.”) Thus N�d�tch herself beg�ns the paragraph descr�b�ng Judg 1 as a “comb�nat�on of br�ef battle reports �n the th�rd person, punctuated by v�gnettes related to the battles and the�r part�c�pants.”

In h�s commentary, Younger, follow�ng Webb’s study, has attempted to show patterns �n th�s narrat�ve. The first depends on repet�t�on of the Hebrew verb



14

hl[, “to go up” (Judg 1:1–4, 16, 22; 2:1). Younger sees a ch�ast�c pattern of ask�ng Yahweh who w�ll go up (v 1), Judah go�ng up (v 2b), Joseph go�ng up (v 22), and the messenger go�ng up (2:1). It �s a stretch to parallel Israel ask�ng who w�ll go up w�th the messenger go�ng up. The pattern sk�ps l�ghtly over S�meon go�ng up (v 3) and the sons of Ken�te go�ng up (v 16). It also �gnores the causat�ve form �n 2:1 w�th Yahweh as subject. The pattern looks n�ce and offers a bas�s for teach�ng and preach�ng, but does not rest on firm enough ev�dence �n the text.

Younger also notes the geograph�c pattern flow�ng from south to north. Th�s has stronger foundat�ons �n the text, but �t requ�res one to place Dan �n the north w�th chap. 18, not �n the west as �n chap. 1 and �n the Samson narrat�ves. It also �gnores �n part the sh�fts to the east w�th Jephthah and to the west w�th Samson. Thus the pattern fits to an extent from the v�ewpo�nt of the monarch�cal author, not from the v�ewpo�nt of the h�stor�cal context. See, �n the Introduct�on, “The Immed�ate Context: The Structure of the Book of Judges.”

Younger’s th�rd pattern he calls “moral movement” as he traces a moral decl�ne �n chap. 1. We shall certa�nly d�scover such a moral decl�ne �n the body of the book, but one has to stretch and �gnore a b�t to find the pattern here. What part do the Ken�tes l�v�ng among the Judah�tes play �n th�s pattern? Or Adon�-bezek �n Jerusalem? Or Caleb’s daughter �n the Negev? How does the �nformant �n Bethel relate to Canaan�tes l�v�ng �n the land �n Manasseh? Is there a moral d�st�nct�on �n Israel becom�ng strong (v 28) and caus�ng forced labor and the house of Joseph hav�ng a heavy hand and plac�ng the Amor�tes �nto forced labor (v 36)? How does Zebulun (v 30) rate a place h�gher �n the moral standard than does Naphtal� (33) when both brought the enemy to forced labor, someth�ng not attr�buted to Ephra�m at the head of the l�ne nor to Asher just ahead of Naphtal�? How �s the�r ab�l�ty as a tr�be to cause corvée not somehow more enhanced than that of Manasseh and the house of Joseph who had to become strong before accompl�sh�ng th�s?

The pattern �s solely based on who res�ded among whom. It works n�cely at first glance; see table 1.2 �n the append�x for an analys�s of the tr�bal conquests and fa�lures �n Judg 1.

The pattern appears to be much more �n the eye of the modern beholder than �n the heart of the author/ed�tor. Th�s �s espec�ally the case when one looks at all the �nstances of bvy<, “to res�de, l�ve,” �n th�s chapter. See table 1.3 �n the append�x.

The use of bvy< does not so much create a pattern of moral decl�ne as �t pa�nts an absorb�ng portra�t of cont�nued Canaan�te (Amor�te) res�dence �n the land. Repeatedly, the Canaan�tes are referred to as the res�dents of the land. Israel under Joshua may have conquered the land, but already �n the first chapter of Judges that conquest �s reversed. The conquered can only part�ally be d�spossessed and only later be put under corvée control. Even Judah, the major v�ctor here, fights battles where d�spossess�on or v�ctory �s glar�ngly m�ss�ng �n the battle report. The report does not use moral terms to condemn Israel or any part of �t. That w�ll come �n the next chapter. The report s�mply leaves the �mpress�on of extens�ve Canaan�te presence, control, and power �n the land Joshua left beh�nd. What Josh 13:1 h�nted at �n say�ng “very much of the land st�ll rema�ns to be possessed” (nrsv), Judg 1 now makes expl�c�t. God gave the whole land to Israel �n battle (Josh 11:23) as an �nher�tance. When the aged Joshua d�ed, the generat�on left beh�nd d�d not fin�sh the task of possess�on. Joshua softened the land up for �nhab�tance. Israel never followed up and subjugated much of the land unt�l many generat�ons after

Judges 1:1–36


15

Joshua. Judg 1 does not attr�bute blame. It s�mply reports the m�l�tary status of the generat�on follow�ng Joshua.

The structure of Judg 1. Here the read�ng of the whole prov�des an �ntroductory slant on the narrat�ve d�fferent from s�mply l�st�ng �ts parts and the�r narrat�ve genres. The parts can eas�ly be d�st�ngu�shed by the abrupt change of subjects. Two major sect�ons conta�n first a ser�es of battle reports (vv 1–26) and then an annotated l�st�ng of tr�bal fa�lures (vv 27–35). The two sect�ons are not as clear-cut �n content as the open�ng l�nes of each sect�on m�ght lead one to expect, and the content repeatedly �nv�tes compar�son to other b�bl�cal l�terature deal�ng w�th s�m�lar content. Such �ntratextual analys�s g�ves a d�fferent flavor to the overall purpose and sett�ng of the reports. A flat first read�ng of Judg 1:1–26 appears to show that both Judah, the lead�ng southern tr�be, and the Joseph tr�be(s), the lead�ng northern tr�be res�d�ng �n central Palest�ne, accompl�shed the�r tasks, wh�le all the rest of the tr�bes belong to the l�st of fa�lures (vv 27–35). A closer analys�s prov�des a structure more d�st�nct than that prov�ded by genre analys�s.

The outl�ne prov�ded �n my Introduct�on would seem to �nd�cate that chap. 1 compr�ses three well-rounded narrat�ve un�ts: Judah’s conquests (vv 1–20), the Rachel tr�bes’ fa�lures (vv 21–29), and the northern tr�bes’ fa�lures (vv 30–35), followed by a one-verse ep�logue.

Strangely, th�s �s prec�sely what does not appear. The dep�ct�on of Judah’s con-quest cons�sts of a ser�es of br�ef reports, not a connected narrat�ve. The expected narrat�ve summary conclus�on appears �n v 19 but leads �mmed�ately to negat�ve results and an unexpected addendum. Th�s alerts us that the book’s open�ng nar-rat�ve structure �s fractured and that the observant reader should look for narra-t�ve d�ssonance more than for narrat�ve symmetry �n the book of Judges. Genres, narrat�ve structure, and content comb�ne to leave a negat�ve �mpress�on.

As L�ndars expresses �t, Judg 1:1–21 “br�ngs together some old trad�t�ons wh�ch the ed�tor regarded as related to the conquests of Judah, but �t �s ev�dent that there was no connected narrat�ve source at h�s d�sposal. The ava�lable �tems are odd scraps of �nformat�on” (9).

A qu�ck look at the other two major sect�ons echoes th�s conclus�on. Content jo�ns vv 21–29, s�nce �t deals w�th the closely related tr�bes of Benjam�n and Joseph, the two sons of Rachel (Gen 30:24; 35:18), but no �ntroduct�on or conclus�on jo�ns the narrat�ve. Instead, a d�st�nct�ve battle report �s sandw�ched among l�sts of negat�ve results, and the house of Joseph suddenly spl�ts �nto Ephra�m and Manasseh. Vv 30–36 appear to cont�nue the l�st of negat�ve results, broaden�ng �t to �nclude more than the house of Joseph, but the conclud�ng ep�logue (v 36) deals w�th the spread of Amor�tes rather than the results of Israel�tes. Thus we see a shot-gun narrat�ve approach w�th l�ttle d�scern�ble order except for the south to north or�entat�on. A look at the �nd�v�dual formal elements w�ll enhance th�s �mpress�on.

The narrative elements of Judg 1. Th�s narrat�ve brokenness ga�ns a clue �n 1:1. Th�s does not pretend to be a narrat�ve beg�nn�ng. It �s a narrat�ve cont�nuat�on that m�rrors the open�ng of Joshua, Joshua’s name s�mply replac�ng Moses’ name. Such m�rror�ng causes one to compare further and see that the first purpose of Judg 1 �s not to serve as an �ntroduct�on to what follows. Rather �t serves as a contrast to what precedes. Th�s means that we must first read Judg 1 �n �ts relat�onsh�ps to the book of Joshua before we too qu�ckly rush ahead to see how �t compares to



16

the follow�ng narrat�ves of Judges. The reader first not�ces apparently dupl�cate content �n several places but w�th some strongly apparent d�screpanc�es. The textual notes above seem to �nd�cate that Judges knew at least some form of the mater�al �n Joshua and added notes for clar�ty wh�le tell�ng the story for �ts own purposes. It may well be that Joshua represents a northern vers�on of the mater�als wh�le Judges represents a southern rend�t�on. Th�s would fit w�th the oral trad�t�on perspect�ve N�d�tch represents �n her commentary. See table 1.4 �n the append�x for a compar�son of Judges w�th Joshua.

Josh 1 reflects a d�v�ne m�l�tary comm�ss�on to Israel’s new chosen leader call-�ng for ded�cat�on to d�v�ne law and for �mmed�ate act�on. It shows �mmed�ate comm�tment on the part of the Israel�te tr�bes to the new leaders. Judg 1 features human �n�t�at�ve rather than d�v�ne �n�t�at�ve. The human quest�on appears to call for the name of an �nd�v�dual to lead the arm�es. Instead, Yahweh prov�des a tr�be to lead as an example for the other tr�bes. Th�s formal breakdown of an open�ng comm�ss�on�ng report g�ves the first h�nt that Judges �s about separate tr�bal ac-t�ons rather than about a un�ted Israel�te front. Israel has no �nd�v�dual leader; therefore, Israel has l�ttle nat�onal loyalty and l�ttle nat�onal m�l�tary act�on.

Chap. 1 sets the stage for the book of Judges as a book of m�l�tary confronta-t�ons between �nd�v�dual tr�bes or tr�bal coal�t�ons and local enem�es. Judah leads the first confrontat�on, to wh�ch �t �nv�tes the tr�be of S�meon (vv 3, 17—the only appearances of th�s tr�be �n the book). The “battle reports” that follow fit the terse descr�pt�on of S�mon de Vr�es: “A schemat�c recount�ng of a battle encounter typ�-cally conta�n�ng (1) the confrontat�on, (2) the battle, and (3) the consequences” (1 and 2 Chronicles, FOTL 11 [Grand Rap�ds: Eerdmans, 1989] 428). B. O. Long notes that “summar�z�ng and character�z�ng statements” usually appear and that “often, the report w�ll �nclude a scene of consultat�on w�th pr�ests for d�v�ne gu�d-ance” (I Kings, 293).

Judg 1:1–7, the first battle report, opens w�th the consultat�on but w�thout ment�on of pr�ests (v 2). The d�v�ne answer �n v 2 �s expressed by means of the typ�cal “conveyance formula” (Long, I Kings, 320). A second “consultat�on” follows, but th�s �s among humans rather than w�th God, the tr�be of Judah �nv�t�ng the tr�be of S�meon to jo�n �n the battle (v 3). The battle descr�pt�on s�mply repeats the conveyance formula (v 4a) before the consequences are summar�zed (v 4b). V 5a expands the battle report sl�ghtly and �s followed by another statement of consequences (v 5b). The battle �s then descr�bed from yet another perspect�ve, that of the capture of the enemy leader and h�s adm�ss�on of the just�ce of the consequences (vv 6–7a). A final statement of consequences (v 7b) concludes th�s somewhat convoluted and �ron�c battle report.

A ser�es of br�ef battle reports follows (vv 8–10) w�thout repet�t�on of the con-sultat�on. Then the narrat�ve of Caleb, Othn�el, and Achsah reappears (vv 10–15) almost verbat�m from Josh 15:15–19, expla�n�ng the battle of Deb�r. In Joshua the Caleb narrat�ve funct�ons as part of the allotment-of-the-land theme of Josh 13–22 and of the Joshua-obeyed-God theme. Caleb �s the lead�ng actor �n conquer�ng Hebron and d�spossess�ng Shesha�, Ah�man, and Talma�, �dent�fied spec�fically as descendants of Anak. Judges places the Caleb narrat�ve squarely �n the m�ddle of an �nd�v�dual tr�bal battle report and �n parallel to a s�m�lar report concern�ng the act�v�t�es of the sons of the Ken�te, Moses’ father-�n-law (v 16). Judges, �n accord w�th �ts tr�bal theme, g�ves the tr�be of Judah cred�t for tak�ng Hebron. (See Younger,

Judges 1:1–36


17

“Judges 1,” 226.) It then �nserts, somewhat awkwardly, part of the Caleb narrat�ve from Joshua. In Judg 1:11 mt reads rybiD“ ybev]/yAla, µV;mi Jl,Y" w ', “and he went from there to the �nhab�tants of Deb�r,”w�th Judah the natural subject of the sentence. The parallel Josh 15:15 reads rbiD“ ybev]yOAla, µV;mi l['Y"w", “and he went up from there to the �nhab�tants of Deb�r,” w�th Caleb the natural subject. Judges �ntroduces Caleb a b�t jarr�ngly only �n v 12. In so do�ng Judges transforms the story’s genre from the battle report of �ts Joshua sett�ng. Joshua eas�ly accommodates the story to �ts allotment-of-the-land theme, show�ng that Caleb got the prom�sed allotment and d�str�buted �t to h�s fam�ly. Judges stretches the story a b�t to fit �t �nto �ts battle-report context, for the story of the daughter’s request has l�ttle place �n a battle report. Rather, Judges makes two po�nts. Judges �ntroduces the battle hero—Oth-n�el, the first and model judge (see Judg 3:9–11). Then �t shows the controll�ng power of Achsah, Caleb’s daughter and Othn�el’s w�fe, �ntroduc�ng the theme of the power and ab�l�ty of women that w�ll cons�stently reappear.

V 16 apparently �ntroduces a travel report featur�ng the Ken�tes, who have Mosa�c connect�ons. Th�s stands totally outs�de the battle-report context to �ncorporate Moses’ people along w�th Caleb’s �nto the tr�be of Judah.

V 17 presents another br�ef battle report, th�s t�me expl�c�tly �nvolv�ng the tr�be of S�meon. V 18 �s yet another battle report expanded to �nclude three c�t�es of the Ph�l�st�nes but contracted to el�m�nate any narrat�ve �nformat�on. V 19 prov�des a formula�c surpr�se. The ass�stance formula stat�ng d�v�ne presence (see G. W. Coats, Genesis, FOTL 1 [Grand Rap�ds: Eerdmans, 1983] 320; Long, I Kings, 319) appears to �ntroduce a summary formula of success (compare Gen 39:2, 21; Josh 6:27), but sh�fts suddenly to descr�be fa�lure.

V 20 prov�des an unexpected addendum or correct�on to the prev�ous Caleb narrat�ve, add�ng the Mosa�c component and prov�d�ng an �nterest�ng, �f �ncon-clus�ve, conclus�on to the narrat�ve of the tr�be of Judah.

V 21 employs the et�olog�cal formula hZ<h’ µ/Yh’ d[‘, “unt�l th�s day,” creat�ng an et�olog�cal mot�f rather than an et�olog�cal narrat�ve (see Butler, Joshua, 28–30; B. O. Long, 2 Kings, FOTL 10 [Grand Rap�ds: Eerdmans, 1991] 299). Th�s �s attached to the negat�ve-results l�st, wh�ch �tself employs a strange form. V 21 beg�ns w�th the d�sjunct�ve µIl'v;Wry“ bveyO ysiWby“h'Ata,w“, “the Jebus�tes, the �nhab�tants of Jerusalem,” rather than w�th ˜miy:n“bi ynEB],, “the sons of Benjam�n,” front�ng and call�ng attent�on first to Jerusalem and �ts Jebus�tes, not to Benjam�n. Aga�n, content bel�es form. V 8 underl�nes th�s w�th �ts reference to Jerusalem �n a v�ctor�ous battle report. See also the Comment on vv 5–7. All th�s calls attent�on to Jerusalem, not to a tr�be of Israel.

Vv 22–26 appear to const�tute another battle report but aga�n w�th a tw�st. What does µheAµG", “even they,” �nd�cate? Is th�s s�mply a l�terary way to �nclude the house of Joseph �n the l�st, or does �t mean “even they,” w�th a b�t of �rony—add�ng them to the l�st desp�te the readers’ expectat�ons? (Compare 1 Sam 14:15, 21–22; Jer 12:6.) The battle report breaks off, and the d�v�ne-ass�stance formula appears. Th�s g�ves way to an �ntroduct�on to an Israel�te spy narrat�ve. (See Butler, Joshua, 29–30; S. Wagner, “D�e Kundschaftergesch�chten �m Alten Testament,” ZAW 76 [1964] 255–69.) The spy narrat�ve develops �ntr�gue as a nat�ve accompl�ce turns �nformant. The Israel�te sp�es prom�se to deal w�th the �nformant w�th ds,j;, “cov-enant fa�thfulness, loyalty, grace,” the only t�me �n the book such behav�or �s even suggested, behav�or central to the Israel�te covenant (compare 8:35). The add�-



18

t�on to the battle report shows that the Israel�tes treat th�s nat�ve �nhab�tant w�th covenant fa�thfulness, allow�ng h�m to go free. In so do�ng they �gnore the holy war commandments of the�r God. A final et�olog�cal mot�f rounds off the narrat�ve.

Negat�ve-results l�sts complete the rema�nder of the chapter (vv 27–35), but each has �ts own nuance. The first l�st po�nts to the dogged determ�nat�on of the Canaan�tes to l�ve �n the land desp�te Israel�te efforts. Does th�s represent a pro-gress�on from v 21, where the Jebus�tes l�ve w�th the Benjam�n�tes �n Jerusalem? Vv 29–30 repeat the s�tuat�on of v 21, Canaan�tes l�v�ng among the Israel�tes. Vv 32–33 change that, for Asher�tes and Naphtal�tes l�ve among Canaan�tes. V 34 advances a step further. Amor�tes defeat Dan�tes and push them off the�r allot-ted terr�tory. Here the determ�nat�on of the Amor�tes rounds off the narrat�ve form, repeat�ng the s�tuat�on and language of v 27. But eventually, both groups of determ�ned people face corvée labor under Israel�te rule. The conclus�on (v 36) has noth�ng to say about Israel. The Amor�te boundar�es are traced, �n contrast to the extens�ve trac�ng of Israel�te boundar�es �n Josh 13–21.

The broken narrat�ve structure, repet�t�ve content, and emphas�s on Canaan�tes, Jebus�tes, and Amor�tes reveals a l�terary art�stry that su�ts form to content and uses formal breakdown to alert the reader to nat�onal breakdown.

Comment

1–3 The open�ng of Judges �m�tates that of Joshua (1:1) and w�ll be repeated �n 2 Sam 1:1 to prov�de per�od�zat�on for the narrat�ves. The ed�tor sees Israel’s h�story �n four stages: the Mosa�c per�od, the Joshua per�od, the per�od w�thout a k�ng, and the royal per�od �ntroduced by Dav�d. Only the per�od of the book of Judges does not ment�on a new leader. Th�s h�nts at the problems to come. Israel faces a new nat�onal era w�thout a nat�onal leader. Th�s open�ng verse also ant�c�-pates the end�ng of Judges, where �n a last desperate effort to ma�nta�n nat�onal un�ty the tr�bes �nqu�re of Yahweh whether they should fight Benjam�n (20:23, 27–28). Battle s�tuat�ons often formed the backdrop for Israel’s leaders to �nqu�re of the Lord (1 Sam 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23), so that Fuhs sees th�s as the or�g�nal sett�ng for the language (ThWAT, 7:921). Apparently pr�ests normally made such �nqu�ry (1 Sam 22:10), follow�ng a pract�ce of rel�g�ons around the world (compare Fuhs, ThWAT, 7:920). Answers came �n d�fferent manners (1 Sam 28:6). The express�on can subst�tute µyhla (Eloh�m) for the d�v�ne name hwhy (Yahweh) (Judg 18:5; 20:18; 1 Sam 14:37; 22:13, 15; 1 Chr 14:10). Interest�ngly, the express�on hwhy b lav, “�nqu�re of Yahweh,” occurs only �n the judges, Saul, and Dav�d nar-rat�ves, apparently po�nt�ng to an old pr�estly pract�ce at sanctuar�es that finally gave way to seek�ng God’s word from the prophet (Fuhs, ThWAT, 7:922; compare HALOT, 4:1372). The call for Judah to go up first takes up the theme of Judah’s leadersh�p from Gen 49:8–10 and Num 10:14 (see Olson, 736).

Judges uses larcy ynb, “sons of Israel,“ “Israel�tes,” s�xty-one t�mes �n fifty-s�x d�f-ferent verses to refer to the nat�on; an �nterest�ng lacuna occurs between chaps. 12 and 19, where the term appears only �n 13:1 before resum�ng �ts regular appear-ance �n 19:13. Joshua and Judges have 118 occurrences. Th�s usage alone �nd�cates the �mportance of all Israel to the book of Judges. The work of �nd�v�dual tr�bes may be descr�bed, but the underly�ng understand�ng �s that the work of a tr�be or tr�bes �s s�mply part of the work of all Israel.

Judges 1:1–36


19

The Israel�tes ask God who w�ll lead the way �n fight�ng the Canaan�tes. Th�s un�tes Israel’s opponents under one t�tle rather than enumerat�ng them �n the long l�st of peoples fam�l�ar �n the book of Joshua (3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11) but comparable to the descr�pt�ons �n the d�str�but�on-of-the-land narrat�ve (Josh 13–22). Desp�te the efforts of many modern scholars such as N. P. Lemche (The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites, JSOTSup 110 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991]) to “vapor�ze the Canaan�tes and to erase the land of Canaan from the map” (A. F. Ra�ney, BASOR 304 [1996] 1), Canaan was a s�gn�ficant geograph�cal and ethn�c term for Israel and her contemporary nat�ons reach�ng back to 3000 b.c.e. or even before. Ra�ney �ncludes a map (compare the phys�cal descr�pt�on by K. N. Schov�lle, “Canaan�tes and Amor�tes,” �n Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. J. Hoerth et al. [Grand Rap�ds: Baker, 1994] 161; compare map 27, �n T. Br�sco, Holman Bible Atlas [Nashv�lle: Broadman & Holman, 1998] 58) show�ng the land of Canaan stretch�ng from Mount Hor on the northern Med�terranean coast through Lebo to Z�phron and Hazar-enan �n the northeast. The eastern boundary runs due south from Hazar-enan and turns westward to a po�nt just south of the Sea of Gal�lee, where �t runs southward along the Jordan R�ver just east of Beth-shan. The southern boundary �s not shown but now appears �n Sacred Bridge, 34. It runs from Zoar at the end of the Dead Sea between Kadesh and Hazar-addar to the Brook of Egypt that empt�es �nto the Med�terranean (compare Gen 10:15–19; Josh 13:3).

Scholars cont�nue to d�spute the or�g�n and mean�ng of the term Canaan. A. H. W. Curt�s (“Canaan�te Gods and Rel�g�on,” DOTHB, 132) g�ves the s�mplest defin�t�on: “the Canaan�tes are the pre-Israel�te �nhab�tants.” Schov�lle (“Canaan�tes and Amor�tes,” 159) opts for “Sundowners, Westerners,” follow�ng M. C. Astour (“The Or�g�n of the Terms ‘Canaan,’ ‘Phoen�c�an,’ and ‘Purple,’” JNES 24 [1965] 346–50). H.-J. Zobel (˜[nK, TDOT, 7:215) sees a relat�onsh�p to the West Sem�t�c term for “merchant,” though the land name may have come from be�ng assoc�ated w�th merchants or merchants may have der�ved the�r occupat�onal t�tle because Canaan was the�r home. Th�s follows B. Mazar (Ma�sler) (“Canaan and the Ca-naan�tes,” BASOR 102 [1946] 7–12) and R. de Vaux (“Le pays de Canaan,” JAOS 88 [1968] 23–30). The Canaan�tes, accord�ng to L�ndars (12), cannot be connected w�th purple-dye merchants as long thought (see B. Landsberger, “Über Farben �m Sumer�sch-akkad�schen,” JCS 21 [1967] 167–68) but may be “lowlanders” and lowly servants (Gen 9:25–27). (See M�llard, POTT, 34.) Canaan�tes are �nhab�t-ants of the reg�on, not an ethn�c group. D. T. Tsummura (“Canaan, Canaan�tes,” DOTHB, 123) bel�eves the etymology and mean�ng of Canaanite to be obscure w�thout much bas�s for “merchant,” “blue-dyed cloth,” or “bend/bow” and thus “low.” The B�ble traces Canaan�tes back to a grandson of Noah placed under a curse because h�s father d�sgraced Noah (Gen 9:18–27; compare 10:15). Canaan was the land prom�sed to Abraham (Gen 12:1–7).

In l�ght of Joshua’s death, one would expect the answer to the quest�on of who w�ll lead Israel to be an �nd�v�dual. The narrator’s unexpected answer names a tr�be, not an �nd�v�dual. The tr�be �s Judah, the same tr�be chosen to lead the fight aga�nst Benjam�n �n Judg 20:18. Elsewhere a fight�ng force from Judah ap-pears only �n Judg 15:9–11, where Judah compla�ns to Samson about h�s mak�ng the Ph�l�st�nes angry. The Ammon�tes attack Judah �n Judg 10:9. Thus Judah sandw�ches the del�very stor�es of the book w�thout play�ng a s�gn�ficant role �n

Comment


20

them. Judah �s the southernmost tr�be, descended from the fourth son of Leah (Gen 29:31–35).

/dy:B] ≈r<™a;h;Ata, yTit'n:, “I gave the land �nto h�s hand,” represents the “conveyance formula” (B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 320). It “occurs �n m�l�tary and legal sett�ngs and s�gn�fies the del�very or abandonment of a person(s) or matter �nto the power of another (M. A. Gr�sant�, ̃ tn, NIDOTTE, 3:210). (Compare Deut 19:12; 2 Sam 10:10; 1 Chr 19:11; Jer 26:13; 38:16). It �s part�cularly s�gn�ficant w�th God as the subject (Deut 7:24; 21:10; Josh 2:24; 21:44; Judg 3:8; 11:21; 18:10). The formula can also have other gods as subject (Judg 16:23–24). Israel’s fa�th centered on God’s acts for h�s chosen people. Other nat�ons also attr�buted h�stor�cal d�rect�on to the�r gods as B. Albrektson (History and the Gods [Lund: Gleerup, 1967]) has shown. St�ll, Israel stands alone �n �ts choos�ng of h�stor�cal narrat�ve as the form for the central sect�on of �ts rel�g�ous l�terature and h�stor�cal rec�tat�on as the content for a s�gn�ficant part of the non-narrat�ve l�terature. Israel tells �ts h�story not as human ach�evement but as d�v�ne g�ft.

Another surpr�se appears. Judah does not �mmed�ately assume leadersh�p of the twelve tr�bes and go to battle w�th the Canaan�tes. Instead, Judah calls on S�meon for help, wh�le apparently �gnor�ng the other tr�bes. S�meon �s p�ctured as a southern tr�be bound w�th�n Judah (Josh 19:1–9) and �s grouped w�th Benjam�n and Judah �n the allocat�on of pr�estly c�t�es (Josh 21:4, 9–19). S�meon �s grouped w�th the larger southern constellat�on of “bless�ng” tr�bes �n Deut 27:12. The smallest of the tr�bes �n Num 26, S�meon has only 22,200; Ephra�m, the next smallest, has 32,500; wh�le Judah, the largest, has 76,500. S�meon has decreased from 59,300 (Num 2:12–13). In 1 Kgs 11:26–40, Judah and Benjam�n form the southern k�ngdom, so S�meon must be connected to the north (compare 2 Chr 15:8–9; 34:6). S�meon and Lev� seem to have northern connect�ons �n Gen 34:25–31 and 49:5–7, both referr�ng to the�r battl�ng Shechem. Ezek�el’s �deal Israel has S�meon border�ng Benjam�n and Issachar. Thus, through h�story, S�meon was apparently al�gned w�th d�fferent tr�bes for d�fferent purposes.

4–7 Judah goes to battle w�th no ment�on of S�meon. No battle �s reported. Rather the conveyance formula (compare Deut 3:3; Josh 2:24; 21:44; Judg 3:10, 28; 4:14; 7:15; 8:7) stresses d�v�ne, not human, act�on (see B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 320).

The Per�zz�tes appear �n twenty-one of the twenty-seven l�sts of pre-Israel�te �nhab�tants of Canaan. The�r pa�r�ng w�th the Canaan�tes here and �n Gen 13:7 and 34:30 �n two-name l�sts may suggest these two groups �nclude larger groups of peoples (S. A. Reed, “Per�zz�tes,” ABD, 5:231; compare T. Ish�da, “The Structure and H�stor�cal Impl�cat�ons of the L�sts of Pre-Israel�te Nat�ons,” Bib 60 [1979] 461–90). God prom�sed Abraham the�r land (Gen 15:20). Per�zz�tes are not men-t�oned outs�de the B�ble (L�ndars, 16) unless the term appears �n a ment�on of Per�zz� (or the Per�zz�te) as a representat�ve of Tushratta of M�tann� �n the Amarna Letters (L�ndars, 16). Th�s would connect the Per�zz�tes to the Hurr�ans. L�ndars prefers to connect them w�th the Hebrew term referr�ng to those who l�ve �n un-walled settlements (Deut 3:5; 1 Sam 6:18; Esth 9:19; compare Judg 5:7, 11; Ezek 38:11; Zech 2:8). Josh 11:3 and 17:15 locate them �n the h�ll country. The Per�zz�tes would then be the rural populat�on of the h�ll country as opposed to “successful �nvaders of an earl�er t�me who l�ved �n the c�t�es” (L�ndars, 17). They stood among the peoples God commanded Israel to “utterly ann�h�late” (Deut 20:17, net).

Judges 1:1–36


21

Josh 11:8–9 reports v�ctory over them as part of a Hazor coal�t�on (compare 12:8; 24:11). St�ll, Per�zz�tes rema�ned, and Israel settled down among them (Judg 3:5). Solomon eventually subjected them to forced labor (1 Kgs 9:20–21).

Bezek �s modern Kh�rbet Ibz�k or nearby Kh�rbet Salhab, whose archaeolog�cal rema�ns fit the b�bl�cal narrat�ves better (A. Zertal, “Bezek,” ABD, 1:17–18). These s�tes are twelve m�les (19.3 km) northeast of Shechem, th�rteen m�les (20.9 km) southwest of Jabesh-g�lead, and n�ne m�les (14.5 km) north of T�rzah. There Saul mustered and counted h�s troops on the way to del�ver Jabesh-g�lead (1 Sam 11:9) and traveled on the road that led from Shechem through the eastern valleys of Manasseh to the Jordan.

If th�s �s the correct locat�on for Bezek, �t br�ngs mystery �nto the narrat�ve. Why were Judah and S�meon so far north? Block (89), L�ndars (17), and Bol�ng (55) seek another locat�on near Jerusalem, perhaps Kh�rbet B�zqa near Gezer. Gaß (Ortsnamen, 10–11) says ceram�c ev�dence po�nts only to the seventh century b.c.e. The name may have moved there from Kh�rbet Salhab. Gaß enterta�ns the poss�b�l�ty that the b�bl�cal author has projected later cond�t�ons and names back �nto the earl�er per�od. L�ndars (9) says the battle at Bezek was �nserted here be-cause �t po�nts forward to the capture of Jerusalem. Does th�s narrat�ve jo�n w�th Judah’s attack on Jerusalem (v 8) to �llustrate Judah’s true leadersh�p of all Israel as v 1 �nd�cated?

Adoni-bezek means e�ther “My Lord, Bezek” or “the lord of Bezek.” For L�ndars (15), Adoni-bezek �s the corrupt�on of a theophor�c name (one wh�ch descr�bes a god), the d�v�ne name (poss�bly Adon�-zedek of Josh 10) be�ng replaced by the geograph�cal name central to th�s trad�t�on. It may be a t�tle rather than a name, �nd�cat�ng the ruler of Bezek. For the narrat�ve, Adon�-bezek �s strong enough that he can cla�m to have conquered seventy k�ngs and that h�s defeat �s a defeat of both Canaan�tes and Per�zz�tes. Th�s �s the first k�ng ment�oned �n the book of Judges, a book about the d�s�ntegrat�on of leadersh�p. H�s confess�on of fa�lure shows that �mproper, Canaan�te k�ngsh�p �s not the type Israel wants. N�d�tch says the narrat�ve �s not about Israel�te or Judean tr�umphal�sm but a “warn�ng colored w�th pathos about the vagar�es of power” (40). That �s certa�nly one �mpl�cat�on from the story, but the mater�al st�ll features Judah and �ts v�ctor�ous leadersh�p.

Ra�ney sees Bezek as too small for such a confl�ct and suspects “a ve�led allu-s�on to some phase �n the conquest of the Jerusalem area” (Sacred Bridge, 134). For L�ndars, Adon�-bezek �s k�ng of Jerusalem (v 8), not of Bezek, wh�ch �s only a battleground �n the story (compare Ra�ney). In some way the defeat of Adon�-bezek gave Judah an entrée to Jerusalem that even Joshua had not obta�ned (Josh 15:63; compare 12:10), though L�ndars sees Adon�-bezek’s own sold�ers tak�ng h�m back to Jerusalem. Certa�nly the Hebrew narrator saw h�s own Israel�te people �n act�on here, enter�ng Jerusalem for the first t�me, apparently del�ver�ng one of Jerusalem’s all�es back to them to foreshadow th�ngs to come for Jerusalem. As Joshua defeated a Jerusalem-led coal�t�on (Josh 10:3–23), so now Judah enters Jerusalem w�th the beshamed Canaan�te partner.

Cutt�ng off “thumbs and b�g toes” br�ngs “savage and v�nd�ct�ve hum�l�at�on” and reflects a w�despread anc�ent custom w�tnessed �n sources from Mar� to Pers�a and Arab�a to Greece to Hann�bal (L�ndars, 18). Here Younger finds parallels to reports �n the Assyr�an Annals (“Judges 1,” 226; compare E. Ble�btreu, “Gr�sly Assyr�an Record of Torture and Death,” BAR 17 [1991] 52–61). Seventy �s “the

Comment


22

�ndefin�te large number of saga” (Gray) seen �n many passages (Exod 24:2; Num 11:16ff.; Judg 8:30; 9:2, 5, 56; 12:14; 2 Kgs 10:1ff.). The mut�lated k�ngs are pre-sumably ch�efta�ns of clans wh�ch posed a threat to Adon�-bezek’s expans�on of h�s local hegemony.

God (µyhla, “Eloh�m”) �n the present context certa�nly refers to Yahweh, the God of Israel, but on Adon�-bezek’s l�ps could have referred to h�s own pagan god. The story thus �llustrates the power and just�ce of Israel’s God �n deal�ng w�th Canaan�te enem�es. He �s do�ng no more to them than they have done to the�r own enem�es. But the�r k�nd of k�ngsh�p leads eventually to rece�v�ng the same pun�shment they have d�shed out. It �s not Israel’s k�nd of k�ngsh�p.

8 The follow�ng verses comb�ne battle reports, an anecdote from Joshua, and a negat�ve note on Benjam�n to show Judah’s super�or�ty to Benjam�n and �ts qual�-ficat�ons to lead Israel. Aga�n Judah does Joshua one better, burn�ng Jerusalem. Th�s does not need to be seen as some k�nd of l�terary doublet to Josh 10 or as a l�terary �nvent�on. Noth�ng �nd�cates Judah exerc�sed pol�t�cal control or even d�spossessed the �nhab�tants of Jerusalem. As Matthews sees �t, “Judah’s act�on �n the Judges account m�ght be better understood as a ra�d” (40). For Judges, th�s stands �n stark contrast to Benjam�n’s abject fa�lure here (v 21) when Jerusalem belonged �n Benjam�n’s terr�tory (Josh 18:28).

9–10 Judah then retraces Joshua’s route �nto the h�ll country, the Negev, and the Shephelah (Josh 10:40). Judah has thus led Israel just as Joshua d�d and even better, successfully enter�ng and ra�d�ng Jerusalem.

The story centers not on captur�ng c�t�es but on defeat�ng Canaan�tes. The ma-jor example �s the c�ty of Hebron or, as earl�er named, K�r�ath-arba, l�terally, “the c�ty of the four,” but taken as a proper name for the father of Anak (Josh 14:15; 15:13; 21:11). N�d�tch (40) sees the poss�b�l�ty of reference to four locat�ons: Aner, Eshcol, Mamre, and Hebron (compare J. M. Ham�lton, ABD, 4:84).

Joshua obed�ently destroyed the c�ty (10:37; 11:21). Hebron’s h�story reaches back pr�or to 3000 b.c.e. and �ncludes strong patr�archal t�es (Gen 13:18; 23:1–20; 25:9–10; 35:27–29; 37:14; compare chap. 18). A Lev�t�cal c�ty (Josh 21:11–13), �t became Dav�d’s first royal res�dence (2 Sam 2:3–11).

Num 13:22 says Hebron was founded seven years before Tan�s. A stele of Set� I (about 1330 b.c.e.) was found at Tan�s but may have been carr�ed there from Qant�r. Ra�ney (Sacred Bridge, 132) says Tan�s �s first ment�oned �n the twenty-th�rd year of Rameses XI of Dynasty XX (c. 1076 b.c.e.). Ra�ney concludes that “�n the eyes of the narrator (or annotator) the presence of the sons of Israel �n the Kadesh area was dur�ng the last days of the XXth Dynasty” (119). F. F. Bruce (Baker Ency-clopedia of Bible Places, ed. J. J. B�mson [Grand Rap�ds: Baker, 1995] 152; compare L�ndars, 23) sees the Numbers ment�on as reference to a rebu�ld�ng of Hebron �n the eleventh century. Hebron was earl�er called K�r�ath-arba (Gen 23:2) and Mamre (23:19).

Judah only k�lls the three heroes: Shesha�, Ah�man, and Talma�—the three leaders of the Anak�m, a people noted for the�r g�gant�c s�ze who cast fear �nto the Israel�tes (Deut 1:28; 9:2)—whom Moses had found there (Num 13:22) and Caleb d�spossessed (Josh 15:14). Younger has shown that the attempt to see contrad�ct�ons here goes aga�nst normal h�stor�cal wr�t�ng s�nce “cred�t �n battle can be and often �s g�ven to �nd�v�duals, reg�ments, and/or generals” (“Judges 1,” 226). He m�ght have added “or to nat�ons.” Judah acts as and for the ent�re nat�on �n subdu�ng

Judges 1:1–36


23

the leaders of Jerusalem and Hebron, the two c�t�es most �mportant to Dav�d �n acqu�r�ng h�s k�ngsh�p (We�nfeld, “Judges 1.1–2.5,” 392; Matthews, 40).

11–15 A major task for understand�ng the nature of Judges �nvolves relat�ng these Caleb�te trad�t�ons (vv 11–15, 20) w�th those �n Josh 15:13–19. The two trad�-t�ons agree �n connect�ng Caleb w�th the tr�be of Judah and w�th the Ken�zz�tes. The two passages agree word for word except for the open�ng verb, Judges �den-t�fy�ng Othn�el as the youngest brother of Caleb, and Judges �nsert�ng the name Caleb �n v 15. The last two are obv�ously clar�ficat�ons made �n the Judges text, wh�ch �s thus copy�ng the Joshua or�g�nal. If that �s the case, then one wonders why the h�stor�an would �nsert the text here, know�ng �ts or�g�nal context �n Joshua. The answer �s complex but has mostly to do w�th the l�terary �ntent�on of Judges. Judges �s not try�ng to place mater�al �n chronolog�cal order; th�s �s obv�ous from the geograph�cal rather than chronolog�cal order of the rest of the chapter and espec�ally of chaps. 17–21 w�th ment�on of �mmed�ate descendants of Moses and Aaron. See Introduct�on, “Introduct�on to Chronology of Judges.”

Obv�ously the ed�tor of Judges expects the reader to know the story of Caleb and Achsah from know�ng the book of Joshua. He could eas�ly rephrase the nar-rat�ve as he has done w�th the Hebron mater�als from Josh 14. Instead, he quotes Joshua word for word, even reta�n�ng �n Judg 1:11 the µV;mi (“from there”) from Joshua (15:15), wh�ch, �n the Judges narrat�ve, t�es the Deb�r narrat�ve �n close consecut�on to the explo�ts of the tr�be of Judah.

N�d�tch sees the story follow�ng “the trad�t�onal pattern that l�nks the fight�ng of enem�es w�th the exchange of women” (40). In Judges she argues that the story becomes a comment on the “serend�p�tous nature of power and on the capac�ty of unexpected ones to take control” (41). The ed�tor must want the aud�ence to read th�s as a “remember when” narrat�ve even though no syntact�cal markers �nd�cate th�s. Am�t must be r�ght �n say�ng that Judg 1 “proves to the reader how �mportant �t was for the ed�tor of the expos�t�on to stress the [sic] Judah’s part �n the act of conquest” (Book of Judges, 129–30). The trad�t�on already showed a major act by a fam�ly connected to the tr�be of Judah, and the ed�tor p�cked th�s up to rem�nd the aud�ence of that hero�c part. As Schne�der puts �t, the “text focuses on the new s�tuat�on �n Judges where the focus and answer to the call for leadersh�p �s Judah” (9).

Deb�r was or�g�nally K�r�ath-sepher or “c�ty of the book” or “c�ty of scr�bes.” It served as a Lev�t�cal c�ty (Josh 21:15). Gaß (Ortsnamen, 25–30) offers four pos-s�ble s�tes: edh-Dahar�ye, Tell Be�t M�rs�m, Tell Tarrame, and Kh�rbet er-Rabud, po�nt�ng to the last as the seem�ngly assured s�te. N�d�tch (40) st�ll sees the s�te as undeterm�ned.

The story �tself �s full of �rony and humor (see T. Butler, Joshua, 185–86; see the var�ety of poss�ble �nterpretat�ons of the narrat�ve and �ts parts �n Fewell, “De-construct�ve Cr�t�c�sm”). For Judges �t not only emphas�zes the role of Judah, but �t also h�ghl�ghts the strength of the female character and prepares the way for Othn�el to be Israel’s first judge (3:9). Schne�der goes so far as to call Achsah “a model to wh�ch other women’s s�tuat�ons �n Judges are evaluated” (17). Caleb’s oath before battle may also prepare the way for Jephthah’s oath �n 11:30–31 and the Israel�tes’ oath �n chap. 20.

16 The narrator connects Judah to the Moses trad�t�on by �ncorporat�ng the Ken�tes as part of Judah. In so do�ng he prepares for the appearance of the

Comment


24

Ken�tes �n chap. 4–5 w�th Deborah and Barak, and poss�bly for the father-�n-law narrat�ve of chap. 19. The Ken�tes not only go w�th Judah; they also settle down w�th Judah. N�d�tch th�nks that “as �n any folk tad�t�on, deta�ls vary and somet�mes contrad�ct one another” (41).

The early translat�ons added a name for Moses’ father-�n-law, but the wr�ter of Judges presupposes the readers know the name. Exod 3:1, 4:18, and 18:1–27 �dent�fy h�m as Jethro, the pr�est of M�d�an who l�ved �n the desert near the holy mounta�n, called Horeb. Exod 2:18 and Num 10:29 �dent�fy h�m as Reuel, aga�n a M�d�an�te. Judg 4:11 names h�m Hobab, who appears to be the brother-�n-law �n Num 10:29. Apparently Ken�tes or�g�nally all�ed themselves w�th the M�d�an�tes but then later w�th the tr�be of Judah. They moved from the southern w�lderness to Jer�cho—the C�ty of Palms s�x m�les (9.6 km) north of the Dead Sea—to the Judean Negev of Arad. In the Deborah narrat�ve, a fam�ly of Ken�tes had moved much farther north. Apparently the Ken�te clans were loosely t�ed together and could make �nd�v�dual pol�t�cal and rel�g�ous treat�es w�th other clans and nat�ons, and apparently Moses’ father-�n-law was known by var�ous names �n d�fferent Hebrew c�rcles.

17 Judah completes a task w�th a long h�story �n Israel’s trad�t�ons. Hormah first represented Canaan�te v�ctory over Israel (Num 14:40–45; Deut 1:41–46) and then fulfillment of a vow after defeat by the k�ng of Arad (Num 21:1–3). Joshua l�sted �t among h�s v�ctor�es (Josh 12:14) and allotted the c�ty to S�meon (Josh 19:4) w�th�n the allotment of Judah (Josh 15:30). The c�ty became an �mportant ally for Dav�d (1 Sam 30:30). Judges thus cred�ts Judah w�th final v�ctory over the c�ty, prepar�ng �t for the connect�on w�th Dav�d, the k�ng. Hormah’s locat�on �s debated. Ra�ney (Sacred Bridge, 122) places �t at Tell el-Khuwe�lfeh after l�st�ng four other poss�b�l�t�es. Negev (AEHL, 177) opts for Tell el-Meshash, e�ght m�les (12.9 km) southeast of Beersheba. Gaß (Ortsnamen, 47) uses b�bl�cal �nformat�on to �solate a pos�t�on for Hormah on the border of Judah and S�meon near Z�klag �n the Negev and near the w�lderness. Hav�ng looked at other poss�ble locat�ons, Gaß (Ortsnamen, 57) agrees w�th Ra�ney.

S�nce the c�ty �s �n S�meon’s terr�tory, S�meon jo�ns Judah for th�s battle. Judah’s cooperat�on w�th S�meon has noth�ng to do w�th d�sobed�ence to God’s call to lead, as many recent commentators assume (see Kle�n, Triumph of Irony, 23; Younger, 65; Hess, “Judges 1–5,” 143–44; Matthews, 38). It s�mply shows Judah’s leadersh�p ab�l�ty over the smaller tr�be l�v�ng w�th�n �ts boundar�es. S�meon represents a model for what happens to tr�bes who follow Judah. Mullen (HTR 77 [1984] 33–54) po�nts out that, unl�ke the northern tr�bes, Judah was God’s elected leader, followed God’s orders �n devot�ng a c�ty to the ban (v 17), and carr�ed out Moses’ prom�se (v 20). Judah also prepared the way for Dav�d by mak�ng the first �nroads on Jeru-salem, k�ll�ng the fearful and fabled leaders of Hebron, �ncorporat�ng the Mosa�c fam�ly �nto �ts m�dst, �ncorporat�ng Hormah �nto Judean terr�tory, captur�ng the Ph�l�st�nes and thus prepar�ng the way for Dav�d’s final capture of them, and do�ng everyth�ng poss�ble w�th God’s presence. The ed�tor also rem�nds h�s aud�ence that the fa�thful spy Caleb, who had assured the conquest of Deb�r and thus brought Israel’s first judge to the forefront, also belonged to Judean trad�t�on.

18–20 Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron were three of the five major Ph�l�st�ne c�t-�es (the other two be�ng Ashdod and Gath). Ph�l�st�nes sa�led from the Aegean area (Amos 9:7 and Jer 47:4 trace them to Caphtor or Crete), destroy�ng c�t�es

Judges 1:1–36


25

along the Med�terranean coast and finally settl�ng on the southeastern coast of Canaan. Between 1200 and 1150 b.c.e. they destroyed Canaan�te c�t�es and Egypt�an strongholds, replac�ng them w�th even larger Ph�l�st�ne settlements. Egypt under Rameses III planted m�l�tary outposts �n the prox�m�ty of the Ph�l�st�ne settlements. The Ph�l�st�nes �ncorporated Canaan�te populat�on �nto the�r urban centers and gradually mod�fied the�r Aegean mater�al cultural elements under the �nfluence of Canaan�te patterns. Two th�ngs they d�d not mod�fy were a preference for pork and a refusal to be c�rcumc�sed. The�r preference of goddesses also gradually �ncorporated Canaan�te gods such as Baal and Dagon �nto the�r pantheon. The Ph�l�st�nes perpetually opposed Israel’s m�l�tary, pol�t�cal, and rel�g�ous plans. Though these five c�t�es had s�m�lar ethn�c connect�ons, the amount of pol�t�cal un�ty or cooperat�on can be debated s�nce most sources, b�bl�cal and extrab�bl�-cal, show �ndependent c�ty-states w�th the�r own rulers (Hebrew ˜r<s,, used only for Ph�l�st�ne rulers; Josh 13:3; Judg 3:3; 16:5, 8, 18, 23, 27, 30; 1 Sam 5:8, 11; 6:4, 12, 16, 18; 7:7; 29:2, 6–7; 1 Kgs 7:30; 1 Chr 12:19 [Heb. 12:20]).

Joshua left the Ph�l�st�ne c�t�es as terr�tory that rema�ned to be conquered (Josh 13:3). Between 1150 and 1050 b.c.e. the Ph�l�st�nes used Egypt�an weakness to expand the�r terr�tory, reach�ng north to Tel Av�v, east �nto the Shephelah, and southeast �nto the Wad� Gaza and the Beer-sheba bas�n. Dur�ng th�s per�od they bu�lt Tell Qas�le and forced the people of Dan to g�ve up the�r attempts to settle on the coast and to m�grate to the north as seen �n Judg 17–18. The Ph�l�st�nes even expanded �nto the h�ll country (1 Sam 10:5; 13:3, 11; 2 Sam 23:13–14), where they met Saul and then Dav�d. Dav�d first made an all�ance w�th the ruler of Gath and by 975 b.c.e. establ�shed control over the Ph�l�st�nes.

The ed�tor of Judges emphas�zes that Judah, the tr�be of Dav�d, led the way �n establ�sh�ng a beachhead aga�nst Israel’s strongest opponents, the Ph�l�st�nes. Even the early translators quest�oned th�s, as seen �n the lxx’s use of eklhronovmhsen, wh�ch normally renders a form of Hebrew ljn, “�nher�t,”or vry, “possess, d�spossess,” �n Judges but nowhere renders dkl, “captured,” wh�ch �s always rendered by a form of katalambavnw or sullambavnw. lxx thus used the �nformat�on of Josh 13 that the Ph�l�st�ne c�t�es were not se�zed or d�s�nher�ted from Ph�l�st�nes to Israel�tes and �nterpreted Judg 1:18 �n the same l�ght, �nsert�ng the negat�ve (see Ra�ney, Sacred Bridge, 134, for a defense of lxx as or�g�nal). We have no way of know�ng the trad�t�on or narrat�ve beh�nd the Judges report. It �s not beyond the realm of reason that Judah was able to make successful ra�ds on these c�t�es as well as on Jerusalem. It �s �nterest�ng that the earl�est stage of Ph�l�st�ne settlement w�th Mycenaean IIIC1b pottery �s �n the southern c�t�es up to Ekron (Ra�ney, Sacred Bridge, 134), prec�sely the area ment�oned �n Judg 1:18, so that th�s could repre-sent an early clash between newly appear�ng Ph�l�st�nes and Israel�tes. (See Block, 99.) As Olson concludes, th�s text “corresponds to the note �n Josh 15:45–47 that these c�t�es were part of the �nher�tance of the tr�be of Judah” (739). Th�s �s also the area of the Samson narrat�ves, as Haml�n (35) and Schne�der (18) po�nt out. (For further �nformat�on on Ph�l�st�nes, see L. E. Stager, The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan [New York: Oxford UP, 1998] 152–75; R. Drews, “Canaan�tes and Ph�l�st�nes,” JSOT 81 [1998] 39-61; C. S. Ehrl�ch, “Ph�l�st�nes,” DOTHB, 782–92, and b�bl�ography l�sted there.)

Judah’s un�que success as compared w�th the other tr�bes has one explanat�on: Yahweh was present “w�th Judah,” allow�ng Judah to take possess�on of the h�ll

Comment


26

country from �ts or�g�nal �nhab�tants. Th�s po�nts back to Josh 6:27 to show that Judah ma�nta�ned the true trad�t�on connected w�th Joshua and po�nts ahead to Judg 1:22. (For the trad�t�on h�story and use of the formula, see H. D. Preuss, TDOT, 1:449–63.) The second half of v 19 has occup�ed and troubled scholars for several reasons. F�rst, �t �nd�cates that the Iron Age (ca. 1200–586 b.c.e.) has begun �n Palest�ne. (See Block, 99–100; P. M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society, JSOTSup 108 [Sheffield: Almond, 1990].)

Second, �t d�st�ngu�shes Israel�te culture from that of �ts ne�ghbors. (See Hack-ett, “There Was No K�ng �n Israel,” 193–207, for d�scuss�on of the cultural change and contrasts.) Th�rd, �t shows m�l�tary advances �n technology as �ron �s used to strengthen the axle and wheel base of the wooden char�ots. Note that R. Drews (JSOT 45 [1989] 15–23) po�nts to a much later date, e�ther to Assyr�an char�ots w�th bronze wheels or to Pers�an char�ots w�th �ron scythes (compare N�d�tch, 42). Fourth, �t ra�ses theolog�cal �ssues. How d�d God’s prom�ses of v�ctory over the nat�ons (Deut 7:1, for example, and more part�cularly Josh 1:3–5) suddenly find l�m�ts? Why was an “obed�ent” Judah unable to carry out v�ctory thoroughly �f God was w�th that tr�be? Super�or weaponry should not be an explanat�on. Scholars make th�s more d�fficult by emend�ng the text to say Judah “could not” (Hebrew lky al). The translat�on above understands the Hebrew to mean “except for,” �nd�cat�ng some vol�t�on on Judah’s part. They apparently chose not to face the settlers �n the valley, be�ng content to rema�n �n the h�ll country. Thus, typ�cal of Israel�te h�story wr�t�ng, no one gets a clean slate. Even the heroes are pa�nted w�th the�r faults clearly show�ng, Dav�d be�ng example number one. Certa�nly Josh 11 and Judg 4–5 show God’s ab�l�ty to defeat enemy char�ots, wh�le Josh 17:16 shows no fear of �ron char�ots.

The Judah�tes face a fabulous opportun�ty to complete Joshua’s task and con-quer the land that rema�ned �n Josh 13. Instead, they qu�t before the task �s done. E�ther they become sat�sfied w�th controll�ng the southern reg�on or they lose the�r courage and fa�th and refuse to go further afield to complete God’s com-mand to conquer the land. They apparently let human ev�dence prevent them from exper�enc�ng more d�v�ne m�racles. Thus, Israel must wa�t unt�l the Judah�te k�ng Dav�d before they can accompl�sh the task.

V 20 at first glance seems superfluous �n v�ew of vv 10–15. Instead, �t plays a v�tal role. Th�s �s the only place �n Judges that cred�ts Israel or a part thereof of obey�ng or fulfill�ng Mosa�c commands. The story of Judah �s rounded off by show�ng that the Judah�tes follow Joshua’s example �n fulfill�ng God’s prom�ses through Moses (see Josh 21:45; compare Judg 3:4).

21 As �nd�cated by the Hebrew d�sjunct�ve clause open�ng v 21, Judah’s example stands �n contrast to Benjam�n, the tr�be of Saul. Judah and Caleb d�splace the g�gant�c �nhab�tants of Hebron, Dav�d’s first cap�tal; but Benjam�n has to rema�n content to l�ve w�th the Jebus�tes �n Jerusalem unt�l Dav�d appears to take over the chosen cap�tal c�ty of Israel. Perhaps Judg 1:8 �nd�cates that Benjam�n could l�ve w�th the Jebus�tes only because of Judah’s first success �n Jerusalem.

22–26 Judah (w�th S�meon) stands �n contrast to the other ten tr�bes, gath-ered together as the �nclus�o created by vv 22 and 35 shows under the name of the “house of Joseph.” Here �s clear �nd�cat�on that the wr�ter of Judges faces a s�tuat�on �n wh�ch the two k�ngdoms strongly oppose one another, each seek�ng

Judges 1:1–36


27

leg�t�m�zat�on of �ts pos�t�on before God and �n the world of pol�t�cs. The launch-�ng po�nt �s Bethel, the major cult�c center of the northern k�ngdom (1 Kgs 12:29, 32–33) w�th strong patr�archal roots (Gen 12:8; 13:3; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1, 3, 6–8, 15–16) but only a subs�d�ary role �n the conquest stor�es �n Joshua (Josh 7:2; 8:9, 12, 17; 12:9, 16). See Introduct�on, “Introduct�on to the Chronology of Judges.” Joshua used �t to descr�be the boundary of the sons of Joseph (16:1–2) but allot-ted �t to Benjam�n (18:13, 22). Judg 1:22–23 represents another �nd�cat�on of the �ron�c l�terary attack on Saul’s tr�be of Benjam�n, who could take ne�ther of the �mportant c�t�es �n the�r terr�tory—Jerusalem and Bethel. N�d�tch cont�nues to fight aga�nst any type of tr�bal polem�c, see�ng s�mply a lesson acknowledg�ng “the way �n wh�ch power and control fluctuate” (43).

Israel asked who should go first and got the answer, “Judah w�ll go up” (Hebrew hloooo[;, vv 1–2), and Judah �nv�ted S�meon to go up (v 3) before Judah went up (v 4). Later the Ken�tes went up w�th Judah (v 16). Here Joseph goes up w�thout d�v�ne oracle but w�th d�v�ne presence. Yet d�v�ne presence �s not suffic�ent for the tr�be of Joseph. They must try human ruse to w�n the battle. They �m�tate the method Joshua used �n attack�ng Jer�cho by seek�ng help from a nat�ve res�dent (see Butler, Joshua, 34). They prom�se to “deal w�th you �n covenant fa�thfulness” (ds,j,). Whereas �n the Jer�cho story th�s resulted �n �ncorporat�ng Rahab �nto the covenant commun�ty, �n Joseph’s case th�s results �n the man from Bethel be�ng set free to go and beg�n a new Luz �n the land of the H�tt�tes, an enemy Israel was supposed to destroy (Deut 7:1), not strengthen. Here Hittites refers to the remnant of the Anatol�an k�ngdom who settled �n Syr�a and gave the�r name, �n at least some c�rcles, to that area.

The c�t�es Joshua allotted the northern tr�bes compos�ng “the house of Joseph” now compr�se c�t�es where Canaan�tes cont�nue to l�ve because the var�ous tr�bes d�d not dr�ve them out. The h�stor�cal �mpl�cat�ons here ra�se many quest�ons �n relat�onsh�p to the book of Joshua. K. L. Younger, Jr., uses Near Eastern parallels to cla�m that the Joshua narrat�ves are bu�lt on the use of hyperbole and thus g�ve “no reason to ma�nta�n that the account �n Josh 9–12 portrays a complete conquest” (Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, JSOTSup 98 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 243, emphas�s or�g�nal). Thus, parallel to Assyr�an and Egypt�an sources, conquest can mean to temporar�ly ga�n possess�on, not to subjugate and colon�ze the ent�re terr�tory. Provan, Long, and Longman clar�fy further �n relat�onsh�p to Joshua’s northern explo�ts (Josh 11):

All the royal c�t�es are captured, along w�th the�r k�ngs, and they are “utterly de-stroyed.” Wh�le th�s language m�ght g�ve Engl�sh readers the �mpress�on that the c�t�es themselves were destroyed, and not just the�r populat�ons, the text �s at pa�ns to clar�fy that Hazor alone was burned (vv 11–14). Thus far, then, only three c�t�es are expl�c�tly sa�d to have been burned �n the tak�ng of the land: Jer�cho (6:24), A� (8:28), and Hazor. (Biblical History, 154)

They thus see that the reports may seem exaggerated but �n one sense may be “qu�te accurate, cla�m�ng only that Joshua ga�ned the upper hand throughout the land as a whole” after long warfare (11:18). Josh 18 showed that the tr�bes had to occupy the�r terr�tory after Joshua’s m�l�tary successes.

The book of Judges thus br�efly notes the fa�lures of the northern tr�bes �n

Comment


28

occupy�ng land they should have held long ago, before Joshua’s death, repeat�ng much of the �nformat�on from the source �n Joshua to underl�ne the northern fa�lures. Manasseh had terr�tor�es east and west of the Jordan. Judges po�nts only to the western s�tes. In the pla�ns and lowlands w�th�n the boundary l�nes of Asher and Issachar (Josh 17:11), the l�sted towns “represent a geograph�cal and populat�on belt reach�ng from the seacoast to the Jordan Valley” (Ra�ney, Sacred Bridge, 135). Apparently the Canaan�te battle strategy aga�nst Israel centered on ma�nta�n�ng control of th�s central terr�tory, espec�ally the Jezreel Valley. Israel won some battles, but unt�l Dav�d’s t�me, they lost the long-term war. Even the un�ted monarchy d�d not exterm�nate the people and r�d the country of the�r �nfluence as Mosa�c law demanded. Instead Israel treated the Canaan�tes as fore�gn �nvad-ers (Deut 20:1–18) and made them laborers on Dav�d’s and espec�ally Solomon’s mass�ve bu�ld�ng projects (2 Sam 20:24; 1 Kgs 9:15–24). Solomon’s treatment of Israel�tes as fore�gners, forc�ng them to corvée eventually led to northern revolt aga�nst Rehoboam (compare 1 Kgs 5:13 [Heb. 5:27]; 12:18). Judges thus sets up the background for the north/south d�spute that eventually leads to d�saster and d�v�s�on.

27–29 Beth-shean was an �mportant c�ty for Egypt�an control of Israel and then for Canaan�te and Ph�l�st�ne forces. It appears somewhat frequently �n Egypt�an texts. It represented the place where the Ph�l�st�nes shamefully treated Saul’s corpse (1 Sam 31:8–10). Located at Tell el-Óußn on the �ntersect�on of the Jordan and Jezreel valleys, �t was a major trade center and also housed �mportant Canaan�te temples. Beth-shean came under Israel�te control only under Dav�d. Thus, as Ra�ney concludes, “Th�s passage �n the first chapter corresponds to the final verse of the book �n procla�m�ng that only under the monarchy was the country organ�zed at last �nto a cohes�ve ent�ty, geograph�cally, adm�n�strat�vely and soc�ally” (Sacred Bridge, 135). Israel needed a un�ted monarchy to be able to control �ts alloted, God-g�ven terr�tory and to subdue the enem�es. (See LaMo�ne F. DeVr�es, “Bethshan C�ty at the Crossroads,” �n Cities of the Biblical World, 156–62.)

Taanach l�es about five m�les (8 km) south of Meg�ddo overlook�ng the Jezreel Valley and w�ll play a role along w�th Meg�ddo �n Deborah’s battles (Judg 5:19). Joshua defeated �ts k�ng (12:21) and set �t as�de for the Lev�tes (21:25). Egypt�an sources often refer to �t, espec�ally �n connect�on w�th Meg�ddo. It �s located at Tell T�>�nn�k or Ta>annek.

Dor l�es on the Med�terranean at Kh�rbet el-Burj, fourteen m�les (22.5 km) south of modern Ha�fa and about n�ne m�les (14.5 km) north of Caesarea. Its k�ng all�ed w�th Hazor (Josh 11:1–2) and met defeat (Josh 12:23). The Egypt�an source descr�b�ng the travels of Wen-Amon about 1100 b.c.e. names �ts k�ng as Beder, k�ng of the S�k�l, one of the Sea Peoples. Excavat�ons show hab�tat�on from about 2000 b.c.e. onward. (See E. Stern, NEAEHL 1:357–68; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 100–106.)

Ibleam stood at Kh�rbet Bel<ameh near modern Jen�n �n the Jezreel Valley on the easternmost pass through the h�ll country of Ephra�m. Bronze Age Egypt�an sources descr�be �t as a royal c�ty. (See L�ndars, 58; M. Hunt, ABD, 3:355; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 106–8.)

Meg�ddo, dat�ng back to Chalcol�th�c t�mes, lay on the great Internat�onal Coastal H�ghway at Tell el-Mutesell�m, where �t veered off the coast �nto the mounta�ns. Meg�ddo controlled the Jezreel Valley and finds frequent ment�on �n Egypt�an sources. Joshua defeated �ts k�ng (Josh 12:21), but Manasseh d�d not control

Judges 1:1–36


29

�t (Josh 17:11). Meg�ddo frequently served as a major battlefield (for example, 2 Kgs 9:27; 23:29–30). It was �mportant for Solomon’s government (1 Kgs 4:12) and defense system (1 Kgs 9:15). See DeVr�es, Cities of the Biblical World, 215–23; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 93–100.

Ephra�m, the other Joseph tr�be, coex�sted w�th Canaan�tes �n Gezer. Gezer’s h�story reaches back to 3500 b.c.e. Its locat�on on Tell Gezer near the Interna-t�onal Coastal H�ghway and on the road connect�ng Jerusalem and the port of Joppa gave �t pol�t�cal and commerc�al �mportance. Egypt�an Bronze Age sources frequently ment�on �t. The Amarna letters apparently pa�nt �t as a rebel c�ty mak-�ng all�ances aga�nst Egypt. Joshua k�lled �ts k�ng (Josh 10:33; 12:12) as he fulfilled h�s treaty obl�gat�ons w�th Lach�sh. Joshua allotted the c�ty to Ephra�m (Josh 16:3) and made �t a Lev�t�cal c�ty (Josh 21:21). Dav�d defeated the Ph�l�st�nes, mak�ng Gezer the new boundary l�ne between the two enem�es (2 Sam 5:22–25), but Israel only controlled the c�ty when the Egypt�an pharaoh made �t a wedd�ng g�ft for h�s daughter’s pol�t�cally arranged marr�age w�th Solomon (1 Kgs 9:15–17). Thus the central northern tr�be that w�ll play a fasc�nat�ng role �n the book of Judges owed possess�on of one of �ts most �mportant defense c�t�es to Solomon. But Ephra�m could not control �ts �mportant border c�ty w�thout Dav�d�c help. Unless one follows the eas�er read�ng of lxx, Judges does not even v�ew Gezer as subject to corvée. Ephra�m s�mply has a fore�gn enclave l�v�ng �n �ts m�dst. See DeVr�es, Cities of the Biblical World, 176–81; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 108–17.

30 Joshua had conquered the central port�on, then the south, and finally the north. Judges loses terr�tory d�rectly from south to central to north. Thus the northern fa�lures cl�max the l�st. Zebulun’s fortune stood connected to the Med�ter-ranean Sea (Gen 49:13; Deut 33:19). Th�s tr�be played a central role under Barak and Deborah (Judg 4:10; 5:14, 18) and, accord�ng to the Chron�cler, �ts people were also �mportant members of Dav�d’s army (1 Chr 12:33). Even later some parts of Zebulun supported K�ng Hezek�ah (2 Chr 20:10–11, 18). Joshua allotted K�tron to Zebulun (Josh 19:15, K�tron and Kattah apparently be�ng var�ant spell�ngs of the same s�te). Its prec�se locat�on �s not known. Gaß (Ortsnamen, 117–19) looks at Tell el-Far, Tell Kerdane, and Kh�rbet Quttene and dec�des on Tell el-Far.

Ra�ney (Sacred Bridge, 135; compare Gaß, Ortsnamen, 119–21) follows rabb�n�c trad�t�on as he �dent�fies Nahalol w�th Mahalul, modern Ma>lul. Ra�ney po�nts to Tell el-Be�da �n the north central sect�on of the Pla�n of Jezreel or Esdraelon as the anc�ent tell. John Peterson (ABD, 4:994–95) follows Albr�ght �n locat�ng �t at Tell en-Nahl, s�x m�les (9.7 km) east of the Med�terranean east of Ha�fa, but th�s l�es outs�de the boundar�es of Zebulun. Joshua allotted �t to Zebulun (Josh 19:15) and made �t a Lev�t�cal c�ty (Josh 21:35). Judges aga�n po�nts to the rule of Dav�d and Solomon before th�s �mportant northern tr�be controlled �ts terr�tory and �nhab�tants.

31–32 Asher’s bless�ng prom�sed royal del�ghts (Gen 49:20; compare Deut 33:24–25), and the tr�be rece�ved fert�le land from Joshua near the Med�terranean coast, �deally reach�ng northward to Tyre and S�don (Josh 19:24–31). Egypt�an documents from Set� I (1294–1279 b.c.e.) and Rameses II (1279–1212 b.c.e.) ap-parently ment�on Asher (Ra�ney, Sacred Bridge, 135). But Asher weakly rema�ned at home wh�le Deborah fought (Judg 5:17). Only under Dav�d and Solomon could Israel control even parts of th�s terr�tory, and Solomon had to cede much of �t to K�ng H�ram of Tyre to get prov�s�ons to bu�ld the temple, but the c�t�es d�d not

Comment


30

please H�ram (1 Kgs 9:10–14). Thus Judges cleverly prepares for another of Israel’s trouble spots. An �mportant h�ghway crosspo�nt, Acco appears only here �n the Old Testament, unless one emends Josh 19:30 to create a reference to Acco. It �s �dent�fied w�th el-Fukhkhar �n modern Acre (Gaß, Ortsnamen, 121–25). It appears frequently �n Bronze Age Egypt�an documents and �n Ugar�t�c texts.

S�don’s gods proved a part�cular temptat�on for Israel (Judg 10:6; compare 1 Kgs 11:5; 2 Kgs 23:13). The c�ty located at modern Saïda was too far from Dan’s new terr�tory to help the people res�st Dan’s onslaught (Judg 18:28), but �t was �ncluded �n Dav�d’s census (2 Sam 24:6). The c�ty’s mercant�le �mportance ap-pears �n strong prophet�c oracles aga�nst �t (Isa 23:2, 4–12; Jer 25:22; 27:3; 47:4; Ezek 27:8; 28:21–22). It jo�ned Tyre, twenty-five m�les (40.2 km) to the south, as the two strongest Phoen�c�an c�t�es. They controlled the Med�terranean sea lanes. The Amarna letters p�cture S�don’s leadersh�p �n oppos�ng Egypt. See Gaß, Ortsnamen, 125–28.

Most scholars locate Ahlab at modern Kh�rbet el-Machal�b, about four m�les (6.4 km) northeast of Tyre, on the bas�s of Sennacher�b’s ment�on of Mah˙alliba �n th�s area and on the read�ng Mahalab from the lxx of Josh 19:29. Gaß (Ortsnamen, 128–29) wants a more southern locat�on and po�nts to Ras el-Abyad but w�thout much support�ng ev�dence.

Achz�b was a Med�terranean port n�ne m�les (14.5 km) north of Acco on the Internat�onal Coastal H�ghway. It �s located at ez-Z�b. (See Gaß, Ortsnamen, 131–32.) Settlement goes back to about 1750 b.c.e. w�th at least two destruct�ons �n the Late Bronze Age. Pottery from the Sea Peoples appears at the end of the Bronze Age. Sennacher�b destroyed �t.

Helbah appears to be a spell�ng var�ant for Ahlab or Mahalab (Josh 19:29). See Melv�n Hunt, ABD, 3:117; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 135–37.

Aph�k or Aphek �s one of several Apheks �n Scr�pture. Th�s one �s apparently located at Tell Kabr�, about three m�les (4.8 km) east of Nahar�ya. See Rafael Frankel, ABD, 1:275–77; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 138–46.

Rehob �s often seen as a Lev�t�cal c�ty on the northern border of Israel. See John L. Peterson and Ram� Aray, ABD, 5:660–61. Gaß (Ortsnamen, 151–54) �dent�fies at least three towns by th�s name and sets the Judges one south of Aphek at Tell B�r el-Garab�, wh�ch controlled entrance to the sea.

Asher fa�led �n �ts occupat�on m�ss�on, hav�ng to l�ve among the Canaan�tes, the or�g�nal occupants of the land. The people of the tr�be of Asher may well have worked as agr�cultural�sts for the Canaan�tes and Phoen�c�ans, who were occup�ed w�th mar�t�me act�v�t�es. See Ra�ney, Sacred Bridge, 135.

33 Naphtal� rece�ves prom�ses of bless�ngs (Gen 49:21; Deut 33:23) and the s�xth land lot d�str�buted by Joshua (Josh 19:32–39). Barak belonged to the tr�be of Naphtal�, and h�s tr�be loyally led the way �nto battle (Judg 4:6, 10; 5:18). Naphtal� also fought for G�deon (6:35; 7:23). Yet th�s �mportant m�l�tary tr�be rece�ves not�ce here only for what they could not accompl�sh. They, l�ke Asher, l�ved among the Canaan�te nat�ves; but at least they finally, perhaps �n the t�me of Dav�d, subjected the troublesome c�t�es to corvée. Much of Naphtal�’s terr�tory was mounta�nous, so Naphtal� settled �n the h�ghlands of Mount Meron.

The lower Canaan�te worsh�p centers of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath, l�terally “House of the Sun” and “House of Anath,” res�sted Israel�te occupancy. Both towns were fort�fied and had dependent v�llages (Josh 19:38). Ne�ther town has been

Judges 1:1–36


31

defin�tely located, though Beth-shemesh may have been Kh�rbet Tell er-Ruwe�s� �n northern Gal�lee w�th Beth-anath at Safed el-Batt�kh. See Ra�ney, Sacred Bridge, 135; Gaß, Ortsnamen, 158–66. Gaß d�fferent�ates three d�st�nct towns called Beth-shemesh, one �n Judah, one �n Naphtal�, and one �n Issachar, but places the town �n Naphtal� at Kh�rbet Tell er-Ruwe�s�.

Gaß (Ortsnamen, 166–69) l�sts seven poss�ble locat�ons for Beth-anath before po�nt�ng to el-B�<ne, almost n�ne m�les (14 km) from Kh�rbet Tell er-Ruwe�s�. Th�s closeness �s a major reason for Gaß’s dec�s�on. Me�r Lubetsk� (ABD, 1:680–81) sees Hîneh and Safed el-Batt�kh as the two poss�b�l�t�es and opts a b�t unsurely for the latter.

34 The tr�be of Dan had the least good fortune of all. Dan appears anachro-n�st�cally �n Gen 14:14 �n connect�on w�th Abraham. A play on �ts name gave Dan the “bless�ng” of ach�ev�ng just�ce but also the reputat�on of be�ng a dangerous snake attack�ng the heels of m�l�tary horses, perhaps a reference to �ts final ab�l�ty to find a home �n the north (Gen 49:16–17). Moses’ bless�ng s�m�larly descr�bes Dan’s strength w�th the �mage of a l�on (Deut 33:22). The w�lderness sanctuary arrangement cred�ts Dan w�th the second h�ghest �ncrement of troops, Judah hav�ng the most (Num 2). Josh 19:40–48 (compare 21:23–24) l�sts the southern coastal c�t�es �n Dan’s �nher�tance but then expla�ns Dan’s fa�lure to settle on the coast as the terr�tory “go�ng out from them,” poss�bly mean�ng that �t “sl�pped through the�r fingers” (D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, NAC 5 [Nashv�lle: Broadman & Holman, 1998] 377, n. 232). Thus they moved north to the�r permanent home. Judges �s most expl�c�t, say�ng the Amor�tes pushed the Dan�tes �nto the h�ll country away from the coastal pla�n. Gu�llaume notes that “Dan �s set �n a geograph�cal and cultural zone d�st�nct from Israel. From every po�nt of v�ew, Dan �s closer to Damascus than to Samar�a” (Waiting for Josiah, 131).

The determ�ned Amor�tes refuse to g�ve up Har-heres, A�jalon, and Shaalb�m. Har-heres represents the mounta�n (Hebrew rh) on the eastern s�de of the A�jalon Valley. A�jalon, a Lev�t�cal c�ty (Josh 21:24), lay on the western end of the Valley of A�jalon guard�ng the trade road from the coast to Jerusalem. Gaß (Ortsnamen, 174) places �t at Yalo. Thus �t became a battle scene (Josh 10:12; 1 Sam 14:31; 1 Chr 8:13; 2 Chr 28:18). Rehoboam fort�fied �t aga�nst Israel (2 Chr 11:10). Shaalb�m appears to l�e at S�lb�t, three m�les (4.8 km) northwest of A�jalon on the western edge of the A�jalon Valley, though Gaß (Ortsnamen, 176–78) ra�ses many quest�ons about the �dent�ficat�on, accept�ng �t s�mply because he has no better alternat�ve.

35 The enem�es suddenly become Amor�tes (Gen 10:16; 14:7; 15:16, 21; 48:22; Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Num 13:29; 21:13, 21, 25–26, 31–32, 34; 22:2; 32:33, 39; Deut 1:4, 7, 19–20, 27, 44; 3:2, 8–9; 4:46–47; 7:1; 20:17; 31:4; Josh 2:10; 3:10; 5:1; 7:7; 9:1, 10; 10:5–6, 12; 11:3; 12:2, 8; 13:4, 10, 21; 24:8, 11–12, 15, 18; Judg 1:34–36; 3:5; 6:10; 10:8, 11; 11:19, 21–23; 1 Sam 7:14; 2 Sam 21:2; 1 Kgs 4:19; 9:20; 21:26; 2 Kgs 21:11; 1 Chr 1:14; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezra 9:1; Pss 135:11; 136:19; Isa 17:9; Jdt 5:15). Mesopotam�an sources from before 2000 b.c.e. refer to Amurru or nomad�c people �nvad�ng from the west. Eventually, the term referred to Syr�a and then to all of Syr�a/Palest�ne. Texts found �n Syr�a show that Amor�tes l�ved �n c�t�es such as Mar� before 2000 b.c.e. and dur�ng the Late Bronze Age ruled a k�ngdom �n the mounta�nous parts of Syr�a. When these peoples entered Palest�ne and the k�ngdoms east of the Jordan �s not certa�n.

The B�ble speaks of v�ctor�es over the Amor�tes east of the Jordan (Num

Comment


32

21:21–35) and west of the Jordan (Josh 10; 11:3; compare Amos 2:9), the latter �nclud�ng Amor�te k�ngs of Jerusalem, Jarmuth, Eglon, Hebron, and Lach�sh. These �nhab�tants of Palest�ne’s h�ll country (Num 13:29) became powerful and �mportant enough to g�ve the�r name to the general populat�on of Palest�ne (Gen 15:16; Josh 24:15; Judg 6:10). Eventually Solomon forced them �nto corvée labor (1 Kgs 9:20–21). See K. N. Schov�lle, “Canaan�tes and Amor�tes,” �n Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Matt�ngly, and E. M. Yamauch� (Grand Rap�ds: Baker, 1994) 157–82; E. C. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine’s Pre-Israelite Peoples, BIBAL D�ssertat�ons Ser�es 3 (N. R�chland H�lls, TX: BIBAL Press,1995) 51–57.

Unexpectedly, we return to the “house of Joseph” �n a l�terary �nclus�o w�th v 22. Joseph, not Judah or Dan, subjects these c�t�es to corvée. Desp�te N�d�tch’s (44) �ns�stence that the end of the chapter does not p�cture “consummate defeat,” the contrast w�th Judah’s lengthy open�ng narrat�ve must �nd�cate a strong d�st�nc-t�on between Judah’s results and those of the northern tr�bes. Why does the l�st of northern fa�lures find such a conclus�on? The structure at least ra�ses some �s-sues. The house of Joseph first went up aga�nst Bethel (v 22). Now they exerc�se a heavy hand on Dan’s terr�tory. Only these two reports dev�ate from the northern fa�lure l�st’s annal�st�c style. From a Judean v�ewpo�nt, Bethel and Dan represent the ev�l of the northern k�ngdom, for they house the shr�nes Jeroboam bu�lt for calf �mages �n oppos�t�on to southern worsh�p �n Jerusalem. Jeroboam was from Ephra�m (1 Kgs 11:26) and was the ch�ef adm�n�strator �n Solomon’s corvée labor ventures “of the house of Joseph” (1 Kgs 11:28). Thus Judges places the house of Joseph, and by �mpl�cat�on Jeroboam, at the center of corvée. By wrapp�ng men-t�ons of the house of Joseph around all the northern tr�be l�st�ngs, the house of Joseph �s extended to �nclude the ent�re northern terr�tory from Bethel to Dan. The corvée labor tact�cs of the house of Joseph stand �n strong contrast to Judah’s reverence for just�ce and obed�ence to God.

36 Iron�cally, the sect�on ends by descr�b�ng the Amor�te borders, not the Israel�te ones. The “Ascent of Akrabb�m” represents the southern edge of Judah’s terr�tory and thus of the prom�sed land (Num 34:4; Josh 15:3). The exact locat�on �s not known, though Gaß (Ortsnamen, 179) wants to place �t at Naqb Safa, a pass lead�ng from the Arabah �nto the Negev. Nor can Sela be located, though Gaß (Ortsnamen, 183–84) would l�ke to put �t at es S�l<. As Webb expla�ns,

By the t�me th�s note �s �ntroduced the focus of the narrat�ve has sh�fted from conquest to co-ex�stence. When the whole process of conquest and settlement has run �ts course, Israel dwells w�th�n “the border of the Amor�tes.” The Amor�tes/Canaan�tes are st�ll “the �nhab�tants of the land” among whom Israel dwells (see espec�ally 32a, 33b). Th�s note prov�des a final sardon�c comment on the chapter as a whole, and on VV. 22–35 �n part�cular. ([1987] 101)

Or as Matthews notes, “The sober real�ty of Israel’s �nab�l�ty to conquer and occupy terr�tor�es beyond the central h�ghlands expla�ns much of the nat�on’s subsequent h�story and fits the archaeolog�cal record. . . . The fa�lures of the settlement per�od contr�buted to the eventual fa�lures of the monarchy” (46–47).

Judges 1:1–36


33

Explanation

Chap. 1 apparently �ntroduces Judges as a chronolog�cal narrat�ve follow�ng d�rectly upon the book of Joshua. The astute reader qu�ckly real�zes that Judg 1 repeats and re�nterprets mater�al from Joshua much more than tak�ng �t forward to a new era. Judg 1 spl�ts the record �nto two major parts, one cover�ng Judah and Benjam�n, the other encompass�ng the northern tr�bes as the house of Joseph. Judah, w�th �ts compatr�ot S�meon, follows the d�v�ne oracle �n tak�ng leadersh�p; prov�des an example of tr�bes work�ng together; del�vers tough retr�but�ve just�ce to the k�ng of Bezek; captures and thus lays cla�m to Jerusalem, the most �mportant c�ty of all; establ�shes control of Hebron, Dav�d’s or�g�nal cap�tal; r�ds the country of the legendary g�ants; fulfills the prom�se to Caleb, the or�g�nal hero among those who sp�ed out the land; g�ves prom�nence to the w�sdom and w�t of Achsah, the first of many women featured �n the book; �ntroduces Othn�el, the first judge; �ncorporates Moses’ clan �nto Judah; obeys God’s commands by devot�ng Hormah to the ban; establ�shes a foothold and precedent of v�ctory among the Ph�l�st�ne c�t�es who would be Dav�d’s ch�ef enem�es; and fulfills Moses’ prom�ses by g�v�ng Hebron to Caleb. Only a lack of technology prevents the�r completely fulfill�ng the�r m�ss�on. Judah could cla�m Jerusalem, because Benjam�n, the r�ghtful owner of the c�ty could not take possess�on of �t.

The story of the northern tr�bes, the house of Joseph, takes an ent�rely d�f-ferent path. Yahweh was w�th the house of Joseph as well as the house of Judah. Joseph d�d not execute or dr�ve out enemy c�t�zens. Rather Joseph made treat�es w�th them �n “covenant fa�thfulness” and allowed them to reestabl�sh themselves �n H�tt�te or Syr�an terr�tory, from wh�ch would come oppos�t�on for Dav�d and Solomon. The first pr�or�ty for the house of Joseph was ga�n�ng Bethel, the s�te of Jeroboam’s heret�cal sanctuary.

Partners �n the house of Joseph d�d not succeed aga�nst the enem�es as had Judah. They could not take possess�on of major c�t�es. Instead, the determ�ned Canaan�tes and Amor�tes deterred them. Rather than �nst�tut�ng the ban, they �nst�tute corvée, wh�ch w�ll become the po�nt of content�on between Rehoboam and Jeroboam. They left Canaan�tes and Amor�tes as res�dents of the land rather than �m�tat�ng Judah �n �ncorporat�ng fam�l�es w�th h�stor�c connect�ons to Israel l�ke the Ken�zz�tes of Caleb and the Ken�tes of Moses. Gradually, the northern tr�bes moved from conquer�ng the Canaan�tes and Amor�tes to corvée�ng them and coex�st�ng w�th them �n a land w�th Amor�te borders.

Judg 1 thus sets the stage for (1) the “per�od of the judges” (3:1–16:31) w�th �ts cont�nued attempts to control the land and �ts cont�nued temptat�ons to be l�ke the nat�ons they l�ved w�th; (2) the total breakdown of the Israel�te coal�t�on, reveal�ng �ts need for a k�ng (Judg 17–21); (3) the d�sputes between Judah and Benjam�n �n the persons of Dav�d and Saul; (4) the establ�shment of the Dav�d�c monarchy first at Hebron and then �n Jerusalem through v�ctory over the Ph�l�st�nes; (5) the d�v�s�on of the monarchy because of the cruel corvée pol�c�es �mplemented by Solomon but carr�ed out �n the house of Dav�d by Jeroboam; and (6) the unend-�ng d�spute over the proper worsh�p places between Jerusalem �n the south and Bethel and Dan �n the north.

Theolog�cally, the open�ng chapter of Judges qu�etly h�nts at the bas�c quest�on of Old Testament and even b�bl�cal theology: who are the people of God? Judg 1

Explanation


Documents

Word Biblical Commentary: Judges