Judges (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament) 9789042940352, 9789042940369, 9042940352

Citation preview

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Judges by Klaas Spronk

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT *** JUDGES

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

Editorial team: Cornelis Houtman (Kampen, The Netherlands) Gert T.M. Prinsloo (Pretoria, South Africa) Klaas Spronk (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Wilfred G.E. Watson (Newcastle, UK) Al Wolters (Mount Hope, Ontario, Canada)

JUDGES

by Klaas Spronk

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2019

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Cover design by Dick Prins. ISBN 978-90-429-4035-2 eISBN 978-90-429-4036-9 D/2019/0602/111 © 2019 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIX

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

§ 1 Name of the book and place within the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . 1.1 The name Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The size of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Judges as part of the Former Prophets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 2 The structure and literary style of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Outline of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Division into pericopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Chiastic, concentric, and dual structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Stylistic elements: the number three, rhyme, wordplay . . . . § 3 The history of the formation of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Indications of sources and redaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The debate about the Deuteronomistic History . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The book of Judges as a prefiguration of Samuel and Kings 3.4 Greek parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 The book of Judges as a late construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 4 The historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 5 The message of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The role of YHWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The messenger of YHWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 YHWH and the leaders of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 6 Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 11 11 14 16 19 22 25 30 30 32 33 37

JUDGES 1:1–36: SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROMISED LAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 45 47 48 52

VI

Contents

JUDGES 2:1-5: THE MESSENGER OF YHWH IN BOCHIM . . . . . . . . .

72

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 72 73 74 75

JUDGES 2:6–3:6: ISRAEL’S IDOLATRY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES .

82

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82 83 84 85 87

JUDGES 3:7–11: OTHNIEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 98 98 100 100

JUDGES 3:12–30: EHUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104 105 106 107 110

JUDGES 3:31: SHAMGAR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120 120 120 121 122

JUDGES 4:1–5:31: DEBORAH, BARAK AND JAEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 129 134 138 144

Contents

VII

JUDGES 6:1–8:32: GIDEON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180 186 189 192 202

JUDGES 8:33–9:57: ABIMELECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251 254 257 258 266

JUDGES 10:1–5: TOLA AND JAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

292

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

292 292 293 293 299

JUDGES 10:6–12:7: JEPHTHAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

304

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

304 308 313 320 325

JUDGES 12:8–15: IBZAN, ELON AND ABDON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

359

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

359 359 360 360 360

JUDGES 13:1–16:31: SAMSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

364

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

364 370 377 383 394

VIII

Contents

JUDGES 17:1–18:31: THE DANITES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

451

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

451 454 456 458 464

JUDGES 19:1–21:25: THE BENJAMINITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

485

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

485 492 495 500 505

APPENDIX – The Pericopes within the Book of Judges According to

MT and LXX Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

542

THE HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. . . . .

547

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Published Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projected Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

547 549 550

PREFACE

The book of Judges is popular among story tellers, not among theologians. Even in theologies of the Old Testament it is hardly mentioned. It does not seem to present a clear picture of the God of the Israelite tribes and what we can learn about YHWH does not look very attractive, because of the association with ethnic violence and atrocities committed on mostly voiceless women. Scholars researching the literary sources of the early history of Israel have found in the book of Judges their own battle field. The fight with often very different weapons (methods) rages fiercely and the idea that it was won by Noth’s theory of the Deuteronomistic History is long past. New frontiers have been opened. This commentary presents a new approach to the old problems of the dating of the book of Judges and the reconstruction of the way different sources were used. It wants to show that the book of Judges can be read as the work of one literary talented author living in the early Hellenistic period. With materials from different sources he wrote his book as introduction to the history of the kings of Israel as can be found in the books of Samuel and Kings with a clear view on leadership and on the relation between the leader and YHWH. The redaction of the HCOT did me the honour of asking me to take over the task from Johannes de Moor of writing this commentary more than twenty years ago. Since then many excellent commentaries and monographs on the book of Judges have been published. I saw it as my task to take “historical” in the name of the series serious in more than one way. Next to the reconstruction of the historical background of the book and its author, I also wanted to pay due attention to the history of interpretation, from the earliest retellings to the newest interpretations. This has resulted in long bibliographies and many overviews. I hope this will serve the ongoing study of the (even after two decades of research for me still) fascinating book of Judges. I thank the Protestant Theological University and its librarians for their support and Robert Allan for correcting the English. Amsterdam, Easter 2019

Klaas Spronk

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD ACEBT ACEBTSup ADPV AfO AHw AJSL AnBib ANEP ANET AnOr AOAT ARM ArOr ARTU ARW ASTI ASV ATD AThANT ATSAT Aug AuS AUSS AV BA BARev BASOR BAT BBB BBR BC BDB BDBAT BeO BetM BETL BHHW

The Anchor Bible TheAnchorBibleDictionary AmsterdamseCahiersvoorExegesevandeBijbelenzijntradities Amsterdamse Cahiers Supplement Series Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Archiv für Orientforschung W. von Soden, AkkadischesHandwörterbuch, Wiesbaden 1965, 1972, 1981 AmericanJournalofSemiticLanguagesandLiteratures Analecta Biblica TheAncientNearEastinPicturesRelatingtotheOldTestament, ed. J. B. Pritchard Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard Analecta Orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archives royales de Mari ArchivOrientální J. C. de Moor, AnAnthologyofReligiousTextsfromUgarit, Leiden 1987 ArchivfürReligionswissenschaft AnnualoftheSwedishTheologicalInstitute American Standard Version Das Alte Testament Deutsch Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Augustinianum G. Dalman, ArbeitundSitteinPalästina, I–VII, Gütersloh 1928–42 AndrewsUniversitySeminaryStudies Authorized Version (King James Version) TheBiblicalArchaeologist BiblicalArchaeologyReview BulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments Bonner Biblische Beiträge BulletinforBiblicalResearch Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament (Keil & Delitzsch) F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Brigges, AHebrewandEnglishLexicon oftheOldTestament, corrected impression, Oxford 1952 Beihefte zu den Dielheimer Blättern zum Alten Testament BibliaeOriente BethMikra Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblisch-historischesHandwörterbuch, ed. B. Reicke and L. Rost

XII BHK BHQ BHS Bib BibInt BiLe BiOr BIOSCS BiTr BJRL BK BN BO BOT BR BRL2 BS BTB BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CAD CAT CBCNEB CBET CBR CBSC CBQ CCL CeB Coll ConB CoS COT CTA CTJ CV DB DBAT DBS DDD DISO DJD

Abbreviations BibliaHebraica, ed. R. Kittel Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Judges prepared by N. Fernández Marcos, 2011) BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia(Judges prepared by R. Meyer, 1972) Biblica BiblicalInterpretation BibelundLeben BibliothecaOrientalis BulletinoftheInternationalOrganizationforSeptuagintandCognate Studies BibleTranslator BulletinoftheJohnRylandsLibrary Biblischer Kommentar BiblischeNotizen Bibliotheca orientalis De Boeken van het Oude Testament BiblicalResearch BiblischesReallexikon, ed. K. Galling, Tübingen 19772 BibliothecaSacra BiblicalTheologyBulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BiblischeZeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft TheAssyrianDictionaryoftheOrientalInstituteoftheUniversityof Chicago Commentaire de L’Ancien Testament The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CurrentsinBiblicalResearch Cambridge-Bible for Schools and Colleges CatholicBiblicalQuarterly Corpus Christianorum Series Latina The Century Bible Collationes Coniectanea Biblica W.W. Hallo (ed.), TheContextofScripture, Leiden 2003 Commentaar op het Oude Testament A. Herdner, CorpusdestablettesencunéiformesalphabétiquesdécouvertesàRasShamra-Ugaritde1929à1939, Paris 1963 CalvinTheologicalJournal CommunioViatorum DictionaryoftheBible, ed. J. Hastings DielheimerBlätterzumAltenTestament DictionairedelaBible, Supplément K. van der Toorn etal. (eds), DictionaryofDeitiesandDemons, 2nd edition, Leiden 1999 C. F. Jean, J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnairedesinscriptionssémitiquesdel’Ouest, Leiden 1965 DiscoveriesintheJudaeanDesert

Abbreviations DSD EBC EBR EchB EH EJ EJJS ERE ErIs EstBib ET EThL EvQ EvTh FAT FJB FO FOTL FRLANT Fs FzB GELS Ges.18  Ges-B Ges-K GKC GThT HAL HAR HAT HBM HBS HBT HCOT HdO HeBAI Hen HK HR HSAT HSM HSS HThKAT HThR

XIII

DeadSeaDiscoveries Expositor’sBibleCommentary EncyclopediaoftheBibleandItsReception Echter-Bibel Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament EncyclopaediaJudaica,2nd ed., 2007 EuropeanJournalofJewishStudies EncyclopaediaofReligionandEthics Eretz-Israel EstudiosBíblicos ExpositoryTimes EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses TheEvangelicalQuarterly EvangelischeTheologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament FrankfurterJudaistischeBeiträge FoliaOrientalia The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Forschungen zur Bibel T. Muraoka, A Greek - English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvain 2009 Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch überdasAlteTestament, 18th ed., ed. R. Meyer and H. Donner, Berlin 1987– W. Gesenius, F. Buhl, HebräischesundaramäischesHandwörterbuch überdasAlteTestament, Leipzig 192117 W. Gesenius, E. Kautzsch, HebräischeGrammatik, Leipzig 190928 Gesenius’HebrewGrammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley, 2d ed., Oxford 1910 GereformeerdTheologischTijdschrift W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum AltenTestament, Leiden 1967–1995 HebrewAnnualReview Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Monographs HerdersbiblischeStudien HorizonsinBiblicalTheology Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik HebrewBibleandAncientIsrael Henoch Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HistoryofReligions Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HarvardTheologicalReview

XIV HTS HUCA IB ICC IDB(S) IEJ Int JAAR JAJ JANES JAOS JBC JBL JBQ JBR JCS JE JEA JEOL JESOT JETS JHS JISJ JJS JM JNES JNSL JOTT JPOS JPS JQR JSem JSJ JSJSup JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSS JThS Jud KAI KAT KBL KEH KHC

Abbreviations HervormdeTeologieseStudies HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual The Interpreter’s Bible The International Critical Commentary TheInterpreter’sDictionaryoftheBible(SupplementaryVolume) IsraelExplorationJournal Interpretation JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion JournalofAncientJudaism JournaloftheAncientNearEasternSocietyofColumbiaUniversity JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety Jerome Biblical Commentary JournalofBiblicalLiterature JewishBibleQuarterly JournalofBibleandReligion JournalofCuneiformStudies TheJewishEncyclopedia JournalofEgyptianArchaeology JaarberichtvanhetVooraziatisch-EgyptischGenootschapExOriente Lux JournalfortheEvangelicalStudyoftheOldTestament JournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety JournalofHebrewScriptures(online at: http://www.jhsonline.org/) JewishStudies,anInternetJournal JournalofJewishStudies P. Joüon, A grammar of Biblical Hebrew; translated and revised by T. Muraoka, Rome 1991. JournalofNearEasternStudies JournalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages JournalofTranslationandTextlinguistics JournalofthePalestineOrientalSociety Jewish Publication Society JewishQuarterlyReview JournalforSemitics JournalfortheStudyofJudaism Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JournalfortheStudyofthePseudepigrapha JournalofSemiticStudies JournalofTheologicalStudies Judaica H. Donner, W. Röllig, KanaanäischeundaramäischeInschriften, I–III, Wiesbaden 1966–69 Kommentar zum Alten Testament L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden 1953 Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

Abbreviations KJV KP KS KTU KuD LA LÄ LHB/OTS LThK MGWJ MIOF MNAW.L MNDPV MT MTZ NAB NAC NASV NCBC NCeB(C) NEA NEB NEchB NedThT NGTT NICOT NIV NJPS NRTh NT NTS OBO ÖBS OLZ Or OrAnt OrChrP OTE OTL OTP OTS OTWSAP PEQ PRU PG PJ(B) PL POT

XV

Authorised King James Version DerkleinePauly:LexikonderAntike, ed. K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer KleineSchriften M. Dietrich et al. (eds), Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976 KerygmaundDogma LiberAnnuusStudiumBiblicumFranciscanum LexikonderÄgyptologie Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Series LexikonfürTheologieundKirche MonatsschriftfürGeschichteundWissenschaftdesJudentums MitteilungendesInstitutsfürOrientforschung Mededelingen der Kon. Ned. Adademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeling Letterkunde Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Masoretic Text MünchenertheologischeZeitschrift New American Bible The New American Commentary New American Standard Version New Cambridge Bible Commentary New Century Bible (Commentary) NearEasternArchaeology (formerly“BA”) The New English Bible Die Neue Echter Bibel NederlandsTheologischTijdschrift NederduitsGereformeerdeTeologieseTydskrif The New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Version The New Jewish Publication Society of America NouvelleRevueThéologique NovumTestamentum NewTestamentStudies Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische Biblische Studien OrientalistischeLiteraturzeitung Orientalia OriensAntiquus OrientaliaChristianaPeriodica OldTestamentEssays Old Testament Library TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth OudtestamentischeStudiën PapersreadatdieOu-testamentieseWerkgemeenskapinSuid-Afrika PalestineExplorationQuarterly LePalaisroyald’Ugarit J. P. Migne, Patrologiaecursuscompletus.SeriesGraeca Palästinajahrbuch J. P. Migne, Patrologiaecursuscompletus.SeriesLatina De Prediking van het Oude Testament

XVI PW Qad RA RAC RB RBL RdQ RE REJ RGG RHPhR RHR RIDA RLA RSP RSR RSV RThL RThPh SAT SBAB SBBS SBJ SBLDS SBLSymS SBOT SBPC SBS SeE ScrHie SEÅ Sem SJOT SJTh SOTSMS SR SSN Str-B StTh SVT SVTP TBC TE TeT TeU THAT ThBN

Abbreviations Pauly-Wissowa, RealencyclopädiederklassischenAltertumswissenschaft Qadmoniot Revued’Assyriologieetd’ArchéologieOrientale ReallexikonfürAntikeundChristentum RevueBiblique ReviewofBiblicalLiterature RevuedeQumrân RealencyclopädiefürprotestantischeTheologieundKirche RevuedesÉtudesJuives DieReligioninGeschichteundGegenwart Revued’HistoireetdePhilosophieReligieuses Revuedel’HistoiredesReligions RevueInternationaledesDroitsdel’Antiquité ReallexikonderAssyriologie RasShamraParallels RecherchesdeScienceReligieuse Revised Standard Version RevueThéogiquedeLouvain RevuedeThéologieetdePhilosophie Die Schriften des Alten Testaments (Gunkel & Greßmann) Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände The Soncino Books of the Bible La Sainte Bible traduite en français sous la direction de l’École Biblique de Jérusalem SBL Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series The Sacred Books of the Old Testament La Sainte Bible, Paris (Pirot & Clamer) Stuttgarter Bibelstudien ScienceetEsprit Scripta Hierosolymitana SvenskExegetiskÅrsbok Semitica ScandinavianJournaloftheOldTestament ScottischJournalofTheology Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series StudiesinReligion Studia Semitica Neerlandica H. L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, KommentarzumNeuenTestamentausTalmud undMidrasch, I–IV, München 1922–28 StudiaTheologica Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphia Torch Bible Commentaries TheologicaEvangelica Tekst en Toelichting Tekst en Uitleg TheologischesHandwörterbuchzumAltenTestament, ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann Themes in Biblical Narrative

Abbreviations ThGl ThLZ ThQ ThWAT ThZ TQ Transeu TRE ThR TOTC TS TSSI TT TThZ TUAT TvT TynB UF VeE VF VT WBC WC WMANT WThJ WO W&W ZÄS ZA ZABR ZAH ZAW ZBK ZDMG ZDPV ZKTh ZNW ZRGG ZS ZThK

XVII

TheologieundGlaube TheologischeLiteraturzeitung TheologischeQuartalschrift TheologischesWörterbuchzumAltenTestament, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren TheologischeZeitschrift TheologischeQuartalschrift Transeuphratène TheologischeRealenzyklopädie TheologischeRundschau Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TheologicalStudies J. C. Gibson, TextbookofSyrianSemiticInscriptions, I, II, III, Oxford, 1971, 1975, 1982 TheologischTijdschrift TriererTheologischeZeitschrift TexteausderUmweltdesAltenTestaments TijdschriftvoorTheologie TyndaleBulletin Ugarit-Forschungen VerbumetEcclesia VerkündigungundForschung VetusTestamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Commentaries Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WestminsterTheologicalJournal DieWeltdesOrients Word&World ZeitschriftfürägyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde ZeitschriftfürAssyriologie ZeitschriftfüraltorientalischeundbiblischeRechtsgeschichte ZeitschriftfürAlthebraistik ZeitschriftfürdiealttestamentlicheWissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare ZeitschriftderdeutschenmorgenländischenGesellschaft ZeitschriftdesdeutschenPalästina-Vereins ZeitschriftfürkatholischeTheologie ZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft ZeitschriftfürReligions-undGeistesgeischichte ZeitschriftfürSemitistik ZeitschriftfürTheologieundKirche

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The attempt to give an exhaustive bibliography of the scholarly literature on the book of Judges is not only for the author an unrewarding because impossible task, its imperfect outcome would also result in a discouraging long list with too much to read for anyone taking up the study of this book. The following bibliography contains only those works that were relevant in writing the present commentary. More literature can be found in previous surveys (Bartelmus 1991, Spronk 2001, Veijola 2002, Craig 2003, Frolov 2013, and Murphy 2017), in the very extensive bibliographies by Groß (2009, 17–74) and Sasson (2014, 35–94) and with regard to the history of interpretation by Gunn (2005). Works listed here in the main bibliography are not repeated in the additional bibliographies that are included with the respective sections of the commentary. COMMENTARIES ON JUDGES Auld, A.G. Joshua,JudgesandRuth(Daily Study Bible), Philadelphia 1984. Bertheau, E. BuchderRichterundRut(KEH 6), Leipzig 1845. Biddle, M.E. Judges:ALiteraryandTheologicalCommentary, Macon 2012. Block, D.I. Judges,Ruth(NAC 6), Nashville 1999. Boda, M.J. Judges(Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition), Grand Rapids 2012. Boling, R.G. Judges.Introduction,TranslationandCommentary (AB 6A), New York 1975. Branson, R.D. Judges: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), Kansas City 2009. Breuer, R. DasBuchderRichter, Frankfurt am Main 1922. Brettler, M.Z. TheBookofJudges (Old Testament Readings), London 2002. Brown, C.A. “Judges”, in: J.G. Harris etal., Joshua,Judges,Ruth (New International Biblical Commentary. Old Testament Series 5), Peabody 2000, 123–289. Budde, K. DieBücherRichterundSamuel.IhreQuellenundihrAufbau, Giessen 1890. Burney, C.F. TheBookofJudgeswithIntroductionandNotes, 2nd edition, London 1920. Butler, T.C. Judges (WBC), Nashville 2009. Cassel, P. The Book of Judges (translated from the German, with Additions by P.H.Steenstra), New York 1871. Chisholm Jr., R.B. ACommentaryonJudgesandRuth (Kregel Exegetical Library), Grand Rapids 2013. Cundall, A.E. Judges.AnIntroductionandCommentary(TOTC), Downers Grover 1968. Davis, D.R. Judges.SuchaGreatSalvation, Grand Rapids 1990. Dirksen, P.B. Richteren.EenpraktischeBijbelverklaring (TeT), Kampen 1990. Evans, M.J. JudgesandRuth(TOTC), Downers Grove 2017 Faley, R.J. Joshua, Judges (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), Collegeville 2011.

XX

Bibliography

Franke, J.R. Joshua,Judges,Ruth,1–2Samuel (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), Downers Grove 2005. Fraine, J. de Rechters (BOT), Roermond 1955. Frolov, S. Judges (FOTL), Grand Rapids 2013. Fruchtenbaum, A.G. The Books of Judges and Ruth (Ariel’s Bible Commentary), San Antonio 2007. Görg, M. Richter(NEchB AT 31), Würzburg 1993. Gorospe, A.E. and C. Ringma, Judges.APastoralandContextualCommentary (Asia Bible Commentary Series), Carlisle 2016. Goslinga, C.J. HetboekderRichteren (KVHS), Kampen 1933–1938 (ET: Joshua, Judges,Ruth, Grand Rapids 1968). Gray, J. Joshua,JudgesandRuth(NCeBC), Grand Rapids 1986. Greßmann, H. DieAnfängeIsraels:Von2.MosebisRichterundRuth (SAT 1.2), Göttingen 1922. Groß, W. Richterübersetztundausgelegt, mit Karten von Erasmus Gaß (HThKAT), Freiburg 2009. Guest, P.D. “Judges”, in: J.D.G. Dunn, J.W. Rogerson (eds), EerdmansCommentary ontheBible, Grand Rapids 2003, 190–207. Gunn, D. Judges (Blackwell Bible Commentaries), Malden 2005. Gutbrod, K. DasBuchvomLandeGottes.JosuaundRichter(BAT 10), Stuttgart 1951. Hertzberg, H.W., DieBücherJosua,Richter,Ruth(ATD 9), Göttingen 1953. Holwerda, B. JozuaenRichteren.Seminarie-Dictaat, Kampen 1971. Keil, C.F. BiblischerCommentarüberdieprophetischenGeschichtsbücherdesAlten Testaments.Band1Josua,RichterundRuth(BC II/1), Leipzig 2nd ed. 1874. Knauf, E.A. Richter (ZBK), Zürich 2016. Lagrange, M.-J. LelivredesJuges, Paris 1903. Le Roux, M. Richteren(POT), Utrecht 2018. Lindars, B. Judges1–5.ANewTranslationandCommentary, Edinburgh 1995. Matthews, V.H. JudgesandRuth (NCBC), Cambridge 2004. McCann, J.C. Judges (Interpretation), Louisville 2002. Moore, G.F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC), Edinburgh 1895. Naastepad, Th.J.M. Enhetlandwasinrust…UitlegvanhetbijbelboekRichteren, Gorinchem 2007. Nelson, R.D., Judges.ACritical&RhetoricalCommentary, London 2017. Niditch, S. Judges:ACommentary (OTL), Louisville 2008. Nötscher, F. “Das Buch der Richter”, EchB I, Würzburg 1950, 623–704. Nowack, W. Richter,RuthundBücherSamuelis (HK I/4), Göttingen 1902. Rosenberg A.J. (ed.), Judges:ANewEnglishTranslation(Miqra’ot gedolot), New York 1987. Ryan, R. Judges (Readings), Sheffield 2007. Sasson, J.M. Judges1-12 (The Anchor Yale Bible 6D), New Haven 2014. Schneider, T.J. Judges (Berit Olam), Collegeville 2000. Schulz, A. DasBuchderRichterunddasBuchRuth(HSAT II/4–5), Bonn 1926. Soggin, J.A. Judges.ACommentary(OTL 7), London 1981. Spronk, K. Rechters (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Utrecht 2017. Stone, L.G. “Judges”, in: J. Coleson, L.G. Stone, J. Driesbach, CornerstoneBiblical Commentary:Joshua,Judges,Ruth, Carol Stream 2012, 185–493. Studer, G.L. DasBuchderRichtergrammatischundhistorischerklärt, Bern 1835.

Bibliography

XXI

Tidiman, B. Lelivredesjuges (Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible), Vaux-surSeines 2004. Way, K. JudgesandRuth (Teach the Text), Grand Rapids 2016. Webb, B.G. TheBookofJudges (NICOT), Grand Rapids 2012. Wood, L. DistressingDaysoftheJudges, Grand Rapids 1975. Younger Jr., K.L. JudgesandRuth (NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids 2001. Zapletal, V. DasBuchderRichter(EH VII/1), Münster 1923. ADDITIONAL LITERATURE Abadie, Ph. Deshérospeuordinaires:ThéologieethistoiredanslelivredesJuges, Paris 2011. Abma, H. Profetieenpoëzie:VerhalenuithetboekRichteren, Kampen 1989. Ackerman, S. Warrior,Dancer,Seductress,Queen:WomeninJudgesandBiblical Israel (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York 1998. — “Digging Up Deborah: Recent Hebrew Bible Scholarship on Gender and the Contribution of Archaeology”, NEA 66 (2003), 172–197. Alonso Schökel, L. “Erzählkunst im Buch der Richter”, Bib 42 (1961), 143–172. Alter, R. AncientIsrael:TheFormerProphets:Joshua,Judges,Samuel,andKings, New York 2013. Amit, Y. TheBookofJudges:TheArtofEditing, Leiden 1999. — “Endings–Especially Reversal Endings”, Scriptura 87 (2004), 213–226. — “The Book of Judges: Dating and Meaning”, in: G. Galil etal. (eds), HomelandandExile:BiblicalandNearEasternStudies(Fs Oded, SVT 130), Leiden 2009a, 297–322. — “The Book of Judges: Fruit of 100 Years of Creativity”, in: R.F. Person, “In Conversation with Thomas Römer, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory”, JHS9 (2009b), article 17, 28–35. — “Who Was Interested in Judges in the Persian Period?”, in: D.V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books, Atlanta 2014, 103–114. Andersson, G. TheBookanditsNarratives:ACriticalExaminationofSomeSynchronicStudiesoftheBookofJudges, Örebro 2001. — “A Narratologist’s Critical Reflections on Synchronic Studies of the Bible: A Response to Gregory T. K. Wong”, SJOT 21 (2007), 261–274 [the name of the author is spelled here as “Andersen”, in the title, and as “Anderson”, in the header]. Assis, E. Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon,AbimelechandJephthahNarratives(Judg6–12) (SVT 106), Leiden 2005. Auld, G. “The Deuteronomists between History and Theology”, in: A. Lemaire, M. Saebø (eds), CongressVolumeOslo1998(SVT 80), Leiden 2000, 353– 367. Ausloos H. “Textual History of Judges”, in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds), TextualHistoryoftheHebrewBibleVolume1B, Leiden 2016, 277–281. — and B. Lemmelijn, “Characterizing the LXX Translation of Judges on the Basis of Content-Related Criteria”, in: H. Ausloos etal. (eds), AfterQumran:Old andModernEditionsoftheBiblicalTexts:TheHistoricalBooks, Leuven 2012, 171–192.

XXII

Bibliography

Avioz, M. “On the Origin of the Term Nevi’im Rishonim” (Hebrew), JISJ 8 (2009), 1-7. Baker, R. HollowMen,StrangeWomen:Riddles,CodesandOthernessintheBook ofJudges (Biblical Interpretation Series 143), Leiden 2016. Bal, M. Death&Dissymmetry:ThePoliticsofCoherenceintheBookofJudges, Chicago 1988. Bartelmus, R. “Forschung am Richterbuch seit Martin Noth”, ThR56 (1991), 221– 259. Barthélemy, D. Critiquetextuelledel’ancienttestament.1.Josué,Juges,Ruth,Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO 50/1), Fribourg / Göttingen 1982. Bartusch, M.W. UnderstandingDan:AnExegeticalStudyofaBiblicalCity,Tribe andAncestor (JSOTSup 379), Sheffield 2003. Becker, U. RichterzeitundKönigtum.RedaktionsgeschichtlicheStudienzumRichterbuch (BZAW 192), Berlin 1990. — “The Place of the Book of Judges in the So-Called Deuteronomistic History: Some Remarks on Recent Research”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 339–351. Begg, C. FlaviusJosephus.JudeanAntiquitiesBooks5–7, Leiden 2005. Bekkum, K. van “Coexistence as Guilt. Iron I Memories in Judges 1”, in: G. Galil etal. (eds), TheAncientNearEastinthe12th-10thCenturiesBCE:Culture andHistory(AOAT 392), Münster 2012, 507–530. Beldman, D.J.H. DesertingtheKing:TheBookofJudges, Bellingham 2017. Berner, C. and H. Samuel (eds), Books-SeamsintheHexateuchI:TheLiteraryTransitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (FAT 120), Tübingen 2018. Beyerlin, W. “Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch”, in: E. Würthwein, O. Kaiser (eds), TraditionundSituation.StudienzuralttestamentlichenProphetie (Fs Weiser), Göttingen 1963, 1–29. Bloch-Smith, E. and B. Alpert-Nakhai, “A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron I Period”, NEA 62 (1999), 62–127. — “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What is Remembered and what is Forgotten in Israels History”, JBL 122 (2003), 401–425. Blok, H. etal., Geenkoningindiedagen:overhetboekRichterenalsprofetische geschiedschrijving, Baarn 1982. — Richteren:HebreeuwsetekstenNederlandsevertaling (Vertaling om voor te lezen), Haarlem 2001. Bodine, W.R. TheGreekTextofJudges (HSM 23), Ann Arbor 1980. Brenner, A. (ed.), AFeministCompaniontoJudges, Sheffield 1993. — Judges.AFeministCompaniontotheBible(SecondSeries), Sheffield 1999. — etal. (eds), JoshuaandJudges (Texts @ Contexts), Minneapolis 2013. Brettler, M.Z. “The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics”, JBL 108 (1989), 395418. Brodie, T.L. TheBirthingoftheNewTestament.TheIntertextualDevelopmentof theNewTestamentWritings, Sheffield 2004. Brooke, A.E. and McLean, M. TheBookofJudgesinGreekAccordingtotheText ofCodexAlexandrinus, Cambridge 1897. Brown, J.P. IsraelandHellas, vol. 1–3, Berlin 1995, 2000, 2001. Buber, M. KönigtumGottes, Berlin 1932. Butter, P. den Richteren.Trouwtegenoverontrouw, Amsterdam 2008.

Bibliography

XXIII

Campbell, A.F. and M.A. O’Brien, UnfoldingtheDeuteronomisticHistory.Origins, Upgrade,PresentText, Minneapolis 2000. Carr, D. TheFormationoftheHebrewBible.ANewReconstruction, Oxford 2011. Castelbajac, I. de “Les juges d’Israël: une invention du Deutéronomiste?”, RHR 221 (2004), 83–97. Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.) TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha.Volume2, Garden City 1985. Chisholm, R.B. “The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to Solving a Pesky Problem”, JETS 52 (2009), 247–255. Cooper, B. TheAuthenticityoftheBookofJudges, 2015. Craig, K.M. “Judges in Recent Research”, CBR 1 (2003), 159–185. Crüsemann, F. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978. Davidson, E.T.A. Intricacy,Design,andCunningintheBookofJudges, Bloomington 2008. Dietrich, W. “History and Law: Deuteronomistic Historiography and Deuteronomic Law Exemplified in the Passage from the Period of the Judges to the Monarchic Period”, in: A. de Pury etal. (eds), IsraelConstructsitsHistory.Deuterenomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306), Sheffield 2000, 315– 342. — Samuel.Teilband1.1Sam.1–12(BK VIII/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2010. Dillery, J. Clio’sOtherSons.Berossus&ManethowithanAfterwordonDemetrius, Ann Arbor 2015. Dogniez, C. “Judges: Septuagint”, in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds), TextualHistoryof theHebrewBibleVolume1B, Leiden 2016, 294–300. Dragga, S. “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul”, JSOT 38 (1987), 39– 46. Driver, G.R. “Problems in Judges Newly Discussed”, TheAnnualofLeedsUniversityOrientalSociety 4 (1962–1963), 6–25. Dus, J “Die ‘Sufeten Israels’”, ArOr 31 (1963), 444–469. Dyk, J. (ed.), “Richteren”, ACEBT 19 (2001). Edenburg, C. “Envelopes and Seams: How Judges Fits (or not) within the Deuteronomistic History”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 353–369. Eissfeldt, O. DieQuellendesRichterbuches, Leipzig 1925. — EinleitungindasAlteTestament, 3. Auflage, Tübingen 1964. Exum, J.C. “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges”, CBQ 52 (1990), 410–431. Faust, A. “The Emergence of Israel and Theories of Ethnogenesis”, in: S. Niditch (ed.), TheWileyBlackwellCompaniontoAncientIsrael, Chichester 2016, 155– 173. Feldman, A. “The Book of Judges in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in: G.J. Brooke, A. Feldman (eds), On Prophets, Warriors,andKings:FormerProphetsthroughtheEyesofTheirInterpreters (BZAW 470), Berlin 2016, 77–94; Feldman, L.H. StudiesinJosephus’RewrittenBible, Leiden 1998. Fensham, F.C. “Literary observations on historical narratives in sections of Judges”, in: S. Moscati (ed.), StoriaetradizionidiIsraele:scrittiinonorediJAlberto Soggin, Brescia 1991, 77–88.

XXIV

Bibliography

Fernández Marcos, N. “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges”, in: A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the MasoreticTextandtheHebrewBaseoftheSeptuagintReconsidered, Atlanta 2003, 1–16. — “L’histoire textuelle: les livres historiques (Juges)”, in: A. Schenker, Ph. Hugo (eds), L’enfancedelaBiblehebraique.L’histoiredutextdel”AncientTestamentàlalumièredesrechercesrécentes, Genève 2005, 148–169. — “The Genuine Text of Judges”, in: Y.A.P. Goldman etal. (eds), SôferMahîr (Fs Schenker, SVT 110), Leiden 2006, 33–45. — ‫ שפטים‬Judges (BHQ 7), Stuttgart 2011. — “The B-Text of Judges: kaige Revision and Beyond”, in: H. Ausloos etal. (eds), AfterQumran:OldandModernEditionsoftheBiblicalTexts–TheHistorical Books, Leuven 2012, 161–169. Finkelstein, I. “When and How Did the Israelites Emerge?”, in: B.B. Schmidt (ed.), TheQuestfortheHistoricalIsrael:DebatingArchaelogyandtheHistoryof Israel, Leiden 2007, 73–83. — “Major Saviors, Minor Judges: The Historical Background of the Northern Accounts in the Book of Judges”, JSOT41 (2017a), 431–449. — “What the Biblical Authors Knew about Canaan before and in the Early Days of the Hebrew Kingdoms”, UF48 (2017b), 173–198. Flesher, P.V.M. “Looking for the Israelites: The Evidence of the Biblical Text”, in: J. Ebeling etal. (eds), TheOldTestamentinArchaeologyandHistory, Waco 2017, 299–316. Focken, F.–E. ZwischenLandnahmeundKönigtum.LiterarkritischeundredaktionskritischeUntersuchungenzumAnfangundEndederdeuteronomistischenRichtererzählungen(FRLANT 258), Göttingen 2014. Fox, E. The Early Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (The Schocken Bible II), New York 2014. Fritz, V. DieEntstehungIsraelsim12.und11.Jahrhundertv.Chr.(Biblische Enzyklopädie 2), Stuttgart 1996 (unchanged English translation by J.W. Barker: TheEmergenceofIsraelintheTwelfthandEleventhCenturiesB.C.E., Atlanta 2011). Frolov, S. “Rethinking Judges”, CBQ 71 (2009), 25–41. — “Sleeping with the Enemy: Recent Scholarship on Sexuality in the Book of Judges”, CBR 11 (2013), 308–327. — “Dismembering Judges”, HebrewStudies 57 (2016a), 423–437. — “The Rings of the Lord. Assessing Symmetric Structuring in Numbers and Judges”, VT 66 (2016b), 15–44. Garsiel, M. BiblicalNames:ALiteraryStudyofMidrashicDerivationsandPuns, Ramat Gan 1991. Gaß, E. DieOrtsnamendesRichterbuchsinhistorischerundredaktionellerPerspektive(ADPV 35), Wiesbaden 2005. — “Simson und die Philister: Historische und archäologische Rückfragen”, RB 114 (2007), 372-402. Gaster, T.H. Myth,LegendandCustomintheOldTestament, New York 1969. Gillmayr-Bucher, S. Erzählte Welten im Richterbuch (Biblical Interpretation Series 116) Leiden 2013. — “Memories Laid to Rest: The Book of Judges in the Persian Period”, in: D.V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy-Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books, Atlanta 2014, 115–132.

Bibliography

XXV

Ginzberg, L. LegendsoftheJews, Philadelphia 2003. Globe, A. “ ‘Enemies Round About’: Disintegrative Structure in the Book of Judges”, in: V.J. Tollers, J. Maier (eds), MappingsoftheBiblicalTerrain:TheBibleas Text, Lewisburg, 1990, 233–251. Gooding, D.W. “The Composition of the Book of Judges”, ErIs 16 (1982), 70*79*. Gordon, C.H. TheCommonBackgroundofGreekandHebrewCivilizations, New York 1962. Groß, W. “Das Richterbuch zwischen Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch”, in: H.–J. Stipp (ed.), DasdeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk (ÖBS 39), Frankfurt a. M. 2011, 177–205 (reprinted in W. Groß, E. Gaß, Studien zum Richterbuch und seinen Völkernamen [SBAB 54], Stuttgart 2012, 140167). Guest, G.B. BibleMoralisée.CodexVindobonensisVienna,ÖsterreichischeNationalbibliothek2554, London 1995. Guest, P.D. “Can Judges Survive without Sources?: Challenging the Consensus”, JSOT 78 (1998), 43–61. — “Judging YHWH in the Book of Judges”, in: D.N. Fewell (ed.), TheOxford HandbookofBiblicalNarrative, Oxford 2016, 180–191. — YHWHandIsraelintheBookofJudges:AnObject-RelationsAnalysis(SOTS Monograph Series), Cambridge 2019. Guillaume, Ph. “From a Post-manarchical to the Pre-monarchical Period of the Judges”, BN 113 (2002), 12–17. — WaitingforJosiah:TheJudges(JSOTSup 385), Sheffield 2004. — “Philadelphus’ Alexandria as Cradle of Biblical Historiography”, in: P. McKechnie, P. Guillaume (eds), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World (Mnemosyne Supplements 300), Leiden 2008, 247–255. — “Hesiod’s Heroic Age and the biblical Period of the Judges”, in: T.L. Thompson, P. Wajdenbaum, (eds), TheBibleandHellenism.GreekInfluenceonJewishand EarlyChristianLiterature, New York 2014, 146–164. — “From Philadelphus to Hyrcanus: An Alternative Approach to the Formation and Canonization of the ‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’”, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), “EvenGodCannotChangethePast”:ReflectionsonSeventeenYears oftheEuropeanSeminarinHistoricalMethodology, London 2018, 186–202. Gunn, D.M and D.N Fewell. NarrativeintheHebrewBible, New York 1993. Halpern, B. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, San Francisco 1988. Harlé, P Lesjuges(La bible d’Alexandrie), Paris 1999. Heller, R.L. ConversationswithScripture:TheBookofJudges, New York 2011. Henry, A. BibliaPauperum.AFacsimileandEdition, Aldershot 1987. Hess, R.S. “Israelite Identity and Personal Names from the Book of Judges”, HebrewStudies 44 (2003), 25–39. Hughes, J. SecretsoftheTimes.MythandHistoryinBiblicalChronology (JSOTSup 66), Sheffield 1990. Irwin, B.P. “Not Just Any King: Abimelech, the Northern Monarchy, and the Final Form of Judges”, JBL 131 (2012), 443–454. Jacobson, H. ACommentaryofPseudo-Philo’sLiber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with LatinTextandEnglishTranslation, Leiden 1996. Janzen, D. TheViolentGift:Trauma’sSubversionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory’s Narrative(LHB/OTS 561), New York 2012.

XXVI

Bibliography

Jost, R. Gender, Sexualität und Macht in der Anthropologie des Richterbuches (BWANT 164), Stuttgart 2006. Kabiersch, J. etal. “Kritai: Das Buch der Richter”, in: W. Karrer, M. Karren (eds), SeptuagintaDeutsch.DasgriechischeAlteTestamentindeutscherÜbersetzung, Stuttgart 2009, 243–294. — “Kritai/Judicum/Das Buch der Richter”, in: W. Karrer, M. Karren (eds), Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band I, Stuttgart 2011, 657–700. Kaminsky, J.S. “Reflections on Associative Word Links in Judges”, JSOT 36 (2012), 411–434. Kamrada, D.G. Heroines,HeroesandDeity:ThreeNarrativesoftheBiblicalHeroic Tradition (LHB/OTS 621), London 2016. Karrer, M. “The New Leaves of Sinaiticus Judges”, in: S. Kreuzer etal. (eds), Die Septuaginta–Entstehung,Sprache,Geschichte, Tübingen 2012, 600–617. Kaswalder, P. “I Giudici di Israele”, LA 41 (1991) 9-40. Keller, T. JudgesForYou, Epsom 2013. Killebrew, “The Philistines during the Period of the Judges”, in: J. Ebeling etal. (eds), TheOldTestamentinArchaeologyandHistory, Waco 2017, 317–334. Klein, L.R. TheTriumphofIronyintheBookofJudges(JSOTSup 68), Sheffield 1988. Knauf, E.A. “History in Judges”, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), IsraelinTransition:From LateBronzeIItoIronIIa(c.1250–850B.C.E.), Vol. 2, New York 2010, 140– 149. Kratz, R.G. DieKompositiondererzählendenBücherdesAltenTestaments.GrundwissenderBibelkritik, Göttingen 2000. Kreuzer, S. “Eine Schrift, zwei Fassungen: Das Beispiel des Richterbuches”, Bibel undKirche 56 (2001), 88–91 (extended version on http://www.kreuzer-siegfried. de/texte-zum-at/LXX-Richter-2002.pdf); — “Übersetzung—Revision—Überlieferung. Probleme und Aufgaben in den Geschichtsbüchern”, in: W. Kraus etal. (eds), DieSeptuaginta—Texte,Theologien,Einflüsse, Tübingen 2010, 101–116. Kuenen, A. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des alten Testaments hinsichtlichihrerEntstehungundSammlung.ErsteTheil.ZweitesStück.Die historischenBücherdesaltenTestaments, Leipzig 1890. Labuschagne, C.J. “The Book of Judges”, www.labuschagne.nl (2014). LaMontagne, N. “Reconsidering the Relationship of A and B in LXX Judges”, in: W. Kraus etal. (eds), XVCongressoftheInternationalOrganizationforSeptuagintandCognateStudies:Munich,2013, Atlanta 2016, 49–60. Lange, A. “Judges: Ancient Hebrew Texts. Ancient Manuscript Evidence”, in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds), TextualHistoryoftheHebrewBibleVolume1B, Leiden 2016, 281–284. Lanoir, C. Femmesfatales,fillesrebelles.FiguresfémininesdanslelivredesJuges (Actes et recherches), Genève 2005. — “Juges”, in: Th. Römer etal. (eds), Introductionàl’AncientTestament, Genève 2009, 345–357 (Deutsche Übersetzung: “Richter”, in: Th.Römer (ed.), EinleitungindasAlteTestament, Zürich 2013, 321–333). Latvus, K. God,Anger,andIdeology:theAngerofGodinJoshuaandJudgesin RelationtoDeuteronomyandthePriestlyWritings (JSOTSup 279), Sheffield 1998. Lemche, N.P. “Does the Idea of the Old Testament as a Hellenistic Book Prevent Source Criticism of the Pentateuch?”, SJOT 25 (2011), 75–92.

Bibliography

XXVII

Lesemann, S. „UndGideonstarbineinemgutenGreisenalter”:Untersuchungenzu denhebräischenundgriechischenTexttraditioneninRi6–8unterEinbeziehung desjüdisch-hellenistischenundfrühenrabbinischenSchrifttums (De Septuaginta Investigationes 6), Göttingen 2016. Leuchter, M.A. and D.T. Lamb TheHistoricalWritings:IntroducingIsrael’sHistoricalLiterature, Minneapolis 2016. Levin, C. “Das vorstaatliche Israel”, ZThK 97 (2000), 385–403 (reprinted in C. Levin, Fortschreibungen.GesammelteStudienzumAltenTestament, Berlin 2003, 142–157. — “Guillaume, Philippe, WaitingforJosiah:TheJudges”, RBL11 (2004). — “Amphictyony”, EBR 1 (2009), 1045–1047. — “On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch”, in: T.B. Dozeman etal. (eds), Pentateuch,Hexateuch,orEnneateuch?Identifying LiteraryWorksinGenesisthroughKings, Atlanta 2011, 127–154. — “Is Ehud also among the Prophets? Prophecy in the Book of Judges”, in: I.D. Wilson, D.V. Edelman (eds), History,Memory,HebrewScriptures (Fs Ben Zvi), Winona Lake 2015, 387–402. Levin, Y. “Ideology and Reality in the Book of Judges”, in: G. Galil etal. (eds), TheAncientNearEastinthe12th–10thCenturiesBCE:CultureandHistory (AOAT 392) Münster 2012, 309–326. Lindars, B. InterpretingJudgesToday(The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1983), London 1983. Liverani, M. Israel’sHistoryandtheHistoryofIsrael, London 2005. Louden, B. Homer’sOdysseyandtheNearEast, Cambridge 2011. — “Agamemnon and the Hebrew Bible”, SEÅ81 (2016), 1–24. — GreekMythandtheBible, London 2019. MacDonald, N. NotBreadAlone:TheUsesofFoodintheOldTestament, Oxford 2008. Malamat, A. “Charismatic Leadership in the Book of Judges”, in: F.M. Cross etal. (eds), MagnaliaDei.TheMightyActsofGod, New York 1976, 152–168. — HistoryofBiblicalIsrael.MajorProblemsandMinorIssues, Leiden 2001. Marais, J. RepresentationinOldTestamentNarrativeTexts (Biblical Interpretation Series 36), Leiden 1998. Martin, L.R. “Pre-Critical Exegesis of the Book of Judges and the Construction of a Post-Critical Hermeneutic”, EkklesiastikosPharos 88 (2006), 338–350. — “Judging the Judges: Finding Value in these Problematic Characters”, VeE29 (2008), 110–129. — The Unheard Voice of God: A Pentecostal Hearing of the Book of Judges, Blandford Forum 2008. — “Hearing the Book of Judges: A Dialogue with Reviewers”, JournalofPentecostalTheology 18 (2009), 30–50. — “Yahweh conflicted: Unresolved Theological Tension in the Cycle of Judges”, OTE 22 (2009), 356–372. — “Tongues of Angels, Words of Prophets: Means of Divine Communication in the Book of Judges”, in: S.J. Land etal. (eds), Passover,PentecostandParousia (Fs Gause), Blandford Forum 2010, 33–53. — “ ‘Where are all his wonders?’: The Exodus Motif in the Book of Judges”, JournalofBiblicalandPneumatologicalResearch 2 (2010), 87–109. — “The Spirit of Yahweh in the Book of Judges”, JSem 20 (2011), 18–43. McConville, G. God and Earthly Power. An Old Testament Political Theology: Genesis-Kings (LHB/OTS 454), New York 2006.

XXVIII

Bibliography

McKenzie, J.l. TheWorldoftheJudges, London 1967. Michelson, M.A. ReconcilingViolenceandKingship:AStudyofJudgesand1Samuel, Eugene 2011. Midden, P. van “A Hidden Message? Judges as Foreword of the Books of Kings”, in: J. Dyk et al. (eds), Unless Some One Guide me ... (Fs Deurloo; ACEBT Sup 2), Maastricht 2001, 77–86. Miller, P. “Moral Formation and the Book of Judges”, EvQ75 (2003), 99–115. Miller, R.D. “Deuteronomistic Theology in the Book of Judges?”, OTE 15 (2002), 411–416. — “The Judges and the Early Iron Age”, in: B.T. Arnold etal. (eds), Ancient Israel’sHistory:anIntroductiontoIssuesandSources, Grand Rapids 2014, 165–189. Milstein, S.J. TrackingtheMasterScribe.RevisionthroughIntroductioninBiblical andMesopotamianLiterature, New York 2016. Mobley, G. The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel, New York 2005. Mueller, M. “Gender”, in: L.K. McClure (ed.), ACompaniontoEuripides, Malden 2017, 500–514. Müller, R. KönigtumundGottesherrschaft:Untersuchungenzuralttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik (FAT 2.3), Tübingen 2004. — “Images of Exile in the Book of Judges”, in: E. Ben Zvi et al. (eds), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts (BZAW 404), Berlin 2010, 229–240. Murphy, F.J. Pseudo-Philo:RewritingtheBible, New York 1993. Murphy, K.J. “Judges in Recent Research”, CBR 15 (2017), 179–213. Neef, H.-D. Ephraim:StudienzurGeschichtedesStammesEphraimvonderLandnahmebiszurfrühenKönigszeit(BZAW 238), Berlin 1995. — “Der Rahmen der Richtererzählungen: Exegetische, literarische und theologische Beobachtungen”, TheologischeBeiträge 47 (2016), 109–118. Niditch, S. “Judges, Kingship, and Political Ethics: A Challenge to the Conventional”, in: J.J. Ahn etal. (eds), ThusSaystheLord.EssaysontheFormerandLater Prophets (Fs Wilson), New York 2009, 59–70. Noll, K.L. “Deuteronomistic History or Deuteronomic Debate? (A Thought Experiment)”, JSOT31 (2007), 311-345. Noth, M. ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien.Diesammelndenundbearbeitenden GeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament, Halle 1943. Park, S. “The World of the Judges in the Modern Context”, W&W37 (2017), 234– 240. Person, R.F. (ed.) “In Conversation with Thomas Römer, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory”, JHS9 (2009), article 17. Pfeiffer, H. “ ‘Retterbuch’ und Richterbuch”, ZAW 127 (2015), 429–439. Polzin, R. MosesandtheDeuteronomist:ALiteraryStudyoftheDeuteronomistic History.PartOne.DeuteronomyJoshuaJudges, New York 1980. Puech, E. “Les Manuscripts 4Qjugesc (=4Q50A) et 1Qjuges (1Q6)”, in: P.W. Flint et al. (eds), StudiesintheHebrewBible,QumranandtheSeptuagint (Fs Ulrich, SVT 101), Leiden 2006, 184–202. Pury, A. de “Le canon de l’Ancien Testament: Écritures juives, littérature grecque et identité européenne,” in: Protestantismeetconstructioneuropéenne.Actes du Colloque des Facultés de theologie protestante des pays latins d’Europe, Bruxelles 1991, 25–46.

Bibliography

XXIX

Radday, Y.T. etal. “The Book of Judges Examined by Statistical Linguistics, Bib 58 (1977), 469-499. Ray, P.J. “Another Look at the Period of the Judges”, in: G.A. Carnegey etal. (eds), BeyondtheJordan (Fs Mare), Eugene 2005, 93–104. Rezetko, R. “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics”, JHS 13 (2013), article 2. Richter, W. TraditionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungenzumRichterbuch (BBB 18), Bonn 1963. — DieBearbeitungendes“Retterbuches”inderdeuteronomistischenEpoche (BBB 21), Bonn 1964. Römer, T. and A. de Pury “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DG): History of Research and Debated Issues”, in: A. de Pury etal. (eds), IsraelConstructsits History.DeuteronomisticHistoriographyinRecentResearch (JSOTSup 306), Sheffield 2000, 24–141. Römer, T. TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory.ASociological,Historicaland LiteraryIntroduction, New York 2005. — “The Hebrew Bible and Greek Philosophy and Mythology — Some Case Studies”, Sem 57 (2015), 185–203. Rösel, H. “Studien zur Topographie der Kriege in den Büchern Josua und Richter”, ZDPV91 (1975), 159–190; 92 (1976), 10–46. — “Die ‘Richter israels’. Rückblick und neuer Ansatz”, BZ 25 (1981), 180–203. Rösel, M “The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua”, SJOT16 (2002), 5–23. Rossum, J. van DepraedeuteronomistischebestanddelenvanhetboekderRichters, Leiden 1966. Roux, J. “À qui et à quoi résistent les femmes qui combattent pour YHWH ? Regard sur cinq héroïnes bibliques: Débora, Yaël, la fille de Jephté, Esther et Judith”, SeE67 (2015), 191–221, 223–237. Rudolph, W. “Textkritische Anmerkungen zum Richterbuch”, in: J. Fück (ed.), FestschriftOttoEissfeldtzum60Geburtstage, Halle 1947, 199–212. Samuel, H. “The Attestation of the Book-Seam in the Early Textual Witnesses and its Literary-Historical Implications”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 187–197. Sasson, J. “Coherence and Fragments: Reflections on the SKL and the Book of Judges”, in: S.C. Melvelli, A.L. Slotsky (eds), OpeningtheTabletBox:Near EasternStudiesinHonorofBenjaminR.Foster (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 42), Leiden 2010, 361–373. Satterthwaite, P.E. “Judges”, in: A. Pietersma, B.G. Wright (eds), ANewEnglish TranslationoftheSeptuagint, New York 2007, 195–238. — “Judges”, in: J.K. Aitken (ed.), TheT&TClarkCompaniontotheSeptuagint, London 2015, 102–117. Scham, S. “The Days of the Judges: When Men and Women Were Animals and Trees Were Kings”, JSOT 97 (2002), 37–64. — Extremism,AncientandModern:Insurgency,TerrorandEmpireintheMiddle East, London 2018. Schearing, L.S. and S.L. McKenzie (eds) ThoseElusiveDeuteronomists:ThePhenomenonofPan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup 268), Sheffield 1999. Scherer, A. ÜberlieferungenvonReligionundKrieg:ExegetischeundreligionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungenzuRichter3–8undverwandtenTexten (WMANT 105), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005. Schreiner, J. Septuaginta–MassoradesBuchesderRichter:einetextkritischeStudie (AnBib 7), Roma 1957.

XXX

Bibliography

Schüpphaus, J. Richter-undProphetengeschichtenalsGliederderGeschichtsdarstellungderRichter-undKönigszeit, Bonn 1967. Simpson, C.A. TheCompositionoftheBookofJudges, Oxford 1957. Smelik, K.A.D. “Historische achtergronden”, in: H. Blok etal., Geenkoningindie dagen: Over het boek Richteren als profetische geschiedschrijving, Baarn 1982, 107–132. Smelik, W. TheTargumofJudges (OTS 36), Leiden 1995. Spronk, K. “Het boek Richteren: Een overzicht van het recente onderzoek”, ACEBT 19 (2001), 1–36. — “From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges”, in: J. van Ruiten etal. (eds), TheLandofIsraelinBible,History,andTheology (Fs Noort, SVT 124), Leiden 2009, 137–149. — “The Book of Judges as a Late Construct”, in: L. Jonker (ed.), Historiography and Identity: (Re)formulation in Second Temple Historiographic Literature (LHB/OTS 534), New York 2010, 15–28. — “History and Prophecy in the Book of Judges”, in: B. Becking etal. (eds), BetweenEvidenceandIdeology:EssaysontheHistoryofAncientIsraelRead attheJointMeetingoftheSOTSandOTW,Lincolnjuly2009 (OTS 59), Leiden 2011, 185–198. — “Comparing the Book of Judges to Greek Literature”, in: M.C.A. Korpel, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Open-MindednessintheBibleandBeyond.AVolumeof StudiesinHonourofBobBecking (LHB/OTS 616), London 2015a, 261–271. — “The Book of Judges on Kingship and the Greek peribasileias literature”, in: M. Oeming, P Sláma (eds), AKinglikeAlltheNations?KingdomsofIsrael andJudahintheBibleandHistory (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 28), Münster 2015b, 119–126. — “An Uncommon Book of Prayer: The Theology of the Book of Judges”, in: J.Dekker, G. Kwakkel (eds), ReadingandListening:MeetingOneGodinMany Texts (Fs Peels, ACEBT Sup 16), Bergambacht 2018, 53–60. Squyres, D. Judges:TheWildWestoftheBible, 2014. Steinman, A. “Literary Clues in Judges: A Response To Robert Chisholm”, JETS 53 (2010), 365–373. Stratton, B. J. “Consider, Take Counsel, and Speak: Re(membering) Women in the Books of Joshua and Judges”, in: S. Scholz (ed.), FeministInterpretationofthe HebrewBibleinRetrospect. Vol. 1, Sheffield 2013, 80–109. Swanson, K.A. “Judges as a Parody of Leadership in the Persian Period”, in: L. Berquist etal. (eds), FocusingBiblicalStudies:TheCrucialNatureofthe PersianandHellenisticPeriods (Fs Knight), New York 2012, 92–106. Sweeney M.A., “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges”, VT 47 (1997), 517–529. Thompson, T.L. and P. Wajdenbaum (eds), TheBibleandHellenism:GreekInfluence onJewishandEarlyChristianLiterature, New York 2014. Tollington, J.E. “The Book of Judges: The Result of Post-Exilic Exegesis?”, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Papers Read at the TenthJointMeetingofTheSocietyforOldTestamentStudyandHetOudtestamentischWerkgezelschapinNederlandenBelgië,heldatOxford,1997 (OTS 40), Leiden 1998, 186–196. Toorn, K. van der ScribalCultureandtheMakingoftheHebrewBible, Cambridge 2007. Tov, E. “BibliaHebraicaQuinta: Judges”, Sefarad 72 (2012a), 483-489. — TextualCriticismoftheHebrewBible.Third edition, Minneapolis 2012b.

Bibliography

XXXI

Trebolle Barrera, J. “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges”, RdQ 14 (1989–90), 229–245. — “4QJudga”, “4QJudgb”, in: E. Ulrich etal., QumranCave4(DJD XIV), Oxford 1995, 161–169. — “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua”, in: F. García Martínez, M. Vervenne (eds), InterpretingTranslation:StudiesontheLXXandEzekiel(Fs Lust; BETL 117), Leuven 2005, 401–413. — “The Textual History and the Text Critical Value of the Old Latin Version in the Book of Judges”, in: W. Kraus, S. Kreuzer (eds), DieSeptuaginta–Text, Wirkung,Rezeption, Tübingen 2014, 53–72. — “Judges: Ancient Hebrew Texts. Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to MT”, in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds), TextualHistoryoftheHebrewBibleVolume1B, Leiden 2016, 284–289. — “Judges: Ancient Hebrew Texts. Other Texts”, in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds), TextualHistoryoftheHebrewBibleVolume1B, Leiden 2016, 289–293. Veijola, T. “Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation (II)” ThR 67 (2002), 391–424. Vette, J. “Der letzte Richter? Methodische Überlegungen zur Charaktergestaltung in 1 Sam 11”, CV51 (2009), 184–197. Wajdenbaum, P. ArgonautsoftheDesert:StructuralAnalysisoftheHebrewBible, London 2011. Washington, H.C. “Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Hebrew Bible: A New Historicist Approach”, BibInt5 (1997), 324–363. Way, K.C. “The Literary Structure of Judges Revisited: Judges as a Ring Composition”, in: B.T. Arnold etal. (eds), WindowstotheAncientWorldoftheHebrew Bible (Fs Greengus), Winona Lake 2014, 247–260. Webb, B.G. TheBookofJudges:AnIntegratedReading (JSOTSup 46), Sheffield 1987. — JudgesandRuth:GodinChaos(Preaching the Word), Wheaton 2015. Weinfeld, M. “The Period of the Conquest and of the Judges as Seen by the Earlier and the Later Sources”, VT 17 (1967), 93–113. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des AltenTestaments, Berlin 1899. Wénin, A. Échec au Roi: L’art de raconter la violence dans le livre des Juges, Bruxelles 2013. Wiese, K. ZurLiterarkritikdesBuchesderRichter, Stuttgart 1926. Wilson, I.D. KingshipandMemoryinAncientJudah, Oxford 2017. Winther-Nielsen, N. “Fact, Fiction and Language Use: Can modern Pragmatics improve on Halpern’s case for History in Judges?”, in: V. Philips Long etal. (eds), WindowsintoOldTestamentHistory.Evidentiality,Argument,andthe Crisisof“BiblicalIsrael”. Grand Rapids 2002, 44–81. — “Tracking the World of Judges: The Use of Contextual Resources in Narration and Conversation”, SEE-JHiphil 2 [http://www.see-j.net/hiphil] (2005). Wong, G.T.K. CompositionalStrategyoftheBookofJudges.AnInductive,Rhetorical Study (SVT 111), Leiden 2006a. — “Narratives and Their Contexts: A Critique of Greger Andersson with Respect to Narrative Autonomy”, SJOT 20 (2006b), 216–230. Wright, J.L. “Military Valor and Kingship: A Book-Oriented Approach to the Study of a Major War Theme”, in: B.E. Kelle, F.R. Ames (eds), WritingandReading

XXXII

Bibliography

War:Rhetoric,Gender,andEthicsinBiblicalandModernContexts, Atlanta 2008, 33–56. Yee, G.A. (ed.), Judges&Method.NewApproachesinBiblicalStudies.Second edition, Minneapolis 2007. Yoder, J.C. PowerandPoliticsintheBookofJudges, Minneapolis 2015. Young, I, R. Rezetko and M. Ehrensvärd LinguisticDatingofBiblicalTexts.Volume2, London 2008.

INTRODUCTION

§ 1 NAME OF THE BOOK

AND PLACE WITHIN THE

HEBREW BIBLE

1.1 The name Judges We cannot reconstruct with certainty when the book of Judges received its present title and size. This problem is already encountered when reading the retelling by Josephus (1st century CE). He does not mention a book of Judges but only refers to “the age of judges” (cf. 2 Kgs 23:22 and Ruth 1:1 speaking of “the days of the judges”). This is done in his description of the period between Joshua and Saul: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον τῆς πολιτείας κριτῶν ἐκάλεσαν, “and that is why they called this period of their political life the age of judges” (Ant. VI.85). It is interesting to note that he includes Samuel. Josephus gives a different order of events. He places the story of the killing of the concubine and the following war with the Benjaminites after the prologue and the story of Samson is directly followed by the story of Ruth. Philo of Alexandria refers in his “Book of the Tongues” (Deconfusionelinguarum26.128) to a passage in the story of Gideon ἐν τή τών κριμάτων αναγραφομένη βίβλῳ, “in the recorded book of judgements” (cf. Webb 2012, 5). Also in theLiber AntiquitatumBiblicarum there is no reference to the name of the book from which the stories have been taken. In his list of the canonical books of the Old Testament Origen (3rd century CE) speaks (according to Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25) of Κριταί, Ῥούθ, παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνί, Σωφτειμ, “Judges, Ruth, with them in one book, Sōphteim”. As with Philo the transliterated name represents rather “judgments” than “judges”. Eusebius uses the name “Judges” which has become customary in Hebrew (‫)שׁפטים‬, Greek (κριται), Latin (liberjudicum), and most modern languages. In the traditional Dutch translation from the 17th century (Statenvertaling) it was translated with “richteren”, to distinguish their acting as leaders from their function as “rechters”, which is the common term for the judicial office. In most modern Dutch translations this distinction is no longer made, leaving the reader with the problem that the persons called “judge” in the book with this name do not have the same function as judges in our society. Groß solves this problem by referring to the book with “Richterbuch”, but to the persons called ‫ שׁפט‬with “Regent” (Groß 2009, 77). According to Block the name of the book is better rendered “The Book of Tribal Rulers” (Block 1999, 25; cf. also Sasson 2014, 187, looking [in vain] for a better alternative for the traditional name). That does not take away, however, the

2

Introduction

problem that not all leaders in this book are called ‫שׁפט‬. For instance, Ehud is called ‫מושׁיע‬, “savior” and also of Gideon, who can be regarded as the most important leader, it is not reported that he acted as a ‫שׁפט‬, but only that he saved his people. In the absence of a central figure, such as Joshua or Samuel, to name the book after, it seems that the present name was chosen by analogy with “Kings”. 1.2 The size of the book With regard to the size of the book it must be noted that according to many scholars the present division between the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel is a late development (cf. Levin 2011, 134–141). The questions raised by the repeated report of the death of Joshua in Josh. 24:29–31 and Judg. 2:7–10 and by the seemingly different views on the conquest of the land between the book of Joshua and Judg. 1 can be solved by assuming that originally Judg. 2:7 directly followed after Josh. 24:28. The text in between would have been added after the later separation of the books (the transition between the books of Joshua and Judges is extensively discussed in Berner & Samuel 2018, 187–294). Looking at the transition from the book of Judges to the books of Samuel it has been noted on the one hand that the stories about leaders called “judge” continue with Samuel and on the other hand that the stories in Judg. 19–21 are of a different nature. For this reason it is suggested to take Judg. 13–1 Sam. 7 as a unit (cf. also Frolov 2013, 19; already Kuenen 1890, 22 remarks: “Die Hypothese, dass der Schluss des R.schen Richterbuchs sich in 1 Sa VII ff. wiederfindet, empfiehlt sich von allen Seiten”) or to see Judg. 17–18 as the original ending of the book (Amit 1999, 310–357; Amit 2004, 219–220). The chapters 19–21 would have been added after the literary unit had been broken up. One of the reasons for the division of the books would have been the size of the scroll. As soon as the text was divided this would have opened opportunities for literary expansions (Levin 2011, 131). In the present commentary we keep to the canonical size of the book, because – as will be demonstrated below – it can be read as a coherent unity. 1.3 Judges as part of the Former Prophets In Jewish tradition the book of Judges is part of the ‫נבאים רשׁונים‬, “the former prophets”. The categorization of these books as prophetic is already known from the introduction to Jesus Sirach, which speaks in the first line of “the Law, the Prophets, and the other books”. The subdivision into Former and Latter Prophets was made much later. It is not known in Talmudic times. When the rabbis referred to “former prophets” they meant the prophets who

Introduction

3

lived up to the destruction of the first temple. With the “latter prophets” they meant the postexilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The name Former Prophets as a designation of the books of Joshua to Kings appears to be coined by the Soncino family in their edition of these books with the commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi (Avioz 2009). It was probably made “for convenience sake only”, in order “to differentiate between the narrative, historical works (…) and the (largely poetic) literary creations of the prophetic authors” (Sarna & Sperling, EJ 3, 576). The most important reason for these books being called “prophetic” is that according to the Jewish tradition their authors were prophets, as is stated in Talmud BabaBathra 14b-15a: “Who wrote the Scripture? – Moses wrote his own book which bears his name and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and (the last) eight verses of the Pentateuch. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth”. Note that also Joshua, the author of the book which bears his name, is regarded as a prophet, for instance, in Sirach 46:1, where it is stated that Joshua succeeded Moses in his profession as a prophet. The book of Judges has its chronologically logical place between the books of Joshua and Samuel. A closer look at the beginning and end of the book shows that this is more than just a matter of fact. It can be observed “that a good deal of juggling was required to make Judges fit at both ends” (Lindars 1983, 8). One may note in this connection the almost verbatim repetition of Josh. 1:1, “it happened after the death Moses” in Judg. 1:1, “it happened after the death of Joshua”. At the end of the book the story about the murder of the concubine in chapter 19 introduces amongst other things through the place names Ramah, Gibeah, and Jebus/Jerusalem the central figures of the next book, who are directly related to these places: Samuel, Saul, and David. Just as the messenger of YHWH reminds the Israelites (and the reader) of what happened in the past (2:1-5), the reader will only fully understand the meaning of the stories in the book of Judges with the later history as recounted in the books of Samuel and Kings in mind.

§ 2 THE STRUCTURE AND LITERARY STYLE OF THE BOOK 2.1 Outline of the book The book of Judges can be divided into three parts. The central place is taken by the description of thirteen leaders in 3:7–16:31. This is introduced by a historical introduction in 1:1–2:5, followed by remarks on the relation between YHWH, the people, and the function by the leaders called by YHWH. The book is concluded in chapters 17–21 by a number of stories without

4

Introduction

leaders mentioned by name. This period is characterized by the repeated remark that “in these days there was no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). The stories in the middle part contain a number of repeated elements: the reference to a leader called “judge” or “saviour” appointed by YHWH, the tribe to which he or she belongs, the enemy sent by YHWH to punish his disobedient people, the years of oppression, and the years of rest after the intervention by the leader. This part of the book can be put in the following scheme. text

number of verses/words

leader

function

tribe/city

enemy

oppr. rest

3:7–11

5 / 108

Othniel

judge/saviour Judah

Kushan Rishataim from Aram Naharaim

3:12-30

19 / 417

Ehud

saviour

Eglon from 18 Moab (with Ammon and Amalek)

3:31

1 / 18

Shamgar

saviour

4:1–5:31

55 / 1023

Deborah judges and Barak

Efraim and Jabin and Naphtali Sisera from Canaan

6:1–8:32

97 / 2371

Gideon

Manasseh

8:33–9:57

60 / 1272

Abimelech king

10:1–2

2 / 27

Tola

judge/saviour Issaschar

23

10:3–5

3 / 35

Jair

judge

Gilead

22

11:1–12:7

60 / 1396

Jephthah

judge

Gilead

12:8–10

3 / 31

Ibzan

judge

Bethlehem

7

12:11–12

2 / 18

Elon

judge

Zebulon

10

12:13–15

3 / 35

Abdon

judge

Ephraim

8

Samson

judge/saviour Dan

13:1–16:31 96 / 2291

saviour

Benjamin

8

40

80

Philistines 20

Oreb, Zeeb, 7 and Zeba from Midian and Amalek

Manasseh/ civil war Shechem

Ammonites

Philistines

3?

18

40

40

40

3?

6

20

2.2 Division into pericopes Looking at the division into pericopes in the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (see the overview in the appendix) we note that there is a stable Masoretic tradition, attested in the Codex Leningradensis, the Aleppo Codex

Introduction

5

and the Cairo Codex, which divides the text by petuchot and setumot into approximately ninety parts. The tradition in the ancient Greek translation appears to be more diverse and also deviates on many points from the Masoretic division. The Vaticanus contains a number system of sixty four pericopes, the Alexandrinus of about ninety. Unfortunately, the text of the book of Judges is not completely preserved in the Sinaiticus. From what is left, the division of the Sinaiticus is closer to the Alexandrinus than to the Vaticanus. The division into pericopes in these ancient manuscripts is not always in line with the division which can be found in most modern translations and commentaries. On some points this may have consequences for the interpretation. An interesting example is the question whether the report that the spirit of YHWH was given to Jephthah (11:29) should be read as the conclusion of Jephthah’s discussion with the king of Ammon, as is suggested by some modern translators and commentators, or as the introduction to the story of his vow, as is unanimously indicated by the ancient manuscripts. 2.3 Chiastic, concentric, and dual structures With regard to the overall structure it is interesting to note the correspondences between the chapters at the beginning and the end of the book (cf. amongst others Gunn & Fewell 1993, 120; Davidson 2008, 62–64). The question of the Israelites at the start: “Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites to begin to fight against them?” (1:1) is repeated at the end: The children of Israel said: “Who shall go up for us first in the battle with the children of Benjamin?” (20:18). In both cases YHWH answers that it must be Judah. Both beginning and end refer to the people of Israel as a whole and also that it is crying (2:4; 20:23, 26; 21:2). Only in the first and in the final chapter we hear of the ban, which was mentioned so often in the book of Joshua (1:17; 21:11). According to some scholars a related chiastic structure can also be found in the rest of the book. Gooding (1982) assumes that next to the two-part introduction, corresponding to the two-part conclusion, according to a pattern A-B-Bʹ-Aʹ (1:1–2:5; 2:6–3:6; 17:1–18:31; 19:1–21:25), there is a similar pattern in between with the Gideon narrative (6:1–8:32) as the central pivot. The story of Othniel (1:13–15; 3:5–11) would correspond to that of Samson (13–16): the positive role of Othniel’s wife is contrasted by the negative role of women in Samson’s life. The correspondence between Ehud (3:12– 31) and Jephthah (10:6–12:15) is that both send messages to foreign kings and slay the enemies “at the fords of the Jordan”. The story of Jael slaying Sisera (4–5) has its counterpart in the story of Abimelech being also killed by a woman (9:53). Gooding’s analysis was taken up by Globe (1990) and Way (2014 and 2016, 2–6), who assumes a ring structure, in which next to

6

Introduction

the parallels noted by Gooding there is also a division in two halves. In the first half the deliverer stories are depicted in a relatively positive light and in the second half decidedly negative. Way designates 8:1 as the turning point and assumes a correspondence between 6:1–7:24 and 1:1–3:6 and between 8:1–32 and 17:1–21:25. He also finds the movement from positive to negative expressed in the length of the literary units: the best judge, Othniel, has the shortest account, the worst, Samson, the longest. It would also hold true for the “minor judges”, Shamgar with the shortest account being the best. Although it has been remarked that Way overstates his case (cf. Frolov 2016b), he certainly has a point when it comes to the relations between the successive stories. These appear to be clearly linked: • The first judge, Othniel (3:5–12) was already introduced in 1:12–13. • Othniel is introduced with: ‘YHWH raised up a deliverer for the children of Israel’ (3:9); the same is said of his successor, Ehud, in 3:15. Afterwards, this expression is no longer used in the book of Judges. • Shamgar (3:31) is mentioned again in the song of Deborah (5:6). • Just as Barak (4:8) Gideon hesitates when he is called to action (6:17). • Just as Gideon (6:12) Jephthah is called a “mighty warrior” (‫)גִּ בּוֹר ַחיִ ל‬ (11:1); and just as Gideon (8:1) Jephthah faces protesting Ephraimites (12:8). • Just as with Abimelech the mother of Jephthah is mentioned with emphasis on their lower status: a concubine (8:31) and a whore (11:1) respectively. • The thirty sons and thirty daughters of Ibsan (12:8) contrast sharply with the preceding story of Jephthah losing his only child (11:34), just as the forty sons and thirty grandsons of Abdon (12:40) contrast sharply with the following story of Manoah and his wife having no children (13:2). • Just as Delilah received eleven hundred pieces of silver for betraying Samson (16:5), the mother of Micah receives eleven hundred pieces of silver back from her son (17:2). • Both in chapters 17–18 and in chapter 19 a Levite plays a central role. • Just as the story of Samson chapter 18 is about members of the tribe of Dan. • Chapters 18 and 20 are linked by the reference to a grandson of Moses (18:30) and the reference to a grandson of Aaron (20:28). Similar connections are also found on book level, because the book itself is linked to the preceding and following book. The first chapter of the book of Judges can be read as recapitulating the way the conquest of the land was described in the book of Joshua. The link with the books of Samuel is made through the repeated remark in the final chapters that there was no king in

Introduction

7

these days and the indirect references to the central persons of the following stories, especially by the place names in chapter 19 with Bethlehem/Jerusalem pointing forward to David, Ramah to Samuel, and Gibeah to Saul. The author also appears to like to structure his text in chiastic and parallel patterns. Good examples of chiastic structures can be found in the stories of the messenger of YHWH in Bezek (2:1–5), Othniel (3:8–11), Ehud (3:12– 30), Deborah and Barak (4:1–24), the arrangement of specific numbers in chapters 8–12 and 14–16, the destruction of Gibeah (20:36–41). In a number of cases the information is presented in parallel texts. One could speak here of “narrative juxtaposition” (Marais 1998, 61). A first example of this is already found in the fact that the beginning of the book of Judges can be read as a recapitulation of the book of Joshua. Within the book of Judges itself we find the following cases: • 2:6–3:6 can be read as a second introduction from a different perspective than the introduction in chapter 1. • The way the short note about Shamgar (3:31) is connected to the story of Ehud suggests that they should not be placed after each other but next to each other. • The song in chapter 5 recapitulates the narrative in chapter 4. • Chapter 16 is built up in the same way as chapters 14–15; both parts end with the information that Samson judges Israel twenty years (15:20; 16:31). These numbers represent a repetition and are not meant to be added up. • The fight between Benjamin and the other tribes of Israel in 20:29–41 is told twice from different perspectives. • The two stories about the way the Benjaminites get their wives are built up in the same way (21:5–14; 15–23). The book of Judges itself also shows a dual structure. As is noted by most readers the chapters 17–21 are of a different character than the preceding stories in chapters 3–16. Usually the final chapters are seen as an appendix. However, it is more in line with the noted repeated use of juxtaposition to see 2:10–16:31 and 17–21 as the two panels of a diptych, which is preceded by an introduction in 1:1–2:9. This is indicated by the fact that both parts are explicitly referring to the second generation after Joshua (cf. 2:10 and the references to the grandsons of Moses and Aaron in 18:30 and 20:28). The stories in chapters 17–21 “when there was no king and when everyone did what was good in his own eyes” tell a similar story about what happens when the Israelites “do what is evil in the eyes of YHWH”. See for more arguments supporting this interpretation the introduction to chapters 17–18.

8

Introduction

2.4 Stylistic elements: the number three, rhyme, wordplay In the book of Judges the number three and its multiples is used many times and in many ways. We find it in groups: three sons of Anaq (1:20), Gideon’s army of three hundred (7:6), being divided again in three groups (7:16; cf. 9:43 about Abimelech doing the same), thirty sons of Jair (10:4), thirty sons of Ibsan (12:9), thirty grandsons of Abdon (12:14), thirty companions on Samson’s wedding (14:11), thirty men killed by Samson (14:19), thirty men killed by the Benjaminites (20:31, 39), three hundred foxes (15:4); three thousand men of Judah (15:11), three thousand Philistines (16:27). We also find it in specific words being used three times within short range, for instance ‫ידע‬, “to know”, in 3:1–2; ‫נסה‬, “to test”, in 2:22; 3:1, 4; ‫יצע‬, “to go out”, in 3: 22–24; ‫והנה‬, “and look”, in 3: 24–25; ‫ הלך‬+ ‫ עם‬+ personal pronoun, “to go with me/you”, in 4:8-9; ‫סור‬, “to turn aside”, in 4:18; ‫חדל‬, “to cease”, in 5:6–7; ‫כרע‬, “to collapse”, and ‫נפל‬, “to fall”, in 5:27; ‫צבע‬, “dyed cloth”, in 5:30–31; ‫ריב‬, “to strive”, in 6:31; ‫מלך‬, “(become) king”, in 9:6; ‫ ירשׁ‬hiphil, “to dispossess”, in 11:23–24; ‫ ירשׁ‬qal, “to take in possession”, in 11:23–24; ‫עבר‬, “to cross”, in 11:29; “two months”, in 11:27–39; ‫ל־לבּוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫א‬, ֶ “all his heart”, in 16:17–18; ‫סור‬, “to turn aside”, in 16:17–20; ‫מות‬, “to die / death”, in 16:30; ‫וְ גַ ם‬, “and also”, in 19:19; ‫אל‬, ַ “not!”, in 19:23. Note also the threefold mentioning of the lord of Bezek in 1:5–7, the threefold alliterating words in 6:2 and 6:4, the three questions asked by Gideon (6:13), the three questions introduced with ‫ מה‬in 8:1–3; Samson has love affairs with three women; in chapter 16 Samson deceives Delilah three times and three times he announces that he will become weak like any man; three times it is told that the Levite comes from Bethlehem (17:7–9); the Danite spies put three questions to the Levite (18:3); three times it is told that the people of Laish lived “quiet and secure” (18:7, 10, 27); three times it is told that Micah made the ephod himself (18:24, 27, 31); three times the Levite stands up to go and three times his father-in-law persuades him to stay (19:5–9); three times it is said of the Israelites that they are “as one man” (20:1, 8, 11); three times the tribes march against Benjamin after having required YHWH’s advice first (20:18–29); three times the Benjaminites “turn” to flee from the Israelites (20:42, 45, 47); three times a curse is pronounced against those who give a daughter as wife to Benjamin (21:1, 7, 18). A possible 3+1 pattern in the book of Judges, as suggested by Baker 2016, 41–93, following a suggestion by Alter, would corroborate the observation about the preference for the number three, be it that most of the cases mentioned by Baker are less explicit. We come across a number of instances of rhyme. The first named opponent is called “Cushan Rishataim, the king of Aram Naharaim” (3:8; see also the

Introduction

9

remark on this name below). Also the description of Israel’s misery in 6:2, 4 contains a remarkable rhyme, just as the sayings by Samson and his opponents in 14:14; 15:16; and 16:23–24. Even more striking is the apparent preference for wordplay, especially with names, as can be illustrated with the following list (more details are given in the commentary on the specific texts). With some place names this is indicated explicitly, with a number of personal names this is done more implicitly but nevertheless hard to miss for a native speaker. • Horma (1:17) – The author probably took over from Num. 21:3 the association of the place name Horma with the verb ‫חרם‬, “to ban”, in 1:17: “They devoted it (Sefat) to the ban. They called the name of the city Horma”. • Bochim (2:1–5) – This pun is explicitly indicated by the author: “the people lifted up their voice and wept. They called the name of that place Bochim” (2:4–5). For the reader of the Hebrew text it will be clear the name of the place has to be taken literally: “the weepers”. • Cushan Rishataim, the king of Aram Naharaim (3:8) – The first part of his name relates him to Cush, from whom according to Gen. 10:8 all mighty warriors descend; the second part disqualifies him as “doublewicked”. The name of his country can be translated as “Aram of the two rivers”. This is not attested anywhere else as a geographic name or the name of a people. For the reader it will be clear, however, that we are dealing with an evil power associated with the geographical region of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. • Eglon (3:12–30) – The name of this king of Moab can be read as derived from the word ‫עגֶ ל‬, ֵ “male calf”. This association is strengthened by the fact that he is called “very well-nourished” in 3:17 and by his assassination which is explicitly described as being butchered, which makes him look like an animal being slaughtered. • Shamgar (3:31) – This name is reminiscent of the name Gershom, the son of Moses, who is also mentioned in 18:30, reversing the two syllables. The name Gershom is explained in Exod. 2:22 as referring to the fact that Moses had been a stranger in a foreign land, relating it to the words ‫שׁם‬, ָ “there”, and ‫גֵ ר‬, “stranger” and to the well-known phrase ‫שׁם גור‬, “to stay there as a foreigner”. His name points to Shamgar as a foreigner, which is corroborated by the fact that he is called “son of Anat”, relating him to a Canaanite goddess. • Deborah (4:4) – Her name can be translated as “bee”, but in 5:12 we also find a pun upon her name: “Come on, come on, Deborah, come on, come, speak (‫ )דברי‬a song”. The usual expression is “to sing” (‫ )שׁיר‬a song or “to speak the words of a song” (Deut. 31:30; 32:44; 2 Sam. 22:1;

10

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

Introduction Ps. 18:1). The unique rendering in Judg. 5:12 puts emphasis on Deborah being a woman of the word. Barak (4:6) – His name can be translated as “lightning” which would suit him as the commander of an army. Within the present context, however, it emphasizes the fact that he neglects his duty and has to be urged by Deborah. The fact that she is called “the wife of Lapidoth” can be interpreted as another pun, because the Hebrew can be translated as “torches” (cf. 7:16), contrasting her as “fiery” woman to this washed out man. Jael (4:17) – Her name can be associated with the verb ‫עלה‬, “to go up”, which is used three times in 4:10–12 to indicate the army of Israel marching against the Canaanites. In her own way Jael goes up against the commander of the Canaanites. As with Deborah also the name of her husband, Heber, is telling in the present context. The Hebrew can be translated as “companion” (cf. 20:11) and suits very well to the situation as described in 4:17 that there was peace between the house of Jabin, the king of the Canaanites, and the house of Heber. All the more, the contrast should be noted with Jael breaking that peace by killing Sisera, the commander of Jabin. Sisera (4:18) – In the story of the assassination of Sisera, we also encounter a play on his name: “And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him: Turn in (‫)סוּרה‬, ‫ׇ‬ my Lord, turn in (‫)סוּרה‬ ‫ ׇ‬to me; fear not. And when he had turned in (‫ )וַ יָּ ַסר‬unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle”. Jerubbaal (6:32) – The second name of Gideon is explained by his father. “He called him on that day Jerubbaal, saying: ‘May Baal conduct a lawsuit against him’”, relating his name to the verb ‫ריב‬. According to some scholars the name Gideon should be related to the verb ‫גדע‬, “to hack”, pointing to his destruction of the altar of Baal. This is, however, uncertain, because the verb itself is not used in the text. The spring of Harod (7:1) – On this place Gideon has to say to his men: “Who is fearful and trembling? (‫)מי־יָ ֵרא וְ ָח ֵרד‬ ִ Let him turn around and depart from mount Gilead” (7:3). So the name of the place is related to the “trembling”. Oreb and Zeeb (7:25) – The names of these Midianites opponents of Gideon can be translated as “raven” and “wolf”. Extra emphasis is given to their names in the fact that the place where they are killed are named after them: “They killed Oreb at the Rock of Oreb and Zeeb they killed at the Wine press of Zeeb”. Zebah (8:5) – The name of this Midianite leader can be translated as “sacrifice”. Abimelech (8:31) – This name can be translated as “my father is king”. It comes as a surprise that he receives this name from a man, who had stated previously: “I will not rule over you and my son will not rule over

Introduction

•

•

•

•

•

• •

11

you. YHWH will rule over you” (8:23). The verb used there was ‫משׁל‬. There can be no doubt about the status of Abimelech when he becomes the ruler of Shechem, because twice the word ‫ מלך‬is used there (9:6). Jotham (9:10) – He demands from the lords of Shechem integrity. The Hebrew word used here, ‫ ָתּ ִמים‬is also part of his name which can be translated as “YHWH is perfect”. Ebed (9:28) – There is wordplay with the name of Gaal’s father: three times the related verb ‫עבד‬, “to serve”, is used. It is probably also hardly a coincidence that the name Gaal can be related to the verb ‫געל‬, “to feel disgust”, whereas the name of his opponent, Zebul, “prince”, emphasizes the contrast with Gaal and his father. Jair (10:3) – Of Jair we read that he had thirty sons who were “riding on thirty male donkeys and who had thirty cities” (10:4). In Hebrew the same word ‫ ֲעיָ ִרים‬is used for “donkeys” and “cities” and it also sounds very much like the name of Jair, which is probably no coincidence. Elon (12:11) – This judge is buried in Ajalon (12:12). In Hebrew there is a difference in the vocalization of the names of the judge and his burial place. Samson and Delilah (13:24; 16:4) – When these names are taken together a reader of the Hebrew text will realize that their names point to the opposition of sun (Samson being related to ‫ )שׁמשׁ‬and night (Delilah being related to ‫)לילה‬. Ramath Lehi (15:17) – This place derives its name from Samson using the “jawbone” (‫ )לחי‬of a donkey as a weapon. En Hakkore (15:19) – The name of this place can be translated as “source of the caller” and refers to Samson calling for help to YHWH.

This long list shows that this device of wordplay is used in the book of Judges more than is usual in the Hebrew Bible and especially the puns on names can be regarded as characteristic. Together with the indications of a wellconsidered structure this is an argument to read the book of Judges in its present form as a coherent text, which can be seen as “an artful creation of a single author” (Wong 2006a, 255).

§ 3 THE

HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF THE BOOK

3.1 Indications of sources and redaction Next to the elements listed above pointing to a unity of structure and style there are also indications that the book of Judges is built up of very different materials, suggesting that texts and traditions from different sources have been brought here together and put into a new framework. This is most clear

12

Introduction

in the differences between the information given about the central figures: the length of their stories and the names given to their function. There are also differences in content between the introduction, the stories on the saviours/ judges, and the stories in chapters 17–21. In this situation it may come as a surprise that the statistic linguistic analysis by Radday and others (1977) only partly supports these observations with hard evidence. It only resulted in arguments pointing to a different author of the Samson cycle, but gave no hard evidence for different authorship with regard to the introduction, the stories about the saviours in chapters 3–12, and the assumed appendices in chapters 17–21. So we still have to rely on close reading and making sense of the contents. The first thing then is that we come across is a number of tensions and contradictions. Already the first verse presents a difficulty. The reference to what happened “after the death of Joshua” does not seem to fit in well with Joshua playing an active role according to 2:6, followed by the report of his death in 2:8 in a passage almost verbatim repeating Josh. 24:29–31. There seem to be other contradictions in 1:7 telling that the Judeans used Jerusalem as the place where they could take their prisoners, 1:8 telling that the Judeans still had to take Jerusalem and did so, and 1:21 where we read that the Benjaminites could not drive out the Jebusites from that same city. Also in 19:10–12 it is stated that Jerusalem was not conquered yet. There also seem to be different views on kingship. This is something the book of Judges has in common with the books of Samuel: “Read side by side, the books of Judges and Samuel are neither pro-kingship nor anti-kingship (nor are they pro- or anti-judgeship for that matter); they are multivocal and polyvalent” (Wilson 2017, 79). In the book of Judges this is best illustrated in chapters 8–9. Gideon says in 8:23 that only YHWH is fit to rule the people and he is supported by Jotham who eloquently rejects Abimelech’s ambition to be king (9:7–15). On the other hand the book of Judges ends with a fourfold explanation of Israel’s turmoil by stating that “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), suggesting that they could very well have used a king in that situation. Indications for other versions behind the present text of the book of Judges can also be found in the Septuagint and in a scroll from Qumran (cf. the presentation and discussion by Samuel 2018). The ancient Greek version of the end of the book of Joshua testifies of another continuation of the history of Israel than is found in the book of Judges: And it happened after these things that Eleazar son of Aaron, the high priest, died and was buried in Gabaath of Phinees his son, which he gave him in Mount Ephraim. On that day the sons of Israel took the ark of God and carried it around in their midst. And Phinees served as priest in the place of Eleazar his father until he died, and he was interred in Gabaath, which was his own. And the sons of Israel departed each to their place and to their own city. And the

Introduction

13

sons of Israel worshiped Astarte and Astaroth and the gods of the nations round about them. And the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglom, the king of Moab, and he dominated them eighteen years (LXX Josh. 24:33).

In these final lines, which have no equivalent in Hebrew, reference is made to the ark. In this way it is related to the book of Samuel, because the ark is not mentioned in the book of Judges. To this is added that the Israelites worshipped other gods and that the Lord therefore delivered them into the hands of the king of Moab. This suggests that the introductory chapters of Judges were not known to the translator, because in the book of Judges the reference to this king is found in 3:12. Does this mean that at the time of the Greek translation of the book of Joshua there was a different literary tradition of the history of this period? A very interesting indication of a possible history of redaction behind the present text of the book of Judges is the fact that in the remnants of a scroll from Qumran with the text of the book of Judges a part of the story of Gideon seems to be missing. It concerns the part where according to the MT 6:7–10 a prophet speaks to the Israelites. It was already noted by exegetes before the discovery of the Qumran texts that these four verses seem to have been added by a later editor. Although the state of the scroll leaves no room for definitive conclusions, it can be seen as another indication of different versions of the text of the book of Judges in a relatively late stage of the transmission of the text. Within the Old Testament itself there is the remarkable fact that when according to 1 Sam. 12:11 Samuel reminds the people of the way YHWH helped them in the period as described in the book of Judges he mentions as the deliverers sent by YHWH: “Jerubbaal, Bedan, Jephthah, and Samuel”. In the ancient translations this is corrected to a list more in line with what we read in the book of Judges. In his commentary on this text Dietrich (2010, 541) maintains: “Die Unterschiede dürften kaum daher rühren, dass DtrN eine eigene, von derjenigen im Richterbuch unabhängige Tradition vorlag, sondern daher, dass er das Richterbuch auf ganz eigene Weise zu interpretieren wünscht”. He is not able, however, to present a plausible motive behind the assumed intentional change of names. One should leave open the possibility that he faithfully quoted his source and that he did not feel the need to correct it. This would imply that after the text of the books of Samuel was established the present deviant version of the stories of the judges was given its place before the books of Samuel. Another tension between the books of Samuel and Judges can be observed with regard to the city of Jabesh. According to the story in Judg. 21 it must have been uninhabited in the time of Saul, but according to 1 Sam. 11 it is normally populated. As will be demonstrated in the commentary below, the most likely solution is that the story in Judg. 21 was written as a negative counterpart to the heroic story in 1 Sam. 11.

14

Introduction

3.2 The debate about the Deuteronomistic History In the history of modern research (see especially the surveys by O’Connell 1996, 347–368; Römer & De Pury 2000; Lanoir 2005, 13–57; Focken 2014, 14–34) most attention is given to the relationship with the book of Joshua: to the repeated report of Joshua’s death and to the differences between the accounts of the conquering of the land. Together with the search for the different sources and for redactional activities this led to a still growing number of proposals to reconstruct the way in which old stories and lists developed into the present text. Older critics like Wellhausen and Kuenen were convinced that they could trace the sources of the Pentateuch, especially the Jahwist and the Elohist, also in the book of Judges, together with a number of Deuteronomistic redactions. This approach can be found in the lengthy commentaries at the end of the 19th century (Budde 1890; Moore 1895), but did not result in a consensus (cf. the overview by Nowack 1902, XXIV– XXVIII). It was dominant also in the first half of the 20th century (cf. Burney 1920; Eissfeldt 1925). One of the final representatives is Simpson who published in 1957 a very detailed analysis, distinguishing a “J Document” in two editions, an “E Document”, a “Priestly Document”, a “C recension” of the story in Judg. 19–20, a second edition of C, and three deuteronomic redactors. This study had little impact, because in the meanwhile the discussion had already become dominated by Noth’s thesis of the Deuteronomistic History (see among the many surveys especially those by Webb 1987, 19–28 [updated in his commentary, Webb 2012, 20–32, 35–53], Bartelmus 1991, and Scherer 2005, 5–18). His theory about one author in the 6th century BCE being responsible for the compiling of the story from conquest until exile moved the direction of the attention away from possible links with the Pentateuch. For Noth it was important that the stories about the judges were part of an ongoing history. The book of Judges as a separate entity was something of a later stage. Originally Judg. 2:6 was connected with Josh. 23. Passages in between must have been added later. The same would hold true for the end of the book, especially chapters 17–21 and probably also the stories about Samson. Another consequence of the theory of a Deuteronomistic History was a different view on the sources used by the author/compiler. In this respect especially the theory of Richter about a “Retterbuch” as one of these sources was very influential (Richter 1963 and 1964). This anti-monarchic collection of the stories about Ehud (3:15–26) and parts of the stories about Jael (4:17–22), Gideon and Abimelech (7:1*, 13–21; 8:5–9, 14–21a; 9:56) would have had its origin in prophetic circles in Israel in the period of Jehu. His theory about the “Retterbuch” was dominant for some decades (Soggin 1981, 5–6; Mayes 1985, 18; Gibert 1990, 23–31 [on Judg. 6–8]). A related theory was defended by Schüpphaus 1967, 199: “Für die Darstellung der

Introduction

15

Richterzeit im Richterbuch hat der vordtr Verfasser vor allem eine Reihe israelitischer Richtergeschichten benutzt, die schon in Form einer größeren, schriftlich fixierten Sammlung zusammengefaßt waren”. In his view this collection consisted of the stories of Ehud, Deborah-Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah. At an early stage the song of Deborah and the story of Abimelech would have been added. More recently, Guillaume stated that the assumption of a “book of saviours” is still “a most valuable starting point” (Guillaume 2004, 254), although he proposes a different date (around 720 BCE) and different stages of later editions (cf. also Abadie 2011, 13–14; Milstein 2016, 196). The theory of the Deuteronomistic History was refined by scholars like Cross and Dietrich, but this also weakened its cogency, because it resulted in a wide array of conflicting attempts in establishing the redactional layers. One finds this well-illustrated when comparing the overviews of the text indicating its “stratigraphy” by O’Connell 1991, 385–432; Campbell and O’Brien 2000, 171–214; Kratz 2000, 193–218; and Knauf 2016, 17). It is clear that we are no longer in the position of Soggin who remarked in the preface of his commentary on the book of Judges: “I think that the hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic redaction of the ‘former prophets’ has now been established” (Soggin 1981, xi). Instead, the whole idea of one author or movement is called into question. Scholars speak of “elusive Deuteronomists” (Schearing & McKenzie 1999) or of the “so-called Deuteronomistic History” (Römer 2005; cf. Person 2009). Noth’s theory is called a product which “suited the Western Zeitgeist before and after World War II” (Guillaume 2018, 186). The consensus about the Deuteronomistic History has been replaced by a “Deuteronomic Debate” (Noll 2007). There are still studies devoted to unravelling the history of the text of the book of Judges or parts of it (cf. the survey by Webb 2012, 35–53, and amongst others the recent monographs by Focken 2014, by Edenburg 2016 [on chapters 19–21], by Schulz 2016 [on chapters 17–21], and the volume edited by Berner & Samuel 2018 [on the relation between Joshua and Judges]), but with each of them a consensus seems to be further out of sight. This is illustrated, for instance, by the opposing views of Guillaume 2004, challenging Noth’s theory, and Scherer 2005, vehemently defending it against Guillaume, but then again also changing it (cf. also the very critical review of Guillaume’s book by Levin in 2004; in the introduction to the exegesis of the individual chapters, especially chapters 6–8 and 9, more information shall be given about the complicated discussions about the formation of the text). These problems with the diachronic approach stimulated the synchronic study of the book of Judges (cf. Guest 1998, 2019, 59–61, and the surveys by Webb 1987, 28–36; and Butler 2009, li–lvii). Some of the arguments used in this approach, which takes the book as a coherent unity, have been presented above in the paragraph describing the structure. As might be expected,

16

Introduction

the suggestion that the book of Judges should be read as a book with a wellconsidered structure is challenged (cf. Andersson 2001; Wong 2006b; and again the response by Andersson 2007). The critique by amongst others Scherer (2005, 18) that a synchronic approach inevitably leads to “Eisegese” finds support in the fact almost every new synchronic study leads to a different structure or to the assumption of a different overall theme. The same can said, however, with regard to the diachronic approach which has led to the situation that almost every redaction critic nowadays seems to have his own “Deuteronomist”. A possible way out of this dilemma is pointed by Groß. His approach is undeniably diachronic: in his commentary on the book of Judges he distinguishes no less than ten layers behind the present text and he is very critical with regard to what he calls the “ahistoristische holistische reine Endtextauslegung”, which he disqualifies as “unsachgemäß” (Groß 2009, 78). Nevertheless, he also pays time and again due respect to the final text: “Ausgelegt werden soll anschließend allerdings, wenn auch unter Berücksichtigung der Wachstumsstufen, der vorliegende ‘Endtext’”. It is precisely this balance between taking into account the traces of the growth of the text and taking fully serious the text in its present form, which is the best guarantee for an approach that does justice to the text and its author(s). 3.3 The book of Judges as a prefiguration of Samuel and Kings In recent research, one may note a tendency to date the book of Judges, in its present form, relatively late. According Guest (2019), who gives an elaborate survey of the discussion about dating Judges (pp. 63–88), the late Persian period offers the most plausible historical background as a “peaceful time in which a scribe creates a fictional period of the judges to enable the philosophical pondering of fate, justice, the flaws of human male leadership and the irony of life” (p. 88). Despite the ongoing debates about the sources used in the book of Judges, scholars like Kratz (2000, 198), Guillaume (2004, 252), Levin (2011, 128), Groß (2011, 201), Focken (2014, 222), and Becker (2018, 349–351) agree that it was interposed later between Joshua and Samuel. Carr suggests that the book of Judges “only emerged at a relatively late point as a probable post-P (and perhaps post-Chronistic) bridge between Genesis– Joshua on the one hand and Samuel–Kings on the other” (Carr 2011, 291). This can be based in the first place on the insight that “(t)he book of Judges draws on Joshua and Samuel as well as on the completed book of Kings” (Auld 2000, 362). On the one hand, as will be demonstrated in the commentary below, Judg. 1 can be read as a recapitulation of the incomplete conquest of the land as reported in the book of Joshua. On the other hand, there are many elements in the book of Judges that seem to be “pre-playing”

Introduction

17

(Auld 2000, 355) stories in the books of Samuel and Judges (cf. also Brettler 1989, 407, who speaks of “proto-kings”; Claassens 1997, 213–215, who calls Jephthah “a rising king”; Van Midden 2001, who describes it as a “secret message”; de Castelbajac 2004, 88: “proto-royauté”; Irwin 2012, about the Abimelech narrative being framed to denigrate the northern kingship; in his commentary on the books of Samuel Dietrich 2010, 488–489, also points to the many similarities between Saul and some of the judges). The following correspondences with the stories in the books of Samuel and Kings can be noted: • The Israelites & Saul & David – The phrase “to enquire of YHWH” (1:1) or “to enquire of God” (20:18), using the verb ‫ שאל‬with the preposition ‫ ב‬is not only an important element in connecting the beginning and end of the book of Judges, it also plays a central role in the stories of Saul and David. The downfall of Saul is connected with it, as becomes clear in the story of his attempt to make contact with the spirit of the dead Samuel, when it is no longer possible for him to make contact with YHWH (1 Sam. 28:6, 16). The rise to power of David on the other end is related to his successful attempts to get divine advice (1 Sam. 22:10, 13; 2 Sam. 2:1). • Deborah & Samuel – They are the only persons in the Hebrew Bible who are both called judge and prophet and they are both associated with Ramah and Bethel (4:4-5; 1 Sam. 1:19; 3:20; 7:15-17). This parallel is also noted by Guillaume (2004, 240–241), who assumes that 1 Sam. 7 was written with the book of Judges in mind. In the present commentary it is assumed that it was the other way around: the image of judge Samuel influenced the way the saviours of the period before him were presented. • Gideon & Jeroboam – They are both known for their idolatry and also both associated with Penuel and Shechem (8:8, 31; 1 Kgs 12:25). Knauf (2016, 87–90) notes parallels between the calling of Gideon in Judg. 6 and the stories about Elijah in 1 Kings 18–19. According to Van Midden (2001, 82–3), Gideon stands for king Solomon. • Abimelech & Jeroboam – They both take the throne by force in Shechem and are related to idolatry (9:1–6; 1 Kgs 12:25–32) and are supported by “empty men” (9:4; 2 Chron. 13:7). • Abimelech & Jehu – They both kill or order to kill seventy sons of the previous ruler in their attempt to take the throne (9:5; 2 Kgs 10:1–7). • Abimelech & Saul – God sends them an evil spirit (9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14). Abimelech’s request that his weapon bearer kill him to spare him a dishonourable death (9:54), is reminiscent of a similar situation at the end of the life of king Saul (1 Sam. 31:3-4).

18

Introduction

• Jephthah & Saul – The story of Jephthah’s vow, which costs him his daughter (11:29–40) has a parallel in the story of Saul uttering a curse which would have cost him his son had not his people stopped him (1 Sam. 14; also noted by Auld 2011, 307–8). • Samson & Samuel – There are clear parallels between the stories of their birth in Judg. 13 and 1 Sam. 1. Both stories begin with presenting the problem of a woman with no children. They introduce her husband with exactly the same words (Judg. 13:2; 1 Sam. 1:1). In both stories the woman eventually gives birth to a son who was promised by YHWH and who is consecrated to YHWH for his whole life. • Samson & David – Whereas Samson was announced as the one who would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (13:5), David was be the one who would finish it. Other references to David can be found in the story of Samson being overpowered by the spirit of YHWH and killing a lion with his bare hands (14:6) and of Samson carrying the gates of the Philistine city of Gaza to the mountain opposite of Hebron (16:3), which is the place where David is crowned king (2 Sam. 2:3-4) after having served the Philistines. • Samson & Salomon – Both show their wisdom in proverbs and women (mothers and lovers) play an important role in their lifes. • Samson & Zedekiah – Samson was blinded, bound in two bronze fetters and brought to the capital of the enemy (16:23), just like the last king of Judah (2 Kings 25:7). • Micah & Jeroboam – The story in chapters 17–18 of the sanctuary in Dan can be read as a “chronique scandaleuse” of the sanctuary established at that place by king Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:26–32). • The Levite & Saul – The story of the outrage in Gibea in chapter 19 foreshadows the controversy between Saul and David, because it takes place in towns related to these coming kings. The travelers, coming from a very hospitable Bethlehem, David’s place of birth, wrongly pass by the later city of David, Jebus/Jerusalem (19:10-12), to get into trouble in Gibea, the home town of Saul. To this can be added that in 19:13 Ramah is mentioned also. Within the story there is no clear reason for this, so this also seems to have been meant to relate this story to Samuel, who was born there (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11). The action of the Levite cutting up his dead wife into twelve pieces has a parallel in the similar action of Saul cutting his oxen to pieces and sending these throughout Israel to call up the tribes (1 Sam. 11:7). As is indicated, some of these parallels and sometimes also others less convincing have been noted by commentators before. Dragga 1987 drew attention to the many parallels between the story about Saul’s failure as a king and

Introduction

19

the book of Judges. Vette 2009 maintains that Saul is portrayed as a kind of “super-judge”. According to some scholars these and other parallels have to be attributed to later redactions. For instance, Knauf 2016, 24, makes a “Propheten-Redaktion” responsible for turning Deborah into a prophetess, Gideon into a precursor of Elijah, and Samson into a deliverer sent by God (cf. also Levin 2015, assuming a late “prophetic redaction”). The fact, however, that these parallels with the following books of Samuel and Kings are found throughout the book and that they are not restricted to a specific theme, makes is more likely that we are dealing here with something that is characteristic for the author of the whole book. We certainly have to assume that he used different sources, but apparently he presented them in a consistent way. This is also in line with what was observed above with regard to the structure. 3.4 Greek parallels To this another element can be added that appears to be characteristic of the book of Judges as a whole. Compared to other books of the Hebrew Bible, it contains many possible parallels to Greek literature. The last decade shows a growing interest in the relation between Bible and Hellenism (cf. Brown 1995, 2000, 2001; Lemche 2011; Thompson and Wajdenbaum 2014; Spronk 2015a; Louden 2011, 2016, and 2019; Guest 2019, 82–86; see of the older literature on this subject especially Gordon 1962). In some recent publications, a case is made also for Mesopotamian parallels with the book of Judges. Sasson (2010 and 2014, 8–14) points to correspondences with the Sumerian King List. Baker states that “the writer of Judges made extensive use of prominent and widespread expressions of Mesopotamian cult and culture to structure, animate and colour his creation” (2016, 215). Compared to the very ancient Sumerian King List and the more general examples mentioned by Baker (a 3+1 structure and the solar cult) the Greek parallels stand out as more clear and more numerous. Out of the many parallels mentioned in the history of research, the following seem plausible (more details, including secondary literature will be given in the commentary on the relevant passages below): • The remarkable fact that Adonibezek’s thumbs and big toes were cut off (1:6–7) has a parallel in the story of the war between Athens and the people of the isle of Aegina in the 5th century BCE. It is told that the Athenians cut off the right thumbs of the Aeginean prisoners, so that they they were no longer able to use lances or rowing their boats. The story was preserved by the Roman historian Claudius Aelianus (ca. 175 – ca. 235) who described it in his VariousHistory II.9.

20

Introduction

• The ever returning sequence of apostasy by the Israelites, punishment by YHWH, repenting by the Israelites and deliverance by a judge sent by YHWH, as described in 2:11–22, has a parallel in the teaching of the Stoic philosopher Zeno (334–262 BCE) about the eternal recurrence of things. For the Stoics there was only one “history” which was repeated an infinite number of times. In the 2nd century BCE Polybius used it in his Histories VI.9 in the form of the idea of historical recurrence. • The story of Deborah and Jael in chapters 4–5 contains many elements with parallels in ancient Greek texts, including the names of Deborah, Jael, and Sisera. • The reference in 5:2 of “letting one’s hair hang loose” before starting the battle can be associated with the much repeated phrase in Homer’s Iliad which speaks of the “long haired” Greek warriors (Iliad 8.53-57; cf. also 3.79; 4.261). • The catalogue of all the tribes who participated in the battle against the Canaanites in 5:14–18 is reminiscent of the description in the second book of the Iliad of the warriors joining the war against Troy. • The enigmatic reference to the tribe of Dan “abiding with the ships” (5:17) has a parallel in what one repeatedly reads in the Iliad about Achilles staying with his ships, refusing to join the Greeks in battle (for instance, 1.488-492). • It is also interesting to note that in the Iliad the Greek warriors before Troy are called Danaans. In a number of texts they are mentioned together with their ships on which they came to Troy (cf. 1.89-90). • The gory details of the assassination of Sisera by Jael according to 5:26 are uncommon in the Old Testament. It can only be compared to another story in this book describing the way Ehud killed king Eglon of Moab with some unpleasant details in 3:21-22 and to something similar in 2 Sam. 20:10. Such texts, however, will not have impressed anyone who was familiar with the Iliad, which is filled with descriptions about all kinds of weapons piercing all kinds of body parts. • The final scene in the song of Debora about Sisera’s mother waiting for her son has an parallel in the play “The Persians” by Aeschylus (5th century BCE), where Atossa, the mother of Xerxes, is waiting anxiously but also hoping for rich spoils for the return of the Persian army from the war against the Greek. She recounts a dream about her son being pulled from his chariot by an aggressive woman. • The small number of Gideon’s army, 300 men, is the same as the famous group of soldiers from Sparta led by Leonides attempting to stop the invading Persians in Thermopylae. This is described by Herodotus (Histories 7,205), who also reported a battle between Sparta and Argos, in which both armies consisted of the same number of 300 (Histories 1.82).

Introduction

21

• Jotham’s fable in chapter 9 is reminiscent of the many fables credited to the ancient Greek story teller Aesop (620-564), in which speaking trees also figure. • Abimelech is mortally wounded by the millstone thrown from the wall by a woman, just like Phyrrus who according to the story told by Plutarch was struck by a tile thrown from the roof by a woman from the city he was attacking; the final blow is given in both cases by male soldiers. • Everyone who is familiar with the classical Greek literature will associate the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (11:29-40) with the similar history of Iphigeneia, the daughter of Agamemnon, especially in the way this is described in the play devoted to her by Euripides in IphigeneiainTauris: both Jephthah and Agamemnon feel sorry for themselves and in a way blame their daughter. Especially the way the daughter is pictured in Judg. 11 has much in common with the work of Euripides. • There is a parallel between the commemoration of Jephthah’s daughter and Greek heroine cults. • Samson and Hercules have much in common, especially with regard to their relation with God/gods and with women. Eventually, both are not brought down by brutal force but by a woman they love. • The concept of hair as container of power is well known in Greek mythology. • The curse by the mother of Micah over the one who had stolen her silver (17:2) has clear parallels in Greek imprecations against thieves. • The remarkable story about the Danite migration in chapter 18 has a parallel in the story about the foundation of Massalia by the people of the Greek city of Phocaea, as recounted by Strabo (Geography 4.1.4). Both stories tell of a migration of a people, of the foundation of a new city far away, of a divine oracle as a confirmation of the enterprise, and of a cult image together with a cult functionary. • The story of the Benjaminites and the girls from Shiloh in chapter 21 has a parallel in the story told by Livy (History 1,9) and Plutarch (Romulus 14, 4f.), about the way in which the Sabine girls were carried away by the Romans, who were in need of brides. Already on the basis of only two of the parallels mentioned above (concerning Jotham’s fable and Jephthah’s daughter), Römer can call the book of Judges “the most ‘Hellenistic’ book in the Law and the Prophets” (Römer 2015, 202). He uses it as an argument for dating the book of Judges at the end of the Persian period and assumes that in the retelling of the adventures of northern saviours the author compared the old stories to the exploits and tragedies of Greek heroes. With regard to the important role of women in the

22

Introduction

book of Judges the author may have been inspired especially by Euripides who was famous for the female characters in his work (cf. Mueller 2017). A possible background can be derived from the picture sketched by Van der Toorn about the Hebrew Bible as a product of the scribal culture. He compares the production of the history of Israel with the work of Berossus in Babylon and Manetho in Egypt: two non-Greek scholars living at the turn of the 3rd century BCE, who collected and edited older material in a new Greek version as an effort to publish and preserve a national literature (Van der Toorn 2007, 259). Was the author of the book of Judges someone who lived in the same period and was likewise motivated? We could compare him with Demetrius the Chronographer (cf. Guillaume 2014, 164; 2018, 197–198), a Jew living in Alexandria half a century later, who wrote a (unfortunately ill preserved) history of the Jewish people, as a kind of summary of the Hebrew Bible with emphasis on chronological matters (cf. Charlesworth 1985, 843–854; Hughes 1990, 241–242; Dillery 2015, 357–387). It would explain the presence of so much heterogeneous material in the book next to the many homogeneous elements that make it look as a coherent literary piece of art. The late date of the book in its present form would also explain why there are hardly any references in the books coming after the book of Judges to the persons and events as they are described there. 3.5 The book of Judges as a late construct From the reference in 1 Sam. 12:8-11 one gets the impression that the author was familiar with a period of the judges, but not with the book of Judges as we know it. Important judges, like Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, and Samson, are left out. Gideon is mentioned by his other name, Jerubbaal, and the name of Barak seems to have been replaced by the otherwise unknown Bedan (see on the textcritical discussion Guest 2019, 120–121, n. 21). The fact that Samson is missing is all the more remarkable because in the survey of 1 Samuel 12 the Philistines are mentioned among the enemies of Israel. The only one of the saviours named here who can be held responsible for the reported liberation from the Philistines is Samuel. It seems that the author of these words was not familiar with the stories of Samson as we know them as part of the book of Judges. Other references to the period of the judges can be found in Ruth 1:1, placing the following story “in the days when the judges judged”, 2 Sam. 7:11, mentioning “the day when YHWH installed judges”, 2 Sam. 11:22, mentioning the shameful death of Abimelech, 2 Kings 23:22, mentioning “the days of the judges who judged Israel”, and Ps. 83:10– 13, mentioning Sisera and the Midianite opponents of Gideon. All these texts can be seen as evidence of knowledge of a period of the judges, but hardly as indications that the writers were familiar with the book of Judges (cf. Guillaume 2014, 147–151).

Introduction

23

In this connection it is also interesting to look again at the fact that the ancient Greek version of the end of the book of Joshua testifies another continuation of the history of Israel than that which is found in the book of Judges. In the first part of the text added to Josh. 24:33, it is stated, following the report of the death of Eleazar: “On that day the sons of Israel took the ark of God and carried it around in their midst”. This reference to the ark of the covenant connects the book of Joshua directly to the book of Samuel. Whereas the ark is only mentioned in an aside in Judg. 20:27, it plays an important role in the stories of Samuel. One can relate this to the fact that in the survey of the history of Israel ascribed to the Jewish historian Eupolemos (who probably lived in the 2nd century BCE) Samuel directly follows Joshua (Charlesworth 1985, 866; Guillaume 2014, 151–152). The second part of the added text refers to Phineas, the son of Eleazar, as priest and to his burial in Gabaath. This is followed by the text “And the sons of Israel departed each to their place and to their own city. And the sons of Israel worshiped Astarte and Astaroth and the gods of the nations round about them. And the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglom, the king of Moab, and he dominated them eighteen years”. In this reference to the book of Judges the first part as we know it in the Hebrew Bible, 1:1–3:11, is omitted. It is suggested that the LXX preserves an old situation in which the books of Joshua and Judges formed one composition. The now missing text would have been added at the moment the ongoing story was separated into two books (Tov 2012b, 297–8). That does not explain, however, the added reference to the ark. It is more likely that the addition to Josh. 24:33 has to be ascribed to the translator. The book of Joshua must have been translated as the first of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible. The Greek translation of the book of Judges is of a different character and probably followed much later (cf. Harlé 1999, 9: “le livre des Juges témoigne d’une nouvelle manière de traduire, postérieure de plusieurs générations à celle qui inspira et le Pentateuque et Josué”). Apparently the translator of the book of Joshua wanted to make a reference to these still missing books (Rösel 2002, 19). Be this as it may, the ending of the book of Joshua according to the LXX testifies of a situation in which the collection of the stories about the period of the judges began with the story of Ehud. The reference to the ark points forward to the stories of Samuel, which could mean that the period between Joshua and Samuel is regarded as no more than an intermediary phase. The evidence presented and discussed thus far supports the hypothesis that the book of Judges in its present form is a late construct within the Hebrew Bible, far later also than the terminuspostquem in 18:30, which probably refers to the Assyrian exile at the end of the 8th century BCE. The attempt to reconstruct the process which eventually led to the present text can take as a starting point that a list of judges (see the introduction to the exegesis of 10:1–5) and stories about tribal leaders were brought together and edited

24

Introduction

to function as a bridge between the already existing books of Joshua and the books of Samuel and Kings. As is commonly accepted Judg. 1 was added as an introduction. It recapitulates the unfinished conquest and its opening line (“It happened after the death of Joshua”) is reminiscent of the beginning of the book of Joshua (“It happened after the death of Moses”). This verse plays a key role in other respects as well. It describes how the first action of the Israelites is to enquire of YHWH what to do next. This connects the beginning of the book to the end, where the same is said of the Israelites in their war against Benjamin (20:18). As has been demonstrated above, it also connects the book to the stories of Saul and David, in which their fortune depends on the success of their enquiring of YHWH. The story of Othniel (3:5–11), which apparently was not known by the Greek translator of the book of Joshua, also has the character of an introduction, insofar as it sketches the ideal saviour fighting the “ideal” enemy Cushan Rishataim. Texts like these show how, according to Milstein, the book of Judges “is replete with examples of revision through introduction – nearly every narrative involves the method in one form or another” (Milstein 2016, 45). In her monograph on this phenomenon, for which hard evidence can be found in the Mesopotamian tablets, she describes similar editorial processes in the stories of Gideon and Abimelech and also argues that the concubine episode in chapter 19 represents a secondary addition to the Benjaminite war account in the two following chapters. In the case of chapter 19 this can be combined again with the noted deliberately built in associations with the rivalry between Saul and David in the following book. Another clear case of revision through introduction is the fact, as will be demonstrated in the commentary below, that in the story of Samson the introduction in chapter 13 was clearly added to an existing well-structured story with two parallel panels. This introduction emphasizes the role of YHWH and relates it to the, in-many-respects, similar story of the birth and calling of Samuel. Within the book of Judges the added introduction to the story of Samson has parallels in the introduction of chapter 6 to the story of Gideon, in 9: 7, introducing Jotham’s fable, in 9:23–25, introducing the oldest part of the story of Abimelech, and in the story of the gathering in Bochim (2:1–5), because of the central role of the messenger of YHWH. It is also clear and commonly accepted that 2:6–3:4 was probably added as an introduction to the following stories. With texts like those mentioned above as probable additions it shares the emphasis on the relation between YHWH and his people. It is important to note in this connection that the story of the messenger of YHWH in Bochim connects the book of Judges to the book of Joshua, because it takes up Josh. 24, where it was Joshua who spoke about the covenant and the obligations of the people. The role of Joshua is taken over in Judg. 2 by the messenger of YHWH. Something similar can be observed in

Introduction

25

the connection between the book of Judges and the book of Samuel, in the parallel passages about the birth of Samson in Judg. 13 and the birth of Samuel in 1 Sam. 1. The main difference between these stories is that the promise in 1 Sam. 1 is given by the priest Eli, whereas in Judg. 13 it was given by a messenger of YHWH. Just as in Judg. 2 compared to Josh. 24 there is a kind of upgrade with regard to the mediator between YHWH and man. All these assumed additions not only seem to follow the similar pattern of revision through introduction, they also fit in very well with an editorial activity aimed at providing a literary bridge between the books of Joshua and Samuel from a well-considered theological perspective. This final edition of the text probably took place in the Hellenistic age. This late date is indicated by the relation of the book of Judges with other texts in the Hebrew Bible (see, amongst others, the remarks below on Maon in 10:12 and the relation to 2 Chron. 20:1 and 26:7, and on the relation between Jephthah’s vow and Qoh. 5:1–4). It is also corroborated by the relatively many parallels with Greek literature. It is in line with the little attention paid to the book within the Bible and later rabbinic and early christian traditions (cf. Lesemann 2016, 384, who speaks of “ein in kanonischer und liturgischer Hinsicht randständiges Buch”). With regard to the sources used and possible earlier redactions – be it lists of “small” judges, a “Retterbuch”, “the epicbardic voice” (Niditch 2008, 9–11), or an appendix to an earlier version of the book of Joshua – there is much more to say, albeit that this inevitably will remain even more hypothetical than the reconstruction offered here. In the more detailed commentary below these issues will be taken up in the introduction to the exegesis with surveys of previous research.

§ 4 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The book of Judges describes the period between the conquest of the land and the first kings of Israel. The only detailed literary information we have about this region in that period comes from the book of Judges itself (cf. Fensham 1991). As was demonstrated above we have in all likelihood to assume that there is a big gap between the time of the final redaction of the book of Judges and the time it describes. There is also much debate about the sources used and their historical reliability. The statement that “even scholars who date the book late accept that the stories of the deliverers are rooted in historical reality” (Block 1999, 27; cf. also Kaswalder 1991, 36–37) might give a distorted picture of the situation, as if most scholars agree that the central figures of the book of Judges could be traced back into the twelfth or 11th century BCE. Something similar, however, can be said about the more sceptical statement that “(e)ven if many handbooks of the Hebrew

26

Introduction

Bible present the period of the Judges as a historical reality, this period is nothing other than a literary invention of the Deuteronomistic school” (Römer 2005, 136). This does not imply that it would be useless to look for anything else than the historical background of the assumed Deuteronomistic author. This is well illustrated by the overview by Levin of the study of the history of Israel before it became a state. On the one hand he states: “Eine Richterzeit hat es nicht gegeben” (2000, 392), on the other hand he discusses at length the historical reality behind the story of Abimelech (cf. also his survey of the discussion about the now usually abandoned theory of an amphictyony, a confederation of tribes, before the rise of the kingdom; Levin 2009). Another example is the excellent survey by Fritz (1996; ET: 2011) of the available biblical and external evidence. He fully supports the theory of the Deuteronomistic History and concludes his discussion of the theological significance of the way this period was described in the book of Judges as follows: Thus, the book of Judges does not preserve historical traditions, but instead lays out a theological program. As a historical work, it deals only with the “present” insofar as the Deuteronomistic Historian, writing from the horizon of his own experience, describes the time of the exile. The recorded heroic narratives have no claim to authenticity, since they first stem from the monarchic period, when acts of heroism from David’s wars were possible and communicable (Fritz 2011, 246).

This conclusion is not based, however, on an historical-critical prejudice which denies all references to an historical reality before the exile. Fritz pays ample attention to every possible clue in the stories in the book of Judges for dateable events or situations (1996, 37–62). In his opinion the poem in chapter 5 goes back to the period before the kings of Israel. The lists of the “minor judges” and also the stories about the wars of Gideon and Jephthah would also contain older historical traditions, be it from later centuries (see for other reconstructions on the basis of the book of Judges of the history of Israel in the period before kingship also Malamat 2001, 97–185, Flesher 2017, and the articles by Finkelstein on the different stories in the book of Judges). When it comes to the historical background of the author or editor of the book of Judges we have already come across many suggestions as part of the discussion about the theory of the Deuteronomistic History, assuming a Jewish author living in or shortly after the exile. Refinements of Noth’s hypothesis also resulted in earlier and later editors and authors. All this has an impact on the interpretation because of the suggested links with other historical situations (cf. also Müller 2010). An example of this is the attempt by Liverani to relate the final chapters in the book of Judges to the situation in the Persian province Yehud after the return from the Babylonian exile:

Introduction

27

The scenario of a diversified territory, dangerous to cross, of relationships that represented a balance between maximum security and maximum interaction, of regular meetings and dispersions, is set in a “founding” pre-monarchic past. It is, however, clear that both author and reader have also – and chiefly – the post-exile situation in mind, with the returnees spread throughout the whole territory, partly governed by them and partly in the hands of foreign, and clearly hostile, people, as well as partly controlled by groups that they were related to but who were not very trustworthy. It is no coincidence that the historical scene, restricted to the area between Bethlehem and the Benjaminites centres, coincides precisely with the territory that the Babylonian returnees occupied on their arrival (Liverani 2005, 307; cf. also Janzen 2012 and Guest 2019, 48–55, about reading the book of Judges through the lens of trauma theory).

A different – surprising but hardly convincing – suggestion was recently made by Baker. Instead of ascribing it to one or more Deuteronomistic authors he states that the book of Judges was written by someone living in Jerusalem during the reign of Manasseh and was “conceived as an encrypted prophecy that takes as its object the people of Judah who chose to accept the other gods and the transgressions of covenant law promoted by their rulers” (Baker 2016, 246). He suggests a very precise date: shortly after the death of the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 681 BCE. The writer would have conveyed his message in a hidden way: through satire and the use of literary devices like “mirror-imaging, the confusing of single and double characters, and ascribing to one participant an act that properly belongs to another” (Baker 2016, 278). The intended reader would have realized, for instance, that Gideon stands for Sennacherib and Abimelech for Esarhaddon. Baker’s theory looks like what has been suggested above about the book of Judges as introduction to the books of Samuel and Kings, be it that the assumed relations in the latter to Samuel, Saul and David are more explicit and did not need to be unscrambled. With all these theories we face the same problem as when trying to relate the stories in the book of Judges to the period before the monarchy: it is possible to read them against this background, but it is no more than likely. Many attempts say more about the convictions and prejudices of the interpreter than about the interpreted text. This is what Cooper holds against modern scholars putting the stories of the book of Judges into a different historical perspective (2015, 7), but the way in which he defends the “authenticity” of the book of Judges is also a very good example of how on the basis of a fundamentalist prejudice all kinds of circumstantial evidence is used to prove what is regarded as certain from the beginning. Winther-Nielsen shows a more fitting awareness and honesty in this matter when he concludes his study on the historical background of the book of Judges thus: None of the evidence on language use can prove conclusively whether the Bible is fact or fancy because this is a decision that depends on the speaker’s intentions

28

Introduction and involves the hearer’s trust, and no comparative evidence can establish the details conclusively. However, pragmatic evidence may tip the balance toward historical fact in the sense that both the reported interaction and the contexts resemble the realities of natural, everyday communicative action (WintherNielsen 2002, 77).

The basic problem for a convincing historical reconstruction of the period before the kings of Israel is the lack of external evidence. Support for the view that the book of Judges offers at least a trustworthy general picture of the period described is taken from archaeological and sociological research (cf. Faust 2016). Also the examination of the personals names can be of help (cf. Hess 2003). In a survey about the archaeological evidence Bloch-Smith and Alpert-Nakhai conclude: Given the rather late and tendentious nature of the biblical text, it is somewhat unexpected to discover that archaeological evidence presents a similar, though not identical, picture of the events of the period. (…) Excavated sacred sites of the Iron I are generally consistent with those descriptions preserved in the Book of Judges (Bloch-Smith and Alpert-Nakhai 1999, 118–119).

Van Bekkum in his study on Judg. 1 and archaeology arrives at the same conclusion: “In terms of social structure and historical development, there is an almost perfect match between text and artifact” (Van Bekkum 2012, 545). Something similar can be observed with Ackerman when she states that “the multiple women characters in Judges are depicted as fulfilling the exact sorts of economic, social, political, and religious roles within their communities that Meyers’ examination of the archaeological, sociological, and ethnographic data available for the Iron I period predicts” (Ackerman 2003, 176). The data referred to are, however, no more than circumstantial evidence (cf. Winther-Nielsen 2005, 5, who speaks of “strong, but inconclusive, evidence from archaeological sources”). No direct connection can be made with any of the persons or events described in the book of Judges. Recently Finkelstein has published a number of studies on the historical setting of the stories in the book of Judges, in which he tries to combine the historicalcritical evidence (basically following the views of Richter) and archaeological and topographical information. He concludes that most of the saviour tales and the accounts of the “minor judges” reflect historical events from the 10th century and were collected in the 8th century as part of a foundation myth of the northern kingdom. In the 7th century a Deuteronomistic author would have adapted this northern material, adding references to Judah, and included it in his work (Finkelstein 2017a, 445–446; cf. also Finkelstein 2007, 73–74). Although Finkelstein presents a plausible reconstruction of the historical background, he cannot avoid the fact that is partly based on hypotheses that cannot be proven. More convincing, therefore, are those studies that bring in external evidence which is not influenced beforehand by the wish to prove

Introduction

29

any kind of dating. A good example of this is the study by Gaß (2007) of the historical background of the stories of Samson and the Philistines. He has studied the archaeological evidence concerning the places mentioned in the story: when were they occupied and known to the possible hearers of the story? Next to this he surveyed the remains of the Philistine culture. A problem, however, with this approach is that the Philistines and the places mentioned in the story do not have to be a physical reality to the hearers. They can also be part of a common memory, laid down in well-known stories. The best chance to get a possible clue to a historic situation is with facts and names that do not seem to have a specific function within the story and its wider framework. In the case of the story of Samson the Philistines do not meet this criterion, but the place names Zorah and Estaol do. So the archaeological information that the site of Tsar‘a, usually identified with Zorah, was primarily inhabited in the period between 700 and 586 BCE may be relevant. It can be regarded as an indication of the time in which this story may have been told or invented. A much discussed problem with regard to the history as described in the book of Judges concerns the chronology (cf. Hughes 1990, 69–77; Leuchter & Lamb 2016, 112–115). As indicated in the scheme at the beginning of § 2 there is a clear chronological frame, which gives the number of years of oppression and the number of years following the liberation. The entire period amounts to 410 or 413 (depending on the interpretation of the information about Abimelech) years. It is no easy task to bring this in line with the remark in 1 Kgs 6:1 that the construction of the temple began 480 years after the exodus. We read of forty years of Eli (1 Sam. 4:18), two years of Saul (1 Sam. 13:1), forty years of David (1 Kgs 2:11), and four years of Solomon before he started building the temple (1 Kgs 6:1), bringing the total to 496 or 499, whereas we also have to reckon with the time of the wandering in the desert, the time of the conquest, and the time of Samuel as judge. Even more problematic is that already the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:1 implies that the exodus would have taken place in the 15th century BCE, which is much earlier than usually assumed in scholarly reconstructions of the early history of Israel. This has given rise to many studies, already with the Church Fathers (cf. Harlé 1999, 24), especially by scholars wishing to defend the historical reliability of the numbers given in the Hebrew Bible (cf. surveys by Block 1999, 59–64; Chisholm 2009 and 2012, 34–53). Usually a solution is found by assuming that the periods of different judges overlapped chronologically or that some numbers, like forty and its multiples, have a symbolic meaning (cf. Leuchter & Lamb 2016, 113, noting the pattern in the multiples of ten, with 10 used once, 20 twice, 40 four times, and 80 once). The most likely “solution” probably is that the emphasis in 1 Kgs 6:1 is on

30

Introduction

the round number of twelve times forty as the indication of a generation. Also in the book of Judges the number twelve may have been used to indicate the period as well-rounded, containing the stories of twelve judges/ saviours (leaving king Abimelech out). The latter is known from Clement of Alexandria who made a list of twelve judges (StromatesI, 21; including Eli and Samuel, excluding Shamgar, Yair and Abdon). We simply have to accept that no attempt was made by the author or any later editor of the book of Judges to make the numbers agree with 1 Kgs 6:1. Instead of trying to reconstruct a fitting chronology it seems to be more to the point to consider the possibility that the author did not share our modern ideas about the common chronological structure of a story or a report. As was demonstrated in § 2.3 above the author often presents his material in parallel structures. Sometimes we have to assume that events which are told after each other are in fact reports of the same events but from different perspectives. These cases of “narrative juxtaposition”, indicate that the “representational driving force in the book of Judges is not mimesis, historical accuracy, realitylikeness or commensurability with historical facts, in the modern sense of these concepts” (Marais 1998, 61).

§ 5 THE MESSAGE OF THE BOOK 5.1 The role of YHWH The book of Judges does not figure prominently in the theologies of the Old Testament, and overviews of the way the message of the book is formulated in the commentaries do not yield a clear picture. After his summary Butler asks himself: “How can so many excellent scholars read the same literature and come up with quite distinct understandings of its basic purpose?” (Butler 2009, lxxvii). Nevertheless, most scholars will agree that the book of Judges is about leadership and about the relation with YHWH. And despite the lack of attention in the books on theology it cannot be denied that YHWH does play a central role and, if not, that he is badly missed (cf. Miller 2003, 114–114: “The book shows the horror of life without God”). Starting by first simply listing all the passages where the god of Israel is mentioned, it can be noticed that the name YHWH is mentioned 175 times and that he is referred to as ‫ אלהים‬40 times. Most occurrences of the name are found in chapter 6 (27×). It occurs also frequently in chapters 2 (23×), 3 (15×), 11 (14×), 13 (18×), and 20 (10×), whereas it is missing from chapter 9 and occurs only once in chapters 12, 18, and 19. The number 175 shows that the book of Judges is no less “theological” than the neighbouring books, such as Joshua (with 224 occurrences) and 1 Samuel (320).

Introduction

31

The distribution over the chapters coincides with what is usually regarded as the climax of the book, namely Gideon as the ideal judge as described in chapters 6 and 7, directly followed by the anti-climax in the person of Abimelech in chapter 9. The low number of occurrences may be due to the fact that we are dealing with a theologically problematic situation in chapter 12 (the conflict with Ephraim) and certainly also in chapters 18 and 19, but one would expect the same for chapters 20 and 21. In the final chapter, however, YHWH is mentioned seven times. According to Guest (2019, 13) the scribe pictures YHWH as “an ideal, loving-but-correcting, enduringly loyal parent to his hopelessly wayward, ignorant, children of Israel”. In her opinion modern readers should unmask the way YHWH and his people are presented as “a masochistic defence mechanism”, repressing the bad aspects of YHWH’s character to keep him a good god (pp. 138–170). She certainly has a point that in the course of time the image of God changes and that we should acknowledge the fact that we are dealing in the book of Judges with the specific view of its scribe. This scribe pretends to know much about YHWH, but that is not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible. More specific of the book of Judges appears to be the emphasis on the contact with YHWH (cf. Spronk 2018). As was demonstrated above, the opening line in 1:1 plays an important part within the book of Judges and in giving the book its place within the wider canonical context. The Israelites ask YHWH: “Who shall go up first to fight the Canaanites?” YHWH answers promptly: “Judah shall go up first”. This question is repeated in 20:18, 23 and 27, but there the enemy is the tribe of the Benjaminites. Nevertheless, YHWH’s answer remains the same and, just as in the first chapter, it is followed by successful actions. According to 1:4, YHWH delivers the Canaanites and Perizzites into the hand of Judah and in 1:19 it is explicitly stated that YHWH is with Judah. Also in the battles against the Benjaminites, the other tribes are eventually successful, when YHWH gives the Benjaminites into their hands (20:28). In 20:35 we even read that it is YHWH himself who defeated Benjamin. We already compared 1:1 to the beginning of the book of Joshua. Both Joshua and Judges open with a reference to the death of the previous leader: “It happened after the death of Moses / Joshua”. In Josh. 1:1 it is YHWH who takes the initiative by addressing Joshua, commanding him to take the place of Moses and to hold onto the Torah. By keeping to everything written in the books of Moses, he will be able to make the right choices and act according to the will of YHWH. It is remarkable that in the book of Judges this command and even a reference to the Torah are missing. The consequence of the lack of the Torah as a medium between YHWH and his people is that in the book of Judges, contact between YHWH and the Israelites is more direct. There are many direct dialogues between God and man. As was

32

Introduction

indicated above the fact that the Israelites ask YHWH’s advice has a close parallel in a number of stories about Saul and David and their relation to YHWH. This indicates that what we have here at the beginning of the book of Judges is a first and probably also important criterion for good leadership. In other verses it is stated that the Israelites “cry out” (‫זעק‬, 3:9, 15; 6: 6,7; 10:10; ‫צעק‬, 4:3; 10:12) to YHWH in their distress, caused by the enemies sent by YHWH. This is reminiscent of the Israelites suffering from persecution by Pharaoh in Egypt. In both cases YHWH reacts according to his mercy and because he remembers his covenant with Israel. On the part of the Israelites, one could ask whether this outcry to YHWH is only based on their agony or whether some repentance or conversion is also involved. According to the summary of what happened in the period of the judges in 1 Sam. 12:9-10, the outcry was a confession of sin: “They cried out to YHWH and said: ‘We have sinned; we have forsaken YHWH and served the Baals and the Ashtoreths. But now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve you’”. This is not explicitly stated, however, in combination with the verb ‫ זעק‬/ ‫ צעק‬in the book of Judges. The only exception is 10:10, but precisely there YHWH questions Israel’s sincerity and suggests that they had better cry out to the other gods they chose to serve (10:14). After this conversation this verb is not used any more in the book of Judges. Apparently the people realized that when used on its own the verb could give rise to misunderstanding: when one wants to address YHWH in the right manner, more than a simple outcry is required. 5.2 The messenger of YHWH Characteristic of the encounter between YHWH and Israel according to the book of Judges is that when YHWH takes the initiative to start a conversation he does so via the messenger of YHWH. This happens three times: in 2:1-5; 6:11-24; and 13:2-23, which is more than in any other book in the Old Testament. The first appearance of the messenger of YHWH in 2:1-5 reminds us of Exod. 23:20-23, where the messenger is sent by YHWH to lead the people and to keep it to the commandments. The reaction of the people to the reproach and threats by the messenger is one of shock. They start weeping and also take measures to restore the relationship with YHWH by making sacrifices. The second account of a meeting with a messenger of YHWH is in the beginning of the story of Gideon. In comparison with 2:1-5, it can be noted that it takes much more time for Gideon to be convinced by the messenger. The repeated reference to YHWH leading his people out of Egypt does not impress him, because he does not see those miracles happening in his own situation (6:13). This reaction seems to provoke YHWH not to hide any longer behind the messenger: “YHWH turned to him and

Introduction

33

said: ‘Go in this strength of yours and deliver Israel from the grasp of Midian. Have I not sent you?’” (6:14). From now on the conversation is between Gideon and YHWH himself. This is only interrupted by the scene describing the offering and the messenger of YHWH going up in the flame. The third encounter is between the messenger of YHWH and the wife of Manoah (13:3). Here, there is much more debate about his identity. In the report to her husband, she speaks of “a man of God looking like a messenger of God” (13:6). “Man of God” is a common indication of a prophet (cf. 1 Sam. 2:27; 9:6). So the first suggestion here is that we are dealing with a human being. This is taken over by Manoah when he asks YHWH to send this “man of God” again (13:8). It is remarkable and probably not a coincidence that Manoah never uses the name of YHWH. When he addresses him in his prayer, he says ‫אדוני‬, “my Lord”. In the story the attention to the use of the name is underlined by the fact that, quite surprisingly, the narrator now also speaks of ‫אלהים‬: “God heard Manoah, and the messenger of God came again” (13:9). When, finally, Manoah understands that he met the messenger of YHWH when he did the wondrous thing (13:19; this is related to Gideon asking for miracles in his conversation with the messenger, in 6:13) of going up in the flame, he again uses the word ‫אלהים‬: “We shall surely die, because we have seen God” (13:22). It is the same reaction as Gideon’s, except that Gideon uses the name of YHWH (6:22). The wife of Manoah knows better. This is emphasized by her using the name of YHWH in her reassuring answer. Again, there is a difference with the story of Gideon, where it is YHWH himself who takes away Gideon’s fear. Within the book of Judges these three closely related stories about the messenger of YHWH indicate YHWH’s initiative to get into contact with his people. They show that despite Israel’s sin and its reluctance towards YHWH, this contact is still possible and can become very close. The differences between the stories of the encounter in chapters 6 and 13 show that this close relationship, as established between YHWH and Gideon, is not self-evident and can break down again. 5.3 YHWH and the leaders of Israel According to the narrator, there can be no doubt that it is YHWH who acts and steers the course of history. It is clearly stated in chapter 2 that YHWH, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, now gives his people into the hand of enemies and also raises the judges to deliver them from these enemies. Even the old nations that remained in the land are said to have been left there by YHWH (3:1). In all the following stories this determining role of YHWH is indicated, both directly and indirectly via his spirit. In a number of cases it is emphasized, for instance, when it is stated in the story of Samson wishing to marry a Philistine woman: “it was of YHWH that he was seeking an

34

Introduction

occasion to move against the Philistines” (14:4). Towards the end of the book, especially in chapter 19, the number of references to YHWH pulling the strings is declining or even completely missing. However, there is one in the final chapter, a statement about the fate of the tribe of Benjamin: “YHWH had made a gap in the tribes of Israel” (21:15). In many cases the narrator also gives information about the way the different characters react to this role of YHWH and how they relate to YHWH’s actions. Ehud says to Eglon that he has “a word of God” for him (3:20), indicating that YHWH is behind the following deadly action. When he calls the Israelites to follow him, he declares that YHWH has given their enemy into their hands (3:28). Deborah acknowledges YHWH’s decisive role. She passes this on to Barak (4:6) and when he does not show enough confidence, she announces that YHWH will use a woman instead (4:9). In the introduction of the song in the next chapter she emphasizes that they owe their victory to YHWH. It is even stated – with the words of the messenger of YHWH – that the tribes were asked to help YHWH in his battle (5:23). It is usually the other way around: YHWH assisting his people (cf. McConville 2006, 130: an “unusual angle on divine and human power”). It indicates that here YHWH has taken the initiative. Of central importance in the story of Gideon is the moment when YHWH directly addresses Gideon (6:14). It is a combination of YHWH sending and Gideon acting with the strength he received. When Gideon is still hesitating, he rightly appeals to YHWH as the one who has to save his people: “If you will save Israel by my hand as you have said” (6:36). The underlying important theological insight is that YHWH is the real saviour. The rest of the story clearly illustrates that it is not by human power, but by divine intervention, that the Midianites are defeated. After this victory, however, the question arises once again: was this the hand of YHWH or do we have to credit Gideon with special qualities? First the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna suggest that Gideon is more than average. They suggest that he looks like the son of a king (8:18) and speak of his manly strength (8:21; note the parallel with 6:14). Then the Israelites ask him to rule over them and found a dynasty (8:22). Gideon resists the temptation, stating that the real ruler is YHWH (8:23). This can be regarded as the basic message of the book of Judges, but the moment this theological insight is clear it is adumbrated by human arrogance. Gideon makes himself important by placing a cultic device in his birthplace Ophrah (8:27) and calls one of his sons Abimelech, which can be translated as “my father is king” (8:31). When it comes to the relationship with YHWH, this Abimelech is the opposite of his father (Assis 2005, 171). He has no relations with YHWH at all. Abimelech does not seek the advice of YHWH once and, from the

Introduction

35

side of YHWH, every intervention is aimed against Abimelech. In 9:23 it is stated that God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem and as a conclusion we read that God had avenged the evil done by Abimelech. The author may have avoided using the name of YHWH to emphasize the distance between YHWH and the man who trusted in his own strength alone. A similar movement from a positive development in the relations between YHWH and the Israelite leader towards alienation can be found in the story of Jephthah. In both the negotiations with the elders of Israel and with the king of Ammon, Jephthah pays due respect to YHWH. When Jephthah is made “head and commander” over Israel, he also “speaks his words before YHWH” (11:11). When he tries to persuade the king of Ammon to give up his claims to the contested region, he calls upon YHWH as judge (11:27). It is important to note that YHWH is explicitly called ‫ שׁפט‬here. The only other place where this noun is used in the book of Judges is in the general introduction in 2:16-19 (cf. McConville 2007, 121). Jephthah shares with the king of Ammon and with the reader his clear theological insight: the real judge is YHWH (cf. Gen. 18:25; Ps. 75:8). Together with the observations by Gideon of YHWH as the real saviour (6:36) and real ruler (8:23), this can be regarded as the core theological message of the book. Good relations with YHWH are confirmed when Jephthah receives the spirit of YHWH. Then, however, things go wrong, starting with his rash vow, which costs him his only child, and ending with the slaughter of forty-two thousand Ephraimites (12:6). YHWH is still mentioned in these chapters, but he does not have an active role. The terrible things that happen are not ascribed to his doing. The stories of Samson can be read as a lesson not to trust in one’s own strength. Again one may note the contrast between the positive introduction and problems that arise as soon as the central human character has received the spirit of YHWH. The difference with the story about Jephthah is that in the end contact with YHWH is restored when Samson prays to YHWH. In fact his father Manoah gave a good example when he prayed for the return of the messenger (13:8). Samson learned to pray to YHWH at moments when he had become weak: when he was very thirsty (15:18) and when he had lost his strength and eyesight (16:28). In this way the story makes clear that man is dependent on YHWH and also that YHWH is open to human supplication and uses imperfect men like Manoah and Samson to achieve his plans. In the final chapters of the book, people still talk about YHWH but hardly to him. The mother of Micah blesses her son in the name of YHWH and dedicates the money, which he had returned to her, to YHWH (17:2-3). Micah assumes that YHWH will be good to him (17:13). There is no reaction,

36

Introduction

however, from YHWH, or any indication of his approval. The same can be said of the blessing and the promise given to the Danites (18:6, 10). No active role is ascribed to YHWH. In chapter 19 describing the gruesome death of the woman from Bethlehem, he is not mentioned at all. In the aftermath of this story, when the tribe of Benjamin is punished for the crime at Gibeah, YHWH does act again. This happens when the Israelites ask his advice in the same manner as at the beginning of the book (20:18, 23, 27). YHWH answers and also acts on behalf of those who prayed to him: “YHWH defeated Benjamin for Israel” (20:35). The refrain of the last five chapters is that “there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (17:6; 21:25). This is often explained as a defence of kingship, paving the way for the first kings of Israel. It is probably more to the point, however, to put the emphasis on the second part of the sentence: “everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. The book of Judges has shown time and again the importance of asking the advice of YHWH to do what is right in his eyes. What is needed is good leadership: someone – be it a king or not – who is fully convinced that the best way to start one’s action is by asking YHWH what to do. In the book of Judges very few leaders realize this ideal or, they do so only temporarily. In this way their stories can be seen as a prefiguration of the future kings. It can be concluded that the first verse of the book of Judges sets its theological tone: to reach a goal one should first ask YHWH. The stories of Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson show that this insight is gained gradually and can also be forgotten. At their brightest moments the ancient heroes of Israel realize that it is YHWH who is the saviour, ruler and judge par excellence. As an introduction to the following stories about the kings, the book of Judges makes it clear that the best king is a king who knows when and how to pray to YHWH. This survey of the central role of YHWH in the book of Judges also shows that there is not a simple movement from positive to negative, as is assumed by many commentators (cf. amongst others, Dietrich 2000, 316; Wong 2006a, 176–8; Webb 2012, 32–35; Chisholm 2013, 58–79; Way 2016, 21). There certainly is a turning point at the end of the story of Gideon, but also after that we hear of leaders doing the right thing and of YHWH acting on behalf of his people. A decline is more clearly found in the role played by women (cf. Hacket 1985; O’Connor 1986; Washington 1997; Brodie 2004, 36; Lanoir 2005, 315; Stratton 2013, Roux 2015). Whereas they show initiative and are mentioned by name in the beginning, they are pictured more passive and usually anonymous towards the end. According to MacDonald 2008, 100–133, the dissolution of society in the period of the judges is also revealed in the way the boundaries between animals are crossed. First only the foreign opponents are slaughtered like animals, in the end the same fate awaits Israel herself.

Introduction

37

Modern popular books on Judges (cf. Den Butter 2008; Heller 2011; Keller 2013; Squyres 2014; Webb 2015; Beldman 2017) have in common that they want to show that the book of Judges has a clear message also for today. The emphasis usually is on the fact that God uses imperfect people like the scary Gideon or the careless Samson and that eventually God’s loyalty supersedes man’s unfaithfulness. It also “encourages us to at least consider and view the world through the eyes of those whom we so easily deem as the alien and the enemy” (Park 2017, 240). The book of Judges can also be a source of inspiration for present day Jewish settlers in Palestine (cf. Scham 2018, 123–149: “ ‘There was no king in Israel’: Early Israel in settler movement narratives”), just as Samson became a symbol for Jews resisting the Nazis in the Second World war (the slogan of the Jewish resistance in the ghetto of Warsaw was “Let me die with the Philistines”) and of elite troops in the Israeli army. Surveys of the older history of interpretation will be given in the “Essentials and Perspectives” below.

§ 6 TEXT AND TRANSLATION Good overviews of the textual history of the book of Judges can be found in the volume edited by Lange & Tov (2016, with contributions by Ausloos, Dogniez, Lange, and Trebolle Barrera). The remark by Tov in reviewing the edition of the Hebrew text in BHQ by Fernández Marcos that “Judges may not be a very exciting book for text-critical study” (Tov 2012a, 483), seems to contrast with the lengthy discussions about the original Hebrew texts in the commentaries (see also Barthélemy 1982, 73–129 and O’Connell 1996, 369–384, 438–485). It has to be noted, however, that this primarily concerns the older commentaries representing the scholarly opinion that it was possible to reconstruct an original text on the basis of a comparison between the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin text witnesses. One of the last examples of this is the elaborate work of Lindars on the text of the first five chapters. It is telling that, in the introduction to this posthumously published commentary, Mayes praises the author for “his most strikingly original contribution (…) on the text of the Book of Judges”, but in the following remarks relativizes his views about both the Hebrew and the Greek as witness to the original text (Lindars 1995, ix). In the explanation of the critical apparatus to the BHQFernández Marcos often refers to the discussions by Lindars, but seldom takes over his suggestions to emend the text. This is characteristic of the present state of the research on the text of Judges. The Hebrew text as it is preserved in the well-known medieval manuscripts of Leningrad and Aleppo appears to be well preserved, because there is very

38

Introduction

little variation between the textual witnesses. This is confirmed by the fragments of Qumran (conveniently listed and described in BHQ, 6*–7*; cf. also Trebolle Barrera 1989–90, 1995, Puech 2006, and the survey by Feldman 2016, 78–81), although 4QJudga omits 6:7–10 and probably represents an earlier tradition (cf. Rezetko 2013, 10–31, and the discussion in the commentary below). So, Codex Leningradenis and the Aleppo Codex seem to be good representatives of the Masoretic tradition. They are also supported by the Peshitta, the Targum, and the Vulgate. With regard to the Septuagint, things are complicated (good overviews are given by Kreuzer 2010, Ausloos & Lemmelijn 2012, Satterthwaite 2015, and Dogniez 2016). In the edition by Rahlfs-Hanhart, this is clearly indicated by the fact that the editors did not want to choose between the two very different versions of the Alexandrinus and the Vaticanus. Rahlfs decided to present both: an A-version (a critical text based on the Alexandrinus) and a B-version (following the Vaticanus). It is clear that the Vaticanus and the related Sinaiticus (as far as it is preserved; cf. Karrer 2012) represent a version that is closer to the Hebrew text and it is often assumed that we are dealing here with a version correcting an older Greek text on the basis of the Masoretic text. The A-text would come the closest to the original Greek translation, which also was represented very well in the old Latin translation (the Vetus Latina). Recent research, however, shows that this view is too simplistic, as can derived from the picture below, drawn by Lesemann in his recent monograph (2016, 357). He concluded that both the Hebrew and the Greek texts must have been far from stable until the first century BCE: “Nachweislich bis mindestens ins 1.Jh. v. Chr., vermutlich aber bis in frühchristliche Zeit, muss von einer fluiden hebräischen Texttradition des Richterbuches ausgegangen werden, was auch in den verschiedenen griechischen Rezensionen und Revisionen Niederschlag gefunden hat” (Lesemann 2016, 383; cf. also LaMontagne 2016, 59, and Trebolle Barrera 2005 and 2014 on the importance of the Old Latin Version for the reconstruction of the Old Greek). One can imagine that this makes modern commentators of the book of Judges more reluctant when it comes to attempt to reconstruct the original text. It is more realistic to take the Hebrew text as it is transmitted in the Masoretic tradition as a starting point. The Greek text in its many forms is probably best handled as one of the first chapters in the history of interpretation, just as is done with the Targum. This Aramaic translation usually follows the known Hebrew text. Although it is not as easy as finding the explicitly added comments in the Targum, the convictions of the Greek translators can still be found in, for instance, the way YHWH or his messenger are described. Very helpful in the study of the Greek text are the list by Schreiner 1957 of all differences between MT and LXX and the recently published annotated translations in French (Harlé 1999), English (Satterthwaite 2007),

Introduction

39

Lesemann 2016, 357, Abb. 1: Schematische Darstellung der griechischen Handschriftentraditionen zum Richterbuch in ihrem Verhältnis zu den hebräischen Texttraditionen

and German (Kabierschetal. 2009 and 2011). The variants found in the Old Latin Version (Codex Lugdunensis) are conveniently listed in the commentary of Niditch (2008). The Targum of Judges is introduced and elaborately commented by Smelik (1995). Very helpful is the way in which he describes the relation between the Targum, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate (Smelik 1995, 189–322). Recent English translations are published by Alter (2013) and Fox (2014).

COMMENTARY

JUDGES 1:1–36

SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROMISED LAND

TRANSLATION 1

2 3

4 5 6 7

8

9 10

11 12 13

It was after the death of Joshua that the children of Israel inquired ofYHWH,saying:“WhoshallgoupforusagainsttheCanaanitesat thebeginningtowagewaragainstthem?” YHWHsaid:“Judahshallgoup;look,Ihavegiventhelandintohis hand”. JudahsaidtohisbrotherSimeon:“Goupwithmeinmylotandlet uswagewaragainsttheCanaanites.Iwillgowithyoumyselfaswell inyourlot”.Simeonwentwithhim. JudahwentupandYHWHgavetheCanaanitesandthePerizzitesinto theirhand.TheystruckthemdowninBezek,tenthousandmen. They found the lord of Bezek in Bezek and waged war against him. TheystruckdowntheCanaanitesandthePerizzites. ThelordofBezekfledandtheypursuedafterhim.Theyseizedhim andcutoffthethumbsofhishandsand(thetoesof)hisfeet. ThelordofBezeksaid:“Seventykingswiththethumbsoftheirhands and(thetoesof)theirfeetcutoffwerescrappingundermytable;as Idid,soGodhasrepaidme”.TheybroughthimtoJerusalemandhe diedthere. ThechildrenofJudahwagedwaragainstJerusalemandcapturedit. They struck it with the mouth of the sword and the city they set on fire. Afterward,thechildrenofJudahwentdowntowagewaragainstthe Canaaniteswhodweltinthemountains,theNegevandtheShephelah. JudahwentagainsttheCanaaniteswhodwelledinHebron.Thename of Hebron was formerly Kirjath-Arba. They struck down Sheshai, Ahiman,andTalmai. HewentfromthereagainstthosewhodwelledinDebir.Thenameof DebirwasformerlyKirjath-Sefer. Calebsaid:“WhoeverstrikesKirjath-Seferandcapturesit,Iwillgive himAchsah,mydaughter,aswife”. Othniel,sonofKenaz,brotherofCalebyoungerthanhe,capturedit andhegavehimAchsah,hisdaughter,aswife.

44

Judges1:1–36

14

Itwaswhenshecame,thatsheurgedhimtoaskfromherfatherthe field.ShedismountedfromthedonkeyandCalebsaidtoher:“Whatis itwithyou?” Shesaidtohim:“Givemeablessing.Yeah,drylandyouhavegiven me.Thengivemepoolsofwater”.Calebgaveherupperpoolsand lowerpools. ThechildrenoftheKenite,thefather-in-lawofMoses,wentupfromthe CityofthePalmswiththechildrenofJudahintothedesertofJudah, southofArad.Theywentanddwelledwiththepeople. Judah went with Simeon his brother. They struck the Canaanites dwellinginSefatanddevotedittotheban.Theycalledthenameof thecityHorma. JudahcapturedGazaanditsterritory,Ashkelonanditsterritory,and Ekronanditsterritory. YHWH was with Judah and he took possession of the mountains, becausehecouldnotdispossessthosewhoweredwellinginthevalley, fortheyhadironchariots. TheygaveHebrontoCaleb,asMoseshadspoken.Hedispossessed fromtherethethreesonsofAnaq. TheJebusitesdwellinginJerusalemthechildrenofBenjamindidnot dispossess. The Jebusites dwelled with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalemuntilthisday. ThehouseofJosephwentup,theytoo,toBethelandYHWHwaswith them. The house of Joseph spied out Bethel. The name of the city was formerlyLuz. Thewatchmensawamangoingoutofthecity.Theysaidtohim: “Letusseetheentranceofthecityandwewillshowyouloyalty”. Heletthemseetheentranceofthecityandtheystruckthecitywith the mouth of the sword, but the man and his entire clan they sent (free). ThemanwenttothelandoftheHittites,hebuiltacityandcalledit Luz.Thisisitsnameuntilthisday. ManassehdidnotdispossessBethSheanandherdaughters,Taanach and her daughters, those who dwelled in Dor and her daughters, those who dwelled in Jibleam and her daughters, and those who dwelledinMegiddoandherdaughters.TheCanaanitespersistedto stayinthisland. It was when Israel had become strong, that it put the Canaanites underforced-labour,butdispossessingthemtheydidcertainlynot. Ephraim did not dispossess the Canaanites who dwelled in Gezer. TheCanaanitesdwelledinitsmidstinGezer.

15

16

17

18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27

28 29

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

45

Zebulon did not dispossess those who dwelled in Kitron and those whodwelledinNahalol.TheCanaanitesdwelledinitsmidstandthey were(putto)forced-labour. Asher did not dispossess those who dwelled in Acco and those who dwelledinSidon,Ahlab,Achzib,Helbah,Aphik,orRehob. TheAsheritesdwelledinthemidstoftheCanaaniteswhodwelledin theland,becausetheydidnotdispossessthem. Naftali did not dispossess those who dwelled in Beth Shemesh and those who dwelled in Beth Anath. It dwelled in the midst of theCanaaniteswhodwelledintheland.ThosewhodwelledinBeth ShemeshandBethAnathwere(putto)forced-labourforthem. TheAmoritespressedthechildrenofDantothemountains,because theydidnotgivethem(leave)togodowntothevalley. The Amorites persisted to dwell on Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim.ThehandofthehouseofJosephwasheavyandtheywere (putto)forced-labour. TheterritoryoftheAmoriteswasfromtheScorpion’sPass,fromthe rockandhigher.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY A.G. Auld, “Judges I and History: A Reconsideration”, VT 25 (1975), 261–285; C. Begg, “The Overture to the Period of the Judges according to Josephus”, LA 54 (2004), 235–254; K. van Bekkum, “De historiografie van Israëls vestiging in Kanaän aan de hand van Richteren 1”, NTT 54 (2000), 295–309; idem, “Coexistence as Guilt: Iron I Memories In Judges 1”, in: G. Galil etal. (eds), TheAncientNearEastinthe 12th-10thCenturiesBCE:CultureandHistory (AOAT 392), Münster 2012, 507– 530; E. Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag”, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (Fs Brekelmans), Leuven 1997, 181–212; idem, “Once Again: The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Joshua and Judges”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 221–240; M. Brockhaus, “Achsah: who ever saw her was angry with his wife: Achsah in the Bible and Bavli Temurah 16a”, Lectiodifficilior 2 (2011); J. Fleishman, “A Daughter’s Demand and a Father’s Compliance: The Legal Background to Achsah’s Claim and Caleb’s Agreement”, ZAW 118 (2006), 354– 373; C. Frevel, “On Ontying Tangles and Tying Knots in Joshua 23–Judges 3:6”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 281–294; V. Fritz, “Das ‘negative Besitzverzeichnis’ in Judicum 1”, in: M. Witte (ed.), GottundMenschimDialog (Fs Kaiser, BZAW 345/I), Berlin, 2004, 375–389; S. Frolov, “Fire, Smoke, and Judah in Judges: A Response to Gregory Wong”, SJOT 21 (2007), 127–138; E. Gaß, “Perisiter – Hiwiter – Jebusiter. Gentilizia in Zentral- und Nordpalästina”, in: W. Groß, E. Gaß, StudienzumRichterbuchundseinenVölkernamen (SBAB 54), Stuttgart 2012, 323–362; idem, “Gewalt gegen Feinde im Landnahmekontext am Beispiel der Adonibezeq-Episode”, in: I. Fischer (ed.), Macht–Gewalt–KriegimAltenTestament, Freiburg im Breisgau 2013, 107–170; C.H.J. de Geus, “Richteren 1:1–2:5”, VoxTheologica 36 (1966),

46

Judges1:1–36

32–53; P. Guillaume, “An Anti-Judean Manifesto in Judges 1?”, BN 95 (1998), 12– 17; idem, “Dating the Negatives Besitzverzeichnis (Judges 1,27-34): The Case of Sidon”, Henoch 23 (2001), 131–137; W.W. Hallo, “New Light on the Story of Achsah”, in: J. Kaltner etal. (eds), InspiredSpeech:ProphecyintheAncientNear East (Fs Huffmon, JSOTSup 378), London 2004, 330–335; R.S. Hess, “Non-Israelite Personal Names in the Book of Joshua”, CBQ58 (1996), 205–214; D. Jericke, “BetEl und Lus: Lokalisierung und theologische Konnotation der Toponyme”, WdO38 (2008), 176–193; R. Jost, “Achsas Quellen: Feministisch-Sozialgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu Josua 15, 15–20/ Ri 1, 12–15”, in: R. Kessler etal. (eds), „IhrVölkeralle, klatscht in die Hände!“ (Fs Gerstenberger), Münster 1997, 110–125; P. Kaswalder, “Le tribù in Gdc 1,1-2,5 e in Gdc 4-5”, LA 43 (1993), 89–113; L.R. Klein, “Achsah: What Price this Prize?”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), Judges.AFeministCompaniontothe Bible (Second Series), Sheffield 1999, 18–26; R. Kratz, “The Literary Transition in Joshua 23–Judges 2: Observations and Considerations”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 241–256; C. Lanoir, “Le livre des Juges, l’Histoire et les Femmes”, Foietvie96 (1997), 55–71; T.M. Lemos, “Shame and Mutilation of Enemies in the Hebrew Bible”, JBL125 (2006), 225–241; M. le Roux, “Agsa, vrou van Otniël”, JSem24 (2015), 503–521; E.Th. Mullen, “Judges 1:1-36: The Deuteronomistic Reintroduction of the Book of Judges”, HTR 77 (1984), 33–54; A. D. H. Mayes, TheStoryof Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983; J. McKinlay, “Meeting Achsah on Achsah’s Land”, The BibleandCriticalTheory5/3 (2009), 39.1–39.11; G. Minunno, “La mutilation du corps de l’ennemi”, in: P. Abrahami, L. Battini (eds), LesarméesduProche-Orient ancien(IIIe-Iermill.av.J.-C.), Oxford 2008, 247–255; N. Na’aman, “Canaanites and Perizzites”, BN 45 (1988), 42–47; idem, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History”, in: idem, CanaanintheSecondMillenniumB.C.E. CollectedEssaysVolume2, Winona Lake 2005,317–402; idem, “Rediscovering a Lost North Israelite Conquest Story”, in: O. Lipschits et al. (eds), Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel (Fs Finkelstein), Winona Lake 2017, 287–302; S. Niditch, “Reading Story in Judges 1”, in: F.C. Black etal. (eds), TheLabourofReading:Desire,Alienation,andBiblicalInterpretation(Fs Culley), Atlanta 1999, 193–206; H.M. Niemann, “Das Ende des Volkes der Perizziter”, ZAW105 (1993), 233–257; D. Nolan Fewell, “Deconstructive Criticism: Achsah and the (E)razed City of Writing”, in: G.A. Yee (ed.), Judges&Method: NewApproachesinBiblicalStudies, 2nd edition, Minneapolis 2007, 115–137; E. Noort, DasBuchJosua:ForschungsgeschichteundProblemfelder (Erträge der Forschung 292), Darmstadt 1998; M. Rake, „Juda wird aufsteigen!”: Untersuchungen zumerstenKapiteldesRichterbuches(BZAW 367), Berlin 2006; O.L. Ribeiro, “ ‘E o levaram para Jerusalém e o mataram lá’: Juízes 1,4b–7 como documento Jebuseu dos arquivos de Jerusalém”, PerspectivaTeológica 44/124 (2012), 451–466; H. Rösel, Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments (SVT 75), Leiden 1999; idem, Joshua (HCOT), Leuven 2011; T.J. Schneider, “Achsah, the Raped pilegeš, and the Book of Judges”, in: E.A. McCabe (ed.), WomenintheBiblicalWorld:ASurveyofOld andNewTestamentPerspectives, Volume 1, Lanham 2009, 43–57; S. Schulz, “The Literary Transition between the Books of Joshua and Judges”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 257–280; R. Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte”, in: H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie(Fs Von Rad), München 1971, 494–509; K. Spronk, “Jozua op herhaling: Rechters 1:1-2:10 als inleidende samenvatting”, ACEBT 24 (2009), 43–50;

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

47

J.S. Stevenson, “Judah’s Successes and Failures in Holy War: An Exegesis of Judges 1:1–20”, RestorationQuarterly 44 (2002), 43–54; K. Stone, “What Happens When Achsah Gets Off Her Ass? Queer Reading and Judges 1:11–15”, in: R. Sterman Sabbath (ed.), Sacred Tropes: Tanakh, New Testament, and Qur᾿an as Literature and Culture, Leiden 2009, 409–420; H.M. Szpek, “Achsah’s Story: A Metaphor for Social Transition”, AUSS 40 (2002), 245–256; M. Weinfeld, “Judges 1.1–2.5: The Conquest under the Leadership of the House of Judah”, in: A.G. Auld (ed.), UnderstandingPoetsandProphets (Fs Anderson, JSOTSup 152), Sheffield 1993, 388–400; P. Welten, “Bezeq”, ZDPV 81 (1965), 138–165; G.T.K. Wong, “Is There a Direct Pro-Judah Polemic in Judges?”, SJOT 19 (2005), 84–110; K.L. Younger, Jr., “Judges 1 in its Near Eastern Context”, in: A.R. Millard etal. (eds), Faith,Tradition,andHistory, Winona Lake 1994, 207–227; idem, “The configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1.1-2.5 and its Dependence of the Book of Joshua”, JSOT 68 (1995), 75–92.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES The book of Judges opens in the same way as the book of Joshua: with a reference to the death of the central figure of the previous book: “It was after the death of Moses/Joshua”. The book of Joshua made it clear that Joshua was a worthy successor of Moses. In Josh. 24:29 he receives the title which was reserved for Moses at the beginning of the book: “servant of YHWH”. The book of Judges makes a hopeful start with YHWH designating the tribe of Judah to take the lead in going against the Canaanites and taking possession of the land. Judah sets a good example, but this is not followed by the other tribes. The tribe of Benjamin appears to be Judah’s counterpart, which is especially clear with regard to the city of Jerusalem and its Jebusite inhabitants. This is an indication of what will happen at the end of the book, where Judah again is appointed to go first, but this time against the Benjaminites (20:18). With regard to the northern tribes there is also the difference between Joseph doing well and the other tribes being unable to deal with the Canaanites. This sets the stage for the following stories in which the remaining Canaanites are described as responsible for Israel’s apostasy. Judges 1 functions as a hinge between the books of Joshua and Judges. It recapitulates the partly unsuccessful conquering of the land as already recounted in the book of Joshua and repeats the stories about Adonisedek (presented here as the lord Bezek) and Achsah. It also prepares the reader for a far less positive outcome than in the book of Joshua. The two stories set the tone. The cruel treatment of the lord of Bezek is a first sign of the attention that will be given to leadership and the way leaders use their power. The remarkable assertive behaviour of Achsah is a first example of the influential role played by women in this book (cf. Lanoir 1997; idem 2005, 119– 148; Le Roux 2015). The negative counterpart of her story is the story of

48

Judges1:1–36

the rape of the concubine in chapter 19 (cf. Schneider 2009). In the history of interpretation most attention is devoted to Achsah (Gunn 2005, 23–29; Brockhaus 2011). In the older literature she is often pictured less positive than in the book of Judges. In modern interpretation she figures prominently especially in feminist exegesis, where also the fact is noted that Achsah is pictured as the ideal wife, but then from a male perspective (cf. Jost 1997; Klein 1999; McKinlay 2009).

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS The book of Judges is clearly presented as a sequel to the book of Joshua. Just like the book of Joshua it starts with the reference of the death of the primary figure in the preceding book: “It happened after the death of Joshua/ Moses”. For a considerable part Judg. 1 repeats the book of Joshua. With Josh. 15:13–14 it shares the information about Caleb receiving Hebron and driving out the sons of Anaq (cf. Judg. 1:20), with Josh. 15:15–19 the information about Caleb, Achsah, and Othniel (cf. Judg. 1:11–15). Negative information about the other tribes seems to have been taken from Josh. 15:63 about the failure to drive out the Jebusites (cf. Judg. 1:21 with the Benjaminites instead of the Judahites), from 16:10 about Canaanites remaining in Ephraim (cf. Jud. 1:29), and from 17:11–13 about Canaanites in Manasseh (cf. Jud. 1:27-28). The story in Judg. 1:4–7 of the lord of Bezek brought as captive to Jerusalem is reminiscent of the report in Josh. 10 about the war against Adonisedek of Jerusalem. The precise relation between the texts from the book of Joshua and Judges is a matter of ongoing scholarly dispute (cf. the surveys by Noort 1998, 198– 205; Rake 2006, 1–20; Groß 2009, 104–118; and different contributions in Berner & Samuel 2018, 187–294). Also the relation between the Hebrew text and the ancient translations is complicated. According to Noth Judg. 1 would have preserved an old text about territory not conquered by Israel, which would have been placed together with Josh. 24 in between the original transition from Josh. 23 to Judg. 2:6, but one also finds the opposite view (for instance, with Eissfeldt; cf. Rösel 1999, 49–58) that Josh. 24 and Judg. 1–2:5 contain the oldest tradition. It has long been assumed that 1:21 and 27–35 are based on an old list of cities not occupied by the Israelites. Since Alt introduced this theory of “das negative Besitzverzeichnis” there has been much discussion about the date and the relation to the book of Joshua, but nowadays it has lost much of its influence (cf. the survey by Groß 2009, 111–118; see on the possible historical background now Na’aman 2017, 290– 296).

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

49

There are many variations to the theories of Alt and Noth. De Geus (1966, 51) states that Judg. 1 never existed separately and was written to relate the book of Judges to the book of Joshua. Smend assumes that originally Josh. 24 was followed by Judg. 2:10 (Smend 1971, 506), whereas Mayes is of the opinion that the oldest layer consists of Josh. 21:43–45; 22:1–6; and 24:29ff. First Josh. 23 would have been added and later Josh. 24, together with Judg. 1:1–2:5 (Mayes 1983, 60–61). Recent, very detailed reconstructions of the formation of the text by Blum (1997; slightly adapted in 2018), Kratz (2000, 204–208; 2018), Rake (2006), Frevel (2018), and Schulz (2018) show that a consensus is not in sight. Illustrative of the complications researchers are facing (or creating) is the opinion by Rake that not only Judges was influenced by Joshua, but that in some cases it was also the other way around, whereas one also has to reckon with the possibility that at some point the older text may have been edited on the basis of the later text. According to Rake, originally the transition would have been from Josh. 24:28 (Joshua releasing the people) to Judg. 2:7-9 (about Joshua’s death). In a next phase 2:1-5 (the episode of the messenger of YHWH at Bochim) would have been added. The duplication of the report of Joshua’s death at the end of the book of Joshua is attributed by Rake to a later redactor, whereas the present first chapter of the book of Judges would have received its place between these two moments in the redaction history. The introduction in 1:1aα (“It happened after the death of Joshua”) would mark together with the inclusion of the death of Joshua in Josh. 24:29–31 a final phase, in connection with the separation of the two books (Rake 2006, 131–132). Frolov, who advocates a reading of the book of Judges as integrated part of the Enneateuch, states that it is better not to focus on the transition between the books of Joshua and Judges. Instead, more justice would be done to the overall literary layout by reading Judg. 1:1–26 within the framework of Josh. 13:1–Judg. 1:26 and Judg. 1:27–3:6 as the introduction to the following books (until 2 Kings) (Frolov 2009, 41). So within this first chapter there would have been the shift from the story of the largely successful conquest of the Promised Land to the mostly unsuccessful attempts to retain it in a good way as described in the following chapters. This shift is not as obvious, however, as Frolov suggests. There are also indications in the book of Joshua, especially in chapter 23, of problems with regard to taking possession of the land. The book of Judges also is more than a list of failures. It is probably more to the point to note that the first chapter is a foreshadowing of what is going to follow: a combination of good and bad leadership, with the latter taking precedence in the final part of the book. Frolov may be right that as far as syntax is concerned there is no clear division between the books of

50

Judges1:1–36

Joshua and Judges (Frolov 2009, 33). The reference to the death of Joshua creates a link, but this has probably to be explained as a copy of the beginning of the book of Joshua. Just as Josh. 1:1 it must have been meant then to mark the beginning of a new episode in the history of Israel. When it comes to the formation of the book the most likely hypothesis is that 1:1–2:5 was added as an introduction, preceding the previous introduction of 2:6–3:6 and 3:7–11, to a collection of stories about ancient leaders of the tribes of Israel. Within the book of Judges this would be the first of the many “examples of revision through introduction” (Milstein 2016, 45). It is very well possible that the introduction in its present form is not the result of many redactions, but can be attributed to one author who collected and adapted existing material to connect these stories to the book of Joshua. This first chapter can be read as a recapitulation. It takes up a number of relevant elements of the preceding book and puts them in a new framework. Some of these elements were adapted and some elements were added, leading to a coherent introduction emphasizing the role of Judah and giving a first indication of the problems ahead and the reason behind these problems. Judg. 1:1–2:5 follows the structure of the book of Joshua: • Report of the death of the previous leader (Josh. 1:1 // Judg. 1:1) • Appointment of the new leader by YHWH (Josh. 1:1–9 // Judg. 1:2) • Stories about the conquest of the Promised Land (Josh. 2–12 // Judg. 1:3– 26) • Lists of the tribes taking or not taking their parts of the Promised Land (Josh. 13–23 // Judg. 1:27–34) • Meeting of the people as a whole (Josh. 24 // Judg. 2:1–5) Judg. 1:1–2:5 can be read as a coherent unit with two parts structured in the same way. Elaborating on this suggestion by De Geus (1966, 44; cf. also Webb 2012, 92), one can distinguish a first part about Judah and a second about Joseph, with a reference to Benjamin and Jerusalem in the middle, and surrounded by references to Israel as a whole: 1:1 – Israel and YHWH 2–10 – Judah, Simeon 11–16 – intermezzo about Caleb and Kenites 17–20 – Judah, Simeon (v. 19: YHWH with Judah) 21 – Benjamin, Jerusalem 22–26 – Joseph (v. 22: YHWH with Joseph) 27–34 – intermezzo about other tribes 35–36 – Joseph 2:1–5 – Israel and the messenger of YHWH

This structure is perfectly in line with the book as a whole. The contrast between Judah and Benjamin points to where it goes wrong time and again:

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

51

the tribes did not drive out the inhabitants of the land. It also points forward to the bitter ending of the book in the chapters 19–21 where Benjamin is held responsible for something that is “not done in Israel” (19:30) and is punished by the other tribes led by Judah. In most cases it is likely that in the noted parallels Judges is dependent on Joshua (Na’aman 2005, 358–359). Precisely where Judg. 1 differs from Joshua, it concerns the obvious attempt to put Judah in a more favorable light than it appears in the book of Joshua (this “pro-Judah bias is challenged by Wong 2005, but then again defended by Frolov 2007). This is what has happened in 1:21, where compared to the parallel in Josh. 15:63 the name of the Judahites is replaced by the name of the Benjaminites as the ones who must be blamed for not driving out the Jebusites from Jerusalem. In 1:8 it is told that the Judahites conquered Jerusalem. Because there is no reference in 1:8 of the Jebusites, we can assume that in the eyes of the author it does not contradict 1:21. Conquering and burning a city is one thing, definitively driving away the inhabitants is something else. A similar distinction but then in a positive way is made in the previous verse: Caleb takes Hebron, whereas already in v. 10 it was stated that Judah had defeated its inhabitants. Another example is found in vv. 18–19: Judah subdued Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, but at the same time it is remarked that it was not able to supplant the inhabitants of the Philistine coast, which is nothing other than the region of the mentioned cities. What is more important, however, is that in this way (by the combination of 1:8 and 1:21), not only the negative picture of Judah in Josh. 15:63 could be corrected; it also left room for the later report of David taking the city of Jerusalem and making it his capital (2 Sam. 5:6–8). Note that in the story of David the Jebusites are explicitly mentioned: “the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land”. The way in which the source text of Joshua is handled here and the way the connection is made to the book of Samuel, can be regarded as typical for the motives and methods of the author of the book of Judges. It also corroborates the suggestion that the book of Judges is related to the book of Joshua in the same way as it appears to be related to the books of Samuel. This may also explain the way the story of Adonisedek from Josh. 10 is taken up in Judg. 1:4–7. He is now related to the city of Bezek, which is only mentioned here and in the story of Saul, where it is the first place where he acts as king, assembling an army against the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11:8). The final verses 30–36 do not have clear parallels in the book of Joshua. Apparently they were added by the author as an introduction to some of the following stories, as is indicated by a number of links. Sidon (v. 31) has a parallel in the story of the Danites capturing Laish (18:28). Bet-Shemesh (v. 33) can be related to Samson, who is named after the sun (Hebrew shemesh).

52

Judges1:1–36

Bet-Anath (v. 33) can be related to Shamgar, son of Anath (3:31). The fact that the Amorites do not allow the tribe of Dan to take possession of the part of land allocated to them will be taken up in chapter 18.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS 1:1–2 1

2

It was after the death of Joshua that the children of Israel inquired ofYHWH,saying:“WhoshallgoupforusagainsttheCanaanitesat thebeginningtowagewaragainstthem?” YHWHsaid:“Judahshallgoup;look,Ihavegiventhelandintohis hand”.

Just like the books of Joshua and 2 Samuel this book opens with a reference to the death of the central figure of the previous book, using the same phrase ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַא ֲח ֵרי מוֹת‬, followed by the name of the deceased (cf. also Gen. 25:11; 26:18; Lev. 16:1; Ruth 2:11; 2 Kgs 1:1; 14:17; 2 Chron. 22:4; 25:25 for the phrase ‫)א ֲח ֵרי מוֹת‬. ַ It is clearly the signal of a new beginning, questioning what will happen now that a great leader is no longer available. The reaction after the death of Joshua is positive, because Israel takes the right direction by asking YHWH. It is rewarded for that, as YHWH reacts directly and positively by appointing Judah, accompanied by the repetition of the promise of the land given to Abraham, Moses, and Joshua. The perfect ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬can be translated as future (“I shall give”), but here it has to be interpreted as being performed at the very moment of utterance (cf. JM § 112g). Comparison with Josh. 1:1 also shows a number of significant differences. In Josh. 1 the initiative to appoint the new leader is taken by YHWH. In the rest of the book the position of Joshua is undisputed and confirmed in the end, when he is called “servant of YHWH” (Josh. 24:29), just like his predecessor (Josh. 1:1). In the book of Judges, things are more complicated and uncertain. To begin with, there is no reference to a person but to a whole tribe. In Rabbinic tradition this is harmonized by identifying Judah as Othniel (cf. Smelik 1995, 331). The choice for Judah does not come as a surprise. Already in Josh. 14–19, when the land was divided, Judah was the first to receive its part. In the recapitulation of the conquest, as reported in the next verses of Judg. 1, Judah proves to be equal to the task of waging war against the Canaanites, but in other places some doubt may come up. In 15:10–13 men of Judah appear to accept the leadership of the Philistines. In 20:18 the question to YHWH is repeated, but this time in the conflict with the tribe of Benjamin. Again, Judah goes up first, but now in a civil war. Compared to the end of the book of

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

53

Joshua this is very disappointing. The promise of a good leader still has to be redeemed. There is a clear connection regarding this promise with the following books of Samuel through the repeated phrase “enquire of YHWH/God”, using the expression ‫שׁאל ב‬. In the stories about Saul and David, it functions as a key phrase in evaluating their relation to YHWH. It illustrates the rise to power of David as the result of his successful attempts to obtain divine advice, for instance in 1 Sam. 22: 10, 13, and 2 Sam. 2:1 (David asks YHWH: “Shall I go up?”). On the other hand, it illustrates the downfall of Saul when, after the death of Samuel, he is no longer able to make contact with YHWH (1 Sam. 28: 6, 16). So, finally, David from the tribe of Judah proves to be the worthy successor of Joshua. In fact, already in the question of the Israelites there is an indication that a definitive solution is not yet in sight. They only ask for someone to make the beginning. The same phrase ‫ב ְתּ ִח ָלּה‬, ַ “at the beginning” is also used (twice) in 20:18 and returns in the verb ‫ חלל‬hiphil, “to begin”, in 10:18 and 13:5 where it used to indicate the work of Jephthah and Samson. They will make a beginning with the fight against the Ammonites and the Philistines, which will be finished by David. According to Marais (1998, 75) this verb “is used in the text of Judges to denote the preliminary military actions which will be a hallmark of this book. Any liberation will only be initiated. Victory is relativised from scratch”. At this point of the book such a negative conclusion is not yet in sight and the first stories give reason for optimism. Nevertheless, it is a first hint that after the death of Joshua things will go wrong. Judg. 1 mentions the Canaanites 12 times. Afterwards they are mentioned only in 3:3, 5, next to the king(s) of Canaan in 4:2, 23, 24; 5:19. They are the people most directly associated with the Promised Land. 1:3 

JudahsaidtohisbrotherSimeon:“Goupwithmeinmylotandlet uswagewaragainsttheCanaanites.Iwillgowithyoumyselfaswell inyourlot”.Simeonwentwithhim.

The fact that Judah unites with Simeon comes as no surprise after what is said about the territory of the tribe of Simeon in Josh. 19:9: “The inheritance of the children of Simeon was included in the share of the children of Judah, for the share of the children of Judah was too much for them. Therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of that people”. It shows that Judah was superior to Simeon and in this way also explains why Judah as the tribe descending from the fourth of the sons of Jacob takes

54

Judges1:1–36

the first place. The tribe of the oldest, Ruben, was not an option, because it had received its part outside the Promised Land (Josh. 13:8–23). The third, Levi, had not inherited land and had other cultic obligations (Josh. 13:33; 18:7). Simeon, the second of Jacob’s sons, did not have the status to become the leader of the Israelites. One could also see this as the fulfillment of the curse by Jacob on Simeon: “I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (Gen. 49:7). Simeon does not play an independent role. It is only mentioned once again, together with Judah, in Judg. 1:17. There is no reason to assume a negative element in the report about this action (as suggested by Klein 1988, 23; and Marais 1998, 73–74), as if Judah was reluctant to react to the call to go first. One should see it more positively as an indication of brotherhood, in contrast to the war between brothers at the end of the book, where Judah has to go up first against the tribe of Benjamin. 1:4 

JudahwentupandYHWHgavetheCanaanitesandthePerizzitesinto theirhand.TheystruckthemdowninBezek,tenthousandmen.

In v. 4 the singular (‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫וַ יַּ ַעל י‬, “Judah went”) turns into plural (‫”בּיָ ָדם‬,their ְ hand”). This has to do with the fact that the Judahites can be indicated both by the name of their ancestor and by “the children of Judah” (v. 8). Although Simeon agreed to go with Judah (v. 3), Judah now acts alone. Another difference with the introduction is that Judah not only goes against the Canaanites but also against the Perizzites. The Perizzites are usually mentioned among the six or seven peoples living in Canaan (cf. Josh. 24:11; Judg. 3:5). The combination of Canaanites and Perizzites also occurs in Gen. 13:7; 34:30 and Josh. 16:10 (LXX). The origin of the Perizzites and the place where they lived are not clear (cf. Na’aman 1988; Niemann 1993; Gaß 2012, 323–326, 341–343). Within the present context the addition of an extra enemy can be seen as an indication that matters are taken up in a good way. With the Perizzites, a further step is taken to deal with all seven peoples as they are listed in 3:5. The town of Bezek is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible only here and in 1 Sam. 11:8 in the story of Saul preparing for battle against the Ammonites. This city is usually identified with Chirbet Ibziq (cf. Welten 1965; Gaß 2005, 9–11, 207–208), almost 50 km north of Jerusalem. This location fits well with the story of Saul, but it is far removed from the territory of the tribe of Judah. Instead of looking for other places on the map of ancient Israel, one could also consider the possibility that the author wanted to link this story to the story of Saul. A clear example of this procedure of linking stories via

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

55

place names is found in chapter 19, where the later conflict between Saul and David is foreshadowed by the events related to Gibeah (the city of Saul) and Jerusalem (the city of David). Another link between Judg. 1:4–7 and the story in 1 Sam. 11 is that in both the theme of bodily mutilation, which is not very common in the Hebrew Bible, takes a central place. In Judg. 1 it concerns the cutting off of thumbs and toes, in 1 Sam. 11 the cutting out of the right eye. In both stories it is presented as something characteristic of the foreign king. 1:5 

They found the lord of Bezek in Bezek and waged war against him. TheystruckdowntheCanaanitesandthePerizzites.

In most translations ‫ ֲאד ֹנִ י ֶבזֶ ק‬is presented as a personal name: Adonibezek. The Hebrew text, however, indicates that these words in the first place refer to his function or status (cf. the translation of, for instance, Breuer 1922, 2: “der Herr von Bezek”; Boling 1975, 55: “prince of Bezeq”). This title is mentioned pointedly three times in vv. 5–7, every time in the same place, following after the verb at the beginning of the verse. As has been noted by many scholars, there is a relation with the almost identical name Adoni-Sedek of Jerusalem, the first named Canaanite king (Josh. 10:1). According to the LXX of Josh. 10 this king was also named Αδωνιβεζεκ. So it is clear that a possible relation between these kings was noted at an early stage. According to Josh. 10 this king was defeated by Joshua. It is told that his allies, five Amorite kings, are captured on their flight, killed and hanged on a tree. Whether Adoni-Sedek also suffered this fate is not clear. It is very well possible that the author of Judg. 1 used this gap in the story to relate his version of the conquest to the book of Joshua (Welten 1965, 145–146; Na’aman 2005, 359). Instead of assuming that the author of Judg. 1 changed the name, it is more likely that he only wanted to hint at the story of Josh. 10 in order to make a link with Jerusalem (the city of David) and to combine this with the link to Bezek (the city of Saul). This scenario would fit very well in the overall picture of the book of Judges as a bridge between the books of Joshua and Samuel (cf. introduction § 3.5). The author presents Judah as the appropriate successor of Joshua and links this to the following stories about the kings of Israel. At the end of the book of Judges, especially in chapter 19, this link foreshadows the dichotomy between the bad king Saul and the good king David. In Judg. 1:4–7 things are still positive, in contrast to the end of the book. The link with Saul is made by referring to Bezek, which is the place where he proved to be fit to rule his people. The link with David via Jerusalem does not contradict it, as will be the case in chapter 19.

56

Judges1:1–36

1:6 

ThelordofBezekfledandtheypursuedafterhim.Theyseizedhim andcutoffthethumbsofhishandsand(thetoesof)hisfeet.

The mutilation of the body is a common way of shaming defeated enemies (cf. Lemos 2006). Mighty emperors like the kings of Assyria used it on a large scale to demoralize their opponents. In 1 Sam. 11:2 and Judg. 1:7 the reference to such practices characterizes the foreign kings. Strictly speaking the Hebrew text refers to “the thumbs of his hands and his feet” (‫ת־בּהֹנוֹת‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫)יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו‬. LXX translates ‫בּהֹנוֹת‬, ְ “thumbs”, with τὰ ἄκρα, ‘the outermost points’. This fits better with the combination with feet. The same combination of thumbs and big toes is found in Exod. 29:20, about the command to put blood from the sacrifice on these bodily parts of the priest. The cutting off of thumbs and toes has no parallels in the ancient Near East. It was more customary to cut off heads or hands (cf. Minunno 2008). The closest parallel is found in a story about the war between Athens and the people of the isle of Aegina in the 5th century BCE. It is told that the Athenians cut off the right thumbs of the Aeginean prisoners, so that they were no longer able to use lances or row their boats (cf. Studer 1835, 12; Zapletal 1923, 4; Gordon 1962, 298–299; Gaster 1969, 416; Spronk 2015, 262). The story is handed down by the Roman historian Claudius Aelianus (ca. 175 – ca. 235) in his VariousHistory II.9. Because of the period he describes, it is very well possible that this story was known to the author of Judges and that he used it like many other elements from Greek literature (cf. introduction § 3.4) to grab the attention of his readers. 1:7 

ThelordofBezeksaid:“Seventykingswiththethumbsoftheirhands and(thetoesof)theirfeetcutoffwerescrappingundermytable;as Idid,soGodhasrepaidme”.TheybroughthimtoJerusalemandhe diedthere.

The cruel treatment of the lord of Bezek by Judah is presented here in the words of the victim himself as retribution by God: “As I did, so God has repaid me”. Note that he does not use the name of YHWH. In this way the author keeps the distance between the foreign king and the god of Israel. The theme of retribution will return in the story of Samson. It is explicitly stated by Samson in 15:11, speaking of the motivation behind his actions against the Philistines: “As they did to me, so I have done to them” and in his prayer just before the moment he will kill many of them: “O God, that I may with one blow take vengeance on the Philistines for my two eyes” (16:28).

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

57

It justifies the violence used as being no more than returning that which was done by the enemy to himself. There is also a link with the action of Abimelech in 9:5, both in the number (seventy) of his opponents and the way he treats them. We have to assume that Abimelech beheaded his brothers. In this way he shows that he is even worse than foreign kings like the lord of Bezek. Another correspondence between the lord of Bezek and Abimelech (and also with Sisera; cf. 4:21), is that after the report of their death there is no reference to a funeral. Such a reference is common with regard to the Israelite leaders (cf. 2:8–9; 8:32; 10:2, 5; 12:7, 10, 12, 15; 16:31). An exception to this rule is the end of the story of Othniel (3:11). In his version of Judg. 1 Josephus does grant the lord of Bezek a burial (Antiquitates5.121– 124; cf. Begg 2004). One can speculate about the origin of this story, for instance that it goes back to a Jebusite document preserved in the archives of Jerusalem (Ribeiro 2012), but it can also be concluded that, in its present form, it fits very well in the overall framework of the book of Judges and that it is more likely that it was written for this context. 1:8 

ThechildrenofJudahwagedwaragainstJerusalemandcapturedit. They struck it with the mouth of the sword and the city they set on fire.

The description in v. 8 of the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem by Judah seems to be in contradiction with v. 7, suggesting that Jerusalem belonged to Judah. This problem can be solved by assuming that the lord of Bezek was not brought by the Judahites but by his own people to Jerusalem or by rendering ‫יאהוּ‬ ֻ ‫ וַ ִיְב‬as passive: “he was brought”. One could also consider the possibility that the author presents the information in parallel stories (cf. the final remarks of introduction § 4), even if they are contradictory (cf. Marais 1998, 77). With regard to the report about the taking of Jerusalem in 1:8 compared to the previous remark about the lord of Bezek being brought there, this can be interpreted as a case of “anticipatory hysteronproteron” (Sasson 2014, 134), where what comes later is described first. Be this as it may, what is clear is that the author of Judg. 1 seems to have brought together information from different sources. To the story about the lord of Bezek, which seems to have been written for this occasion, the author now adds a text which is clearly taken from Josh. 15. The verses 10–15 almost verbatim repeat Josh. 15:13–19. The only differences concern some of the persons mentioned. Whereas according to Josh. 15:13–15 the conquest of Hebron and the beating of Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai was the work of

58

Judges1:1–36

Caleb, Judg. 1:10 ascribes them to Judah. This is fully in line with the prominent place attributed to Judah in the previous verses. It now reaches its peak with the capturing of Jerusalem and Hebron. In v. 10 it is only told that Judah went against Hebron. Most manuscripts of the LXX add after ‘the Canaanites who dwelled in Hebron’: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν Χεβρων ἐξ ἐναντίας, “and Hebron came out in opposition”. This was probably added by a translator to smoothen the story line. From v. 20 it can be deduced that the siege was successful and that Hebron was taken, so that it could be given to Caleb. 1:9–11 9 10

11

Afterward,thechildrenofJudahwentdowntowagewaragainstthe Canaaniteswhodweltinthemountains,theNegevandtheShephelah. JudahwentagainsttheCanaaniteswhodwelledinHebron.Thename of Hebron was formerly Kirjath-Arba. They struck down Sheshai, Ahiman,andTalmai. HewentfromthereagainstthosewhodwelledinDebir.Thenameof DebirwasformerlyKirjath-Sefer.

A war against the Canaanites “who dwelt in the mountains, the Negev and the Shephelah” fits better in the time of David than in the suggested earlier period. It concerns parts of the country to the west, south, and east far beyond the borders of the land allotted to the tribe of Judah. The information about the former names of Hebron (Kirjath-Arba) and Debir (Kirjath-Sefer) caused a lot of confusion and led to much speculation, already within the LXX. Kirjath-Arba is rendered there as Καριαθαρβοκσεφερ, a conflation with Kirjath-Sefer. Because the latter is translated there as Πόλις γραμμάτων, “city of the magistrates” (also in the Targum; cf. Smelik, 335), the translator may have wished to retain something of the name KirjathArba by taking it together with the name in v. 10. In the parallel text in Josh. 15:13 it is suggested that Arba is the “father of the Anaqite” and thus related to the three Anaqites mentioned in the next verse. In Judg. 1:10 this information about Arba is left out and neither are the tree slain men called “sons of Anaq”. The latter is moved to v. 20, where it is mentioned again in connection with the name of Hebron. So Judg. 1:10 offers a simpler text with the focus on Hebron. Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai (cf. Hess 1996, 210–213, about the possible origin of these names) are of less importance for the given overview of the conquest and so is Debir, which does not a play a role in the rest of the book. With Jerusalem and Hebron, Judah has taken the two cities most closely related to king David. In 2 Sam. 2:1–4 it is told that YHWH orders David to go to Hebron, where he is made king of Judah and later of all of Israel

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

59

(2 Sam. 5:1–3). After that David makes Jerusalem to his residence (2 Sam. 5:4– 10). Apparently the prefiguration of these coming events was more important for the author of Judg. 1 than an accurate reconstruction of the historical events. He did, however, try to deal with the obvious contradiction with Josh. 15:63, where it is stated that the Judahites had not been able to drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, by attributing this lack of success to the Benjaminites (1:21). 1:12 

Calebsaid:“WhoeverstrikesKirjath-Seferandcapturesit,Iwillgive himAchsah,mydaughter,aswife”.

The story of Caleb, Achsah and Othniel (vv. 12–15) is taken over from Josh. 15:16–19 with a few minor changes. This story fits in very well within the overall concept of the book of Judges, as it relates the previous book of Joshua to the following stories of the judges. Caleb represents the past and Othniel belongs to the next generation and will return in Judg. 3 as the first of the judges (cf. Szpek 2002, who sees Achsah’s story as a metaphor for societal change). Also the prominent role of a woman is important here: Achsah is the first of a remarkable list of women in the book of Judges measuring up with the men in their environment (cf. Schneider 2009; le Roux 2015). The name Achsah is probably derived from ‫ע ֶכס‬, ֶ “anklet”, an ornament on the feet of women (cf. Isa. 3:16). It has been assumed that there is wordplay here (cf. Fretz, ABD1, 56), but within the text there are no indications that we are dealing here with anything else than the customary habit of parents to give their child a name indicating that she is precious to them. It is not told whether Achsah was indeed precious to her father Caleb giving her away, nor do we hear of her feelings about this offer. In the comparable story of Saul offering his daughters to David (1 Sam. 18:17–26) we hear much more about the motivation of the father and the feelings of the daughters. What is important in Judg. 1 is that it shows that Caleb apparently cannot do the job himself. It is time for a new generation. In rabbinic tradition Caleb’s offer is condemned as improper (just like the one by Jephthah), because he should have shown more trust in God keeping to his promise (Gen.Rab.60:3; cf. Sasson 2014, 145). 1:13 

Othniel,sonofKenaz,brotherofCalebyoungerthanhe,capturedit andhegavehimAchsah,hisdaughter,aswife.

Othniel is presented as ‫ן־קנַ ז ֲא ִחי ָכ ֵלב ַה ָקּטֹן ִמ ֶמּנּוּ‬ ְ ‫בּ‬, ֶ “son of Kenaz, brother of Caleb younger than he”. This leaves open the possibility that Othniel

60

Judges1:1–36

was a brother of Caleb. That would mean that Caleb was the son of Kenaz, which is in contradiction with the fact that he is called son of Jephunneh in Josh. 14:6 (cf. about the rabbinic discussions on this matter Smelik 1995, 338; Sasson 2014, 471). There is no reason, however, to assume that the author of Judg. 1 wanted to correct Josh. 15:17 in this matter. So we may safely conclude that Othniel was the nephew of Caleb. Another problem concerns the interpretation of the added ‫ה ָקּטֹן ִמ ֶמּנּוּ‬, ַ “younger than he”. As can be seen in the different Greek translations this can be related both to Kenaz and to Othniel. The Vaticanus has Γοθονιηλ υἱὸς Κενεζ ἀδελφοῦ Χαλεβ ὁ νεώτερος, “Gothoniel, the younger son of Kenez, brother of Chaleb”, and in the Alexandrinus we read: Γοθονιηλ υἱὸς Κενεζ ἀδελφὸς Χαλεβ ὁ νεώτερος, “Gothoniel son of Kenez, Chaleb’s younger brother”. Apparently the author of Judg. 1 wanted to emphasize the difference in age between Caleb and Othniel, the latter belonging to the next generation. The addition made the Hebrew grammatically unclear, which explains the different Greek translations. See on Othniel also the remarks on 3:7–11. 1:14 

Itwaswhenshecame,thatsheurgedhimtoaskfromherfatherthe field.ShedismountedfromthedonkeyandCalebsaidtoher:“Whatis itwithyou?”

The initiative taken by Achsah to acquire a more fruitful land from her father is surprising from a gender perspective, as is illustrated by the LXX. According to LXX (A) the roles are reversed: καὶ ἐπέσεισεν αὐτὴν αἰτῆσαι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς, “and he urged her to ask from her father” (the Vaticanus is more explicit: “Gothoniel urged her …”). In this way the more normal division of roles between man and woman is retained (cf. Harlé 1999, 76). It is in line with this that in the Targum Achsah is mitigated for her urging (cf. Smelik 1995, 339) and that in the Babylonian Talmud she is “reduced (…) into a wrongfully complaining, demanding woman” (Brockhaus 2011, 8). In modern interpretations Achsah’s action is taken up more positively as an occasion to question male dominance and heteronormativity (cf. Stone 2009). According to Fernández Marcos (BHQ, 42*) the article before ‫שׂדה‬, “field”, should be omitted as dittography from the preceding word ‫אביה‬, as in the LXX and in Josh. 15:18. It is also possible, however, to take it as indication that the author is referring to a story that is familiar to his readers. Apparently, Othniel remains inactive, for the text continues with the report about Achsah visiting her father. Seeing him she dismounts from her donkey, which is an act of respect (cf. Gen. 24:64, Rebekkah before Isaak; 1 Sam. 25:23, Abigail before David). In the Hebrew text the uncommon

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

61

verb ‫ צנח‬is used, which occurs only here and in 4:21, about the tent-peg going down. Apparently it was not understood by the Greek translator, who paraphrases: καὶ ἐγόγγυζεν ἐπάνω τοῦ ὑποζυγίου καὶ ἔκραξεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑποζυγίου εἰς γῆν νότου ἐκδέδοσαί με, “and she grumbled upon her donkey and cried out from where she was on her donkey: ‘You have given me away into the land of the south’”. Caleb reacts with ‫ה־לְּך‬ ָ ‫מ‬, ַ “What is it with you?” The same expression is used two times in 18:23–24, in the hostile confrontation between Micah and the Danites. According to Sasson the conversation between father and daughter would have taken place in a similar atmosphere. Caleb would have been “chiding her for inspiring Othniel into demanding land” (Sasson 2014, 148). The fact, however, that Caleb directly yields to her wish points in another direction. It is therefore better to compare Caleb’s reaction to David addressing the woman of Tekoa favourably with the same words (2 Sam. 14:5). The parallel with the scene in chapter 18 can be interpreted as one of the many indications of the contrast between the positive beginning and the negative ending of the book of Judges. 1:15 

Shesaidtohim:“Givemeablessing.Yeah,drylandyouhavegiven me.Thengivemepoolsofwater”.Calebgaveherupperpoolsand lowerpools.

Compared to Josh. 15:19 the Hebrew text uses a different verb for Achsah’s question: ‫ה־לּי‬ ִ ‫ ָה ָב‬instead of ‫ה־לּי‬ ִ ָ‫תּנ‬. ְ According to Hallo (2004, 331) this calls for the association with ‫בּנוֹת ַהב ַהב‬, “daughters of greed” (Prov. 30:15), but it more likely that Achsah is pictured here as a woman who takes responsibility for the wellbeing of her family. She asks for a ‫ב ָר ָכה‬, ְ “a blessing”, which in this context has the meaning of a gift (cf. 1 Sam. 30:26; 2 Kgs 5:15). The common translation of the following phrase ‫ ֶא ֶרץ ַהנֶּ גֶ ב נְ ַת ָתּנִ י‬with “you have given me a south land” (KJV) or “you have given me land in the Negev” (NIV) is problematic, because in that case one would expect in Hebrew a preposition after the verb. The LXX has εἰς γῆν νότου ἐκδέδοσαί με, “you have set me in the south land” (cf. also Lindars 1995, 7). The new JPS Tanakh translation has “you have given me away as Negeb-land” (accepted by Schneider 2000, 15, and Sasson 2014, 149), indicating that she criticized her father about how he gave her away in marriage. Within the present context it is more likely that this phrase should be read together with Achsah’s wish ‫“ וְ נָ ַת ָתּה ִלי גֻּ ֹּלת ָמיִם‬then give me pools of water”. This is formulated as a chiasm: the second line opens with the same verb with which the first line ended. The “pools of water” contrast with the Negev or “dry land”.

62

Judges1:1–36

We have to assume then that the first person singular suffix in the first line has “datival” force (JM § 125ba). Caleb grants her request right away and generously. He seems to give her more than she asked: “upper pools and lower pools”. The LXX adds: κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῆς, “according to her desire”. This could point to an original Hebrew text with ‫כּ ִל ִָבהּ‬, ְ which then might be a pun on the name of Caleb (cf. Rudolph 1947, 199; Boling 1975, 57; Hallo 2004, 333). According to Lindars this is “pointless and improbable in the present context” (Lindars 1995, 32), but it would fit in well with the style of the author of the book of Judges (cf. introduction § 2.4 on the many examples of wordplay). We might assume that the author added this pun to the text he took over from the book of Joshua and that at some point in the transmission of the text a scribe changed back the text again to the version of Josh. 15:19. The translation in the LXX of ‫ ֵאת גֻּ ֹּלת ִע ִלּית וְ ֵאת גֻּ ֹּלת ַתּ ְח ִתּית‬with τὴν λύτρωσιν μετεώρων καὶ τὴν λύτρωσιν ταπεινῶν, “redemption of the upper and redemption of the lower”, indicates that the Greek translator interpreted ‫גלת‬ as a form of ‫גאלה‬, “redemption”. In the LXX of Josh. 15:19 this word was not translated or interpreted as a place name: τὴν Γολαθμαιν τὴν ἄνω καὶ τὴν Γολαθμαιν τὴν κάτω. In Josh. 15:19 we find the plural ‫ ַתּ ְח ִתּיּוֹת‬and ‫ ִע ִלּיּוֹת‬instead of the singular ‫ ַתּ ְח ִתּית‬and ‫ ִע ִלּית‬in Judg. 1:15. It has also been suggested to change the plural ‫ גֻּ ֹּלת‬into the singular ‫( גֻּ ַלּת‬Lindars 1995, 32; followed by BHQ). All this indicates that it is not clear what was precisely meant here. One might be inclined to follow the solution of the Greek translator of the book of Joshua and take it, as suggested also by Sasson (2014, 137; cf. also Fleishman 2006, 372), as a place name: “Caleb gave her Upper Gullot as well as Lower Gullot”. What is clear, in any case, is that this means that she received the water she asked for. This short story about Achsah leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, how is it that Achsah induced her husband to ask for a field but at the end receives water? Rösel suggests that Othniel did listen to his wife and voiced the request for a field to Caleb, that Caleb granted his wish and that only after that Achsah indicated that it was not enough (Rösel 2011, 244). Fleishman (2006) sketches a plausible legal ancient Near Eastern background about land given as a dowry to a daughter. 1:16 

ThechildrenoftheKenite,thefather-in-lawofMoses,wentupfromthe CityofthePalmswiththechildrenofJudahintothedesertofJudah, southofArad.Theywentanddwelledwiththepeople.

Just like the previous story this short intermezzo about the Kenites functions as a bridge between past and future. The reference to Moses is a connection

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

63

with the glorious past. The City of the Palms is another name of Jericho (cf. Deut. 34:3; although it probably originally referred to Tamar; cf. Gaß 2005, 30–40). Within the list of conquests in Judg. 1 it is reminiscent of the first Canaanite city taken in the book of Joshua. It also points forwards to the story of Ehud (3:13). The primary reason for inserting this information about the Kenites is to prepare the story of Jael, the wife of the Kenite Heber, in chapter 4. The emphasis is on the relation with the Judahites. Whereas the Judahites “go down” (v. 9), the Kenites “go up”, indicating that they are moving towards each other. This is confirmed by the final words about their living together. The Hebrew uses singular verbs here twice. This mixing of plural and singular forms is also found in v. 10 and 34 and can be considered as typical of the style of the author. So there is no need to change the text. Nevertheless, many emendations have been proposed (cf. Lindars 1995, 35– 40; O’Connell 1996, 441–445; Groß 2009, 103–104). This is caused primarily by the variations in the LXX. The Greek translation adds the name of Moses’ father in law: Iobab (LXX [A]) or Iothor (LXX [B]), following the reference to this person in 4:11. Fernández Marcos suggests to read ‫העמלקי‬ instead of ‫העם‬, following a number of Greek manuscripts and the old Latin version (BHQ, 43*). This would be in line with 1 Sam. 15:6 mentioning the Kenites and Amalekites together. The reference of Amalek would have been eliminated from Judg. 1:16 for theological reasons. One can also reason the other way around and assume that at some moment in the textual tradition the text of Judg. 1:16 has been adapted to the information of 1 Sam. 15:6. 1:17 

Judah went with Simeon his brother. They struck the Canaanites dwellinginSefatanddevotedittotheban.Theycalledthenameof thecityHorma.

In vv. 17–21 a number of elements from the first part of this chapter, in vv. 2–11, are taken up. We now see the tribes of Judah and Simeon (explicitly indicated again as “his brother”) actually working together, as announced in v. 3. They destroy one of the villages that were mentioned in Josh. 19:2–8 as being allotted to Simeon. In Josh. 19:4 it is called with the name Horma, which is explained now with a reference to the ban (‫;ח ֶרם‬ ֶ also in Num. 21:3). The place name Sefat occurs only here and can be related to the verb ‫צפה‬, “to keep watch”, suggesting that it indicates something like a watch tower. The author of the book of Judges may have picked out Horma from the list in Josh. 19, gave his own version of the origin of this name and also used the theme of the ban to link this positive story about the conquest of the land to the negative of using the ban against Jabes in Gilead at the end

64

Judges1:1–36

of the book (21:11). In contrast to the book of Joshua the ban as the symbol of a war guided by YHWH is absent in the book of Judges, with the exception of these two texts. 1:18 

JudahcapturedGazaanditsterritory,Ashkelonanditsterritory,and Ekronanditsterritory.

The report about Judah’s successes continues from the point where it had stopped in v. 10 and now adds the taking of the Philistine cities of Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron. This fits well with what we read in Josh. 15:45–47 about the territory allotted to Judah; be it that Judg. 1:18 mentions Ashkelon instead of Ashdod. There is a contradiction, however, with Josh. 13:3 stating that the land of the lords of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron remained to be conquered. This is also indicated by Judg. 3:3. In the LXX we see an attempt to harmonize the text with Josh 13:3 and Judg 3:3 by adding the negative: καὶ οὐκ ἐκληρονόμησεν Ιουδας τὴν Γάζαν, “and Ioudas did not inherit Gaza”, and also adding a reference to Ashdod (Azotos) “and its surrounding lands”. The LXX is followed by many commentators suggesting to emend the text by changing ‫ וַ יִּ ְלכֹּד‬into ‫( וְ לֺא הו ִֺרישׁ‬cf. BHS), but this is rightly rejected by Fernández Marcos, who states that the variant in the LXX “belongs to the beginning of the hermeneutical process”(BHQ, 43*). Within the context of Judg. 1, it is clear that the author had no problem with exaggerating when it came to the actions of Judah. 1:19 

YHWH was with Judah and he took possession of the mountains, becausehecouldnotdispossessthosewhoweredwellinginthevalley, fortheyhadironchariots.

The author cannot deny that the Philistines were not driven away, but he does not blame Judah for this. In the previous verse he noted that Judah did capture the cities of the Philistines. He now makes a difference between capturing and taking possession. For the latter the Hebrew verb ‫ ירשׁ‬is used. In the qal it has the meaning of occupying a territory, in the hiphil it denotes driving out, dispossess, or destroy. In the rest of this chapter it is used many times. In most cases it reports that a tribe did not dispossess a certain territory (vv. 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). In v. 19 this is also said of Judah with regard to “those who were dwelling in the valley”. Compared to the other occurrences it is remarkable that the text remains vague: the opponent is not mentioned by name. Also Judah is not mentioned explicitly as the

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

65

subject. This may have caused the absence of an auxiliary verb ‫ יָ ְכלוּ‬before ‫הורשׁ‬. According to many commentators this should be added to the Hebrew text (cf. BHQ), but this is not necessary on grammatical grounds (cf. GK § 114l and Groß 2009, 104). As an excuse for Judah it is added that there was a good reason for this lack of success: the military superiority of the enemy having better weapons. According to Josh. 17:16, Joseph (which will presented in the next verses as a successful tribe), had already experienced this. The remark about the “not dispossessing” is preceded and thus toned down by the successful “taking possession” of the mountains, which moreover is presented as a sign that “YHWH was with Judah”. This recalls the assignment given to Judah by YHWH at the beginning of this chapter. 1:20 

TheygaveHebrontoCaleb,asMoseshadspoken.Hedispossessed fromtherethethreesonsofAnaq.

In the same order as in vv. 9–10 the author now returns to Caleb, also emphasizing the positive outcome. This is traced back to the promise given to Caleb as the faithful spy of the Promised Land (Num. 14:24) and fulfilled by Joshua (Josh. 14:6–15). According to v. 10 Judah “went against the Canaanites who dwelled in Hebron”. It was not told that it was taken into possession, this is left to Caleb. The positive use of the verb ‫ ירשׁ‬hiphil puts Caleb in one line with Judah and in opposition to all those other tribes failing to dispossess the Canaanites. In this case it concerns the three Anaqites. In v. 10 they had been called by name, now by descent. In this way vv. 10 and 20 are closely linked, marking the structure of this chapter (see the remarks about the structure in the introduction to the exegesis). 21

TheJebusitesdwellinginJerusalemthechildrenofBenjamindidnot dispossess. The Jebusites dwelled with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalemuntilthisday.

Within the structure of chapter 1 this verse takes a central place, precisely in between the parts about Judah and Joseph. It is overloaded with names: Jebusites, Jerusalem, and Benjamin are all mentioned two times, with emphasis on the Jebusites placed at the beginning twice. This verse stands in stark contrast to Josh. 15:63, where the same is told of the Judahites. For this reason it has been suggested in BHS and by many commentators to replace Benjamin by Judah, bringing the text in line with Josh. 15:63. Fernández Marcos (BHQ, 44*, following Lindars 1995, 47) does not want to emend the text, but assumes that this verse is the work of an early glossator, who wanted

66

Judges1:1–36

to explain that although according to Josh. 18:28 Jerusalem was part of Benjaminite territory, it was not mentioned in the story of the Benjaminite saviour Ehud. An important argument against this idea of a later addition is that within the book of Judges in its present form, this remark about Benjamin and Jerusalem can be connected to the story in chapter 19, where the travelers avoid a stay in Jebus (“that is Jerusalem”, v. 10) because of the Jebusites living there. In this story and the following chapters the Benjaminites play a prominent negative role, whereas the Judahites are the leaders of tribes punishing the Benjaminites. The first chapter already points forward to that by showing the contrast between the Judahites capturing Jerusalem and the Benjaminites not being able to provide the right continuation. This also implies that there is no contradiction between v. 8 about Judah capturing Jerusalem and Benjamin not dispossessing the Jebusites. In the previous verse the same thing is reported about Caleb dispossessing the Anaqites, who had been struck down before by Judah (v. 10). What was done right by Caleb now goes wrong with Benjamin (cf. Webb 2012, 110, who calls v. 20b and v. 21a “a contrasting pair”). So in this verse we are not dealing with any sloppiness on the part of the author, nor with a fault in the textual transmission, nor with an early gloss, but with a well-placed key text. It takes up the tradition about the Jebusites in Jerusalem from Josh. 15:63 to correct it, thus indicating how things could go so terribly wrong in the following stories about the tribes living in the Promised Land. It all has to do with the tribes not being able to provide the right follow-up to the good work of their predecessors. This started with Benjamin not taking over Judah’s job concerning Jerusalem. Note also the difference in the way it is described. According to Josh. 15:63 the Judahites “could” not dispossess the Jebusites, according to Judg. 1:21 the Benjaminites “did” not dispossess them. This suggests that the Benjaminites were not willing to do what was asked of them (cf. Weinfeld 1967, 94). The change of roles also points forward to the bitter end of these stories, when Judah again has to go first, this time not against the Canaanites but against Benjamin. What moment the author was thinking of when he wrote “until this day” (also in 1:26; 6:24; 10:4; 15:19; and 18:12) cannot be decided with certainty (cf. the discussion by Block 1999, 65, who concludes that it suggests “a preexilic readership”; Sasson 2014, 160, tentatively suggest the translation “since that time”). Did he refer to the time in which he lived himself? Did he simply take over the expression from the source he used and adapted (Josh. 15:63)? One could also consider the possibility that he presents himself as an author living in the period just before the Jebusites were driven out of Jerusalem, as suggested in 1 Kgs 5:6–8. This would be in line with the traditional view that the book of Judges was written by Samuel. We could also compare it with the way the book of Qohelet is presented as the work of king Solomon, without explicitly mentioning his name.

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

67

1:22–26 22 23 24 25

26

ThehouseofJosephwentup,theytoo,toBethelandYHWHwaswith them. The house of Joseph spied out Bethel. The name of the city was formerlyLuz. Thewatchmensawamangoingoutofthecity.Theysaidtohim: “Letusseetheentranceofthecityandwewillshowyouloyalty”. Heletthemseetheentranceofthecityandtheystruckthecitywith the mouth of the sword, but the man and his entire clan they sent (free). ThemanwenttothelandoftheHittites,hebuiltacityandcalledit Luz.Thisisitsnameuntilthisday.

The second panel of this chapter (see the remarks on the structure in the introduction) starts with the verb ‫עלה‬, “to go up”, which was used frequently in the first part (vv. 1, 2, 3, and 4), then in the intermezzo about the Kenites (v. 16), and now for the last time in this chapter as introduction to the actions of Joseph. Some Hebrew manuscripts have ‫ בני‬instead of ‫בת‬, just like the LXX: οἱ υἱοὶ Ιωσηφ. This is more in line with the plural form of the verb. It underlines the fact that it is remarkable that the author now switched to “the house” instead of “the children”. In the book of Joshua the phrase “children of Joseph” was normal (cf. Josh. 14:4; 16:1, 4; 17:14, 16; 18:11; 24:32). The phrase “house of Joseph” is used in Gen. 43:18, 19; 50:8; Josh. 17:17; 2 Sam. 19:21; 1 Ki 11:28; Amos 5:6: and Zech. 10:6. The reason for the preference for the use of the latter may be found in Josh. 17:17, where “house of Joseph” is another way of addressing Ephraim and Manasseh. This can be related to the fact that in Judg. 1 the report about Joseph is followed directly by the reports about Manasseh and Ephraim. The introduction of Joseph as an important new actor is indicated by ‫ם־הם‬ ֵ ַ‫גּ‬, “they too” (cf. 3:31; 6:35; 9:19 for a similar construction). Within Judg. 1 Joseph is the counterpart of Judah. Most important is that both have the support of YHWH: ‫( וַ יהוָ ה ִע ָמּם‬v. 22) takes up ‫וַ יְ ִהי יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫( ֶאת־י‬v. 19). LXX (A) has καὶ Ιουδας μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, “and Judah was with them” (in LXX (B) this was brought back in line with the MT). This can be explained as a later correction, based on theological considerations (Groß 2009, 104). Just as with Judah, this results in positive actions: the taking of Bethel (v. 25) and subduing the Amorites (v. 35), this is illustrated with a short story. Judah and Joseph are also mentioned together in Josh. 18:5 as the leading tribes of the south and the north. In singling out these two tribes in a positive manner, one can also find something of the hope for a reunited Israel, as expressed in Ezek. 37:16–19 and Zech. 10:6. Within Judg. 1, Bethel captured by Joseph is placed next to Jerusalem captured by Judah, which can be seen

68

Judges1:1–36

as foreshadowing the later situation where these cities housed rival temples (1 Kgs 12:28–29). Bethel and Luz are also mentioned in Gen. 35:6 and Josh. 18:13 as names of the same place. Sometimes they are mentioned as different places, located close to each other (Josh. 16:2). As in Gen. 28:19 the double name is explained as Luz being the former name of Bethel. The way Bethel is captured is reminiscent of the story of Jericho with spies sent out and helped by someone from inside the city (Josh. 2). Here the place of Rahab is taken by a man giving useful information. We have to assume that he did show them a secret entrance and not just pointed them the way to the city gates. Just like Rahab he is rewarded together with his family (Josh. 6:23; see on the remarkable syntactic structure of Judg. 1:25, JM § 155oa). Whereas we hear very little about what happened with Rahab (“she lived among the Israelites”, Josh. 6:25), we are informed that the man of Bethel found a new home in the land of the Hittites, although in his case it remains a mystery where to locate his new city Luz (cf. Gaß 2005, 76–82). What is here most important, is that he is presented as a foreigner. This could be interpreted as negative (cf. Jericke 2008, 185–186, who also states that Joseph’s action was invalid), but this is not be the last time that Israelites will be supported by outsiders. Other foreigners playing a positive role are Shamgar and Jael. 1:27–33 27

28 29 30

31 32 33

ManassehdidnotdispossessBethSheanandherdaughters,Taanach and her daughters, those who dwelled in Dor and her daughters, those who dwelled in Jibleam and her daughters, and those who dwelledinMegiddoandherdaughters.TheCanaanitespersistedto stayinthisland. It was when Israel had become strong, that it put the Canaanites underforced-labour,butdispossessingthemtheydidcertainlynot. Ephraim did not dispossess the Canaanites who dwelled in Gezer. TheCanaanitesdwelledinitsmidstinGezer. Zebulon did not dispossess those who dwelled in Kitron and those whodwelledinNahalol.TheCanaanitesdwelledinitsmidstandthey were(putto)forced-labour. Asher did not dispossess those who dwelled in Acco and those who dwelledinSidon,Ahlab,Achzib,Helbah,Aphik,orRehob. TheAsheritesdwelledinthemidstoftheCanaaniteswhodwelledin theland,becausetheydidnotdispossessthem. Naftali did not dispossess those who dwelled in Beth Shemesh and those who dwelled in Beth Anath. It dwelled in the midst of the Canaanites who dwelled in the land. Those who dwelled in Beth ShemeshandBethAnathwere(putto)forced-labourforthem.

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

69

Just as after the successes of Judah followed the disappointing action by Benjamin, the success by Joseph is now followed by the reports of a number of tribes not being able to drive out the Canaanite population. As opposed to the one negative action by Benjamin in the south, we now hear of many more in the northern region. As a refrain it is repeated seven times that a tribe “did not dispossess” (‫הוֹרישׁ‬ ִ ‫ )לֹא‬the people living in the land given to them. Three times the mitigating circumstances are mentioned that they were put to forced-labour, but in v. 28 directly following the first reference the dispossessing and thus the opposition is emphasized by a paronomastic infinitive construction (cf. JM § 166o). The reference to forced-labour is missing in v. 29 with Ephraim and in v. 32 with Asher. According to Deut. 20:10– 15, only cities outside the borders of the Promised Land could be offered the possibility to stay and serve the Israelites. So, the tribes are making the same fault as the Israelites with regard to the Gibeonites according of Josh. 9; only this time they are not fooled but are shown to be incapable. In 1 Kgs 9:20–21 we read how king Solomon continued to put the Canaanite peoples to forcedlabour. This is mentioned without any negative comment, because it is presented as part of his powerful government. The summary starts in vv. 27–29 with the two tribes belonging to the house of Joseph: Manasseh and Ephraim, followed by Zebulon, Asher, and Naftali. The information was taken again from the book of Joshua (vv. 27– 28 // Josh. 17:11–13; v. 29 // Josh. 16:10). The long list of cities offers a clear picture of the Israelites settling in the rural areas, whereas the big cities remain Canaanite. It is interesting to note that all these cities lie precisely outside the area of the provinces of Yehud and Samerina in the Persian period (cf. the maps in Groß 2009, 115 and 117). This can be used as argument in favour of a relatively late date and against the theory of an ancient list of unoccupied land. In the LXX there are many variant readings. In v. 27 LXX reads τὴν Βαιθσαν ἥ ἐστιν Σκυθῶν πόλις, “Baitsan, which is the city of the Skythians”, and also gives an explanatory translation of “her daughters”: οὐδὲ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς οὐδὲ τὰ περισπόρια αὐτῆς, “or its daughters or its surrounding lands”. In v. 31 LXX adds after “Acco”: καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῷ εἰς φόρον καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Δωρ, “and it became tribute to him, and the inhabitants of Dor”. The reference to Dor was probably inspired by Josh. 17:11. According to Lindars (1995, 65; followed by Fernández Marcos, BHQ, 45*) Ahlav may be the same place as Helba, which is considered to be a misplaced gloss, corresponding with the in his view corrupt ‫( מחבל‬read: ‫ )מחלב‬in Josh. 19:29. So in the original text the list of cities would have been: Machlab, Achzib, Aphik, and Rehob. This does not explain, however, the changes in the MT and is therefore not very convincing. In v. 32 LXX reads at the end: ὅτι οὐκ ἐδυνάσθη ἐξᾶραι αὐτόν, “for he could not remove him”. This suggests that

70

Judges1:1–36

in the original text a verb was added, as in v. 19, but this probably has to be ascribed to the influence of the translator. 1:34–36 34 35

36

TheAmoritespressedthechildrenofDantothemountains,because theydidnotgivethem(leave)togodowntothevalley. The Amorites persisted to dwell on Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim.ThehandofthehouseofJosephwasheavyandtheywere (putto)forced-labour. TheterritoryoftheAmoriteswasfromtheScorpion’sPass,fromthe rockandhigher.

Things get even worse when it comes to the tribe of Dan (cf. the survey by Bartusch 2003, 109–122). This can already be derived from the way it is described in Hebrew. In the preceding list the successive tribes were the subject of the sentence, but in v. 34 even this position is taken from Dan. The initiative is completely with the enemy, pressing the Danites to look for another place to live. In the book of Judges, this will be taken up in chapter 18. In his retelling of the period of the book of Judges, Josephus places the story of the migration of the Danites here (Ant. 5.175–178). Dan is not able to put the Amorites to forced-labour, as was reported about the previous tribes. They have to leave this to the house of Joseph. According to Rake (2006, 63–65) v. 35b has to be translated as “Und die Hand des Hauses Josef war schwerfällig”. So it would not have been Joseph who forced the Amorites to work for them, but that is was the other way around. This suggestion is rejected by Groß (2009, 151–152) on grammatical grounds. To this can be added that this relatively positive note about Joseph at the end of this part corresponds with the report in v. 20 about Judah helping Caleb at the end of the first part of this chapter. It is also clear, however, that despite the positive role of Joseph, things are turning more and more bad for Israel. In v. 35 LXX (A) has ἐν τῷ ὄρει τοῦ Μυρσινῶνος οὗ αἱ ἄρκοι καὶ αἱ ἀλώπεκες, “in the mountain of the Myrtle-grove, where there are bears and foxes”, and the Vaticanus: ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ὀστρακώδει ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἄρκοι καὶ ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἀλώπεκες , “in the potsherd mountain on which there are bears and on which there are foxes”. Apparently the names in the Hebrew text were not recognized as place names. LXX (A) seems to have read ‫הדס‬, “myrtle”, instead of MT ‫ ;חרס‬in LXX (B) it seems to have been connected it with ֹ ‫חרש‬, “potsherd”. The name of Shaalbim was probably read as a form of ‫שׁועל‬, “fox”. Then Aijalon may have interpreted as a form of ‫אילים‬, “deer”, assuming that the translator felt free to change this in a more menacing animal (cf. Kabiersch 2011, 670).

SuccessandFailureinTakingPossessionofthePromisedLand

71

In v. 36 a number of Greek manuscripts add after “the Amorites”: ὁ Ιδουμαῖος, “(this is) the Idumean”. According to Barthélemy 1982, 75, this would represent the original text, in accordance with Num. 34:4 and Josh. 15:3. BHQ suggests following the Greek text and insert ‫הארמי‬. It is more likely, however, that we are dealing with an explanatory note in the Greek text. The precise location of the Scorpion’s Pass remains uncertain. It has to be sought somewhere south-west of the Dead Sea (cf. Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3). It is clear that it is in the far south of the Promised Land, which is a telling fact of the dimensions of the Amorite territory.

JUDGES 2:1-5

THE MESSENGER OF YHWH IN BOCHIM

TRANSLATION 1

2

3

4

5

AmessengerofYHWHwentupfromGilgaltoBochim.Hesaid:“Imade yougoupfromEgyptandIbroughtyoutothelandthatIsworetoyour fathers.AndIsaid:Iwillnotbreakmycovenantwithyouforever. Andyou,youshouldnotcutacovenantwiththosewhodwellinthis land.Theiraltarsyoushoulddemolish.Butyoudidnotlistentomy voice.Whathaveyoudone? So now I say: I will not drive them out from before your face and theywillbe(awhiponyour)sidestoyouandtheirgodswillbeasnare toyou”. Ithappened,whenthemessengerofYHWHhadspokenthesewords toallthechildrenofIsrael,thatthepeoplelifteduptheirvoiceand wept. TheycalledthenameofthatplaceBochimandtheysacrificedthere toYHWH.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Y. Amit, “Bochim, Bethel, and the Hidden Polemic (Judg 2,1–5)”, in: G. Galil, M. Weinfeld (eds), Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography (Fs Kallai, SVT 81), Leiden 2000a, 121–131; idem, HiddenPolemicsinBiblicalNarrative (Biblical Interpretation Series 25), Leiden 2000b; H. Ausloos, “The ‘Angel of YHWH’ in Exod. xxiii 20–33 and Judg. ii 1–5: A Clue to the ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic’ Puzzle?”, VT 58 (2008), 1–12; A. Baruchi-Unna, “The Story of the Zeal of Phinehas and Congregational Weeping at Bethel”, VT 65 (2015), 505–515; J. Halbe, Das PrivilegrechtJahwes:Ex34,10-26.GestaltundWesen,HerkunftundWirkenin vordeuteronomistischerZeit, Göttingen 1975; W. Hilbrands, “Das Verhältnis der Engel zu Jahwe im Alten Testament, insbesondere im Buch Exodus”, in: R. Roukema (ed.), TheInterpretationofExodus(Fs Houtman, CBET 44), Leuven 2006, 81–96; F.F. Hvidberg, WeepingandLaughterintheOldTestament:AStudyofCanaaniteIsraeliteReligion, Leiden 1962; A. van der Kooij, “ ‘And I also Said’: A New Interpretation of Judges II 3”, VT 45 (1995), 294–306; R.G. Kratz, “The Literary Transition in Joshua 23–Judges 2: Observations and Considerations”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 241–256; L.R. Martin, “From Gilgal to Bochim: The Narrative Significance of the Angel of Yahweh in Judges 2:1”, JSem 18 (2009), 331–343; A. Marx, “Forme et fonction de Juges 2,1–5”, RHPhR 59 (1979), 341–350; S.A. Meier, “Angel of Yahweh”, DDD(1999), 53–59; G. Minnaard, “Eine Geschichte zum

ThemessengerofYHWHinBochim

73

Weinen – Jephtas Tochter: Exegese von Ri 11,29-40 im Zusammenhang des Richterbuches”, Texte&Kontexte 43 (1989), 2–29; H.-D. Neef, “ ‘Ich selber bin in ihm’ (Ex 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede vom ‘Engel des Herrn’ in Ex 23,2022; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,1–5; 5,23”, BZ 39 (1995), 54–75; S. Schulz, “The Literary Transition between the Books of Joshua and Judges”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 257–280; R. Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte”, in: H.W. Wolff (ed.), ProblemebiblischerTheologie(Fs Von Rad), München 1971, 494–509; A. Spreafico, “Giud 2,3: lṣdym”, Bib65 (1984), 390–392; K. Spronk, “A Story to Weep About: Some Remarks on Judges 2:1–5 and its Context”, in: J.W. Dyk etal. (eds), UnlessSomeOneGuideMe… (Fs Deurloo, ACEBT Sup 2), Maastricht 2001, 87–94; S. Talmon, “Pisqahbe’emṣaʻpasuq and 11QPsa”, Textus 5 (1966), 11–21; T. Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zurLiteraturundTheologiederExilszeitanhanddes89.Psalms, Helsinki 1982; A.S. van der Woude, “De malʼakJahweh: een Godsbode”, NedThT18 (1963), 1–13.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES After the previous reports about the successful actions by the tribes of Judah and Joseph and the unsuccessful actions by other tribes, Israel is addressed again as one people, just as in 1:1. This time YHWH is not speaking himself, but his words are spoken by a messenger of YHWH. It is reminiscent of the messenger of YHWH announced in Exod. 23:20, as the one who will protect Israel, bring it to the Promised Land and destroy the enemies. Together with this promise Israel also received a warning not to serve the gods of the other peoples. The messenger of YHWH now comes to the Israelites, going up from Gilgal. This is the place where Israel guided by Joshua entered the Promised Land. It reminds the Israelites that YHWH keeps to his promises. The messenger meets the Israelites in a place called Bochim (“weepers”) which is not only referring to the reaction of the Israelites, but is also telling for the book of Judges as a whole. The message of the angel is a mix of traditional texts about YHWH’s promise of the land and the obligations for Israel. Precisely in the middle, the people are confronted with their behaviour: “What have you done?!” It is reminiscent of YHWH calling Adam and Eve to account for disobeying his commands (Gen. 3:13). The consequences of their deeds will have a great impact on what follows. As part of the recapitulation of the story of the conquest, as it is described in the book of Judges, the confrontation with the messenger of YHWH takes the place of the final chapters of the book of Joshua. Like Joshua the messenger of YHWH reminds the people of YHWH of keeping to its promises, to the commitment asked from Israel and also of the dangers of mingling with the peoples of the land. Whereas the Israelites had solemnly sworn before Joshua to keep to the commandments, they now have to admit that they have broken the covenant and have to fear the consequences.

74

Judges2:1-5 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

Judg. 2:1–5 has received much attention in recent research, especially for two reasons. In the first place it plays an important part in the much discussed transition from the book of Joshua to the book of Judges, in the second place the story of the messenger of YHWH reminds the reader of other texts about this kind of heavenly intervention, especially the one reported in Exod. 23:2022 (cf. Neef 1995 and Ausloos 2008). There are also clear parallels with other texts about Israel’s relation with the other nations, especially Exod. 34 (cf. Halbe 1975, with a detailed analysis of Judg. 2:1–5 on pp. 346–391). Intensive literary critical research (cf. Groß 2009, 157–178; Kratz 2018, 249–251; Schulz 2018, 260–263) did not lead, until now, to clear and generally accepted results. It appears to be difficult to come to a convincing relative dating of the texts involved. Some scholars regard Judg. 2:1-5 as an old local tradition, whereas others attribute it to a late, Deuteronomistic redactor. As was indicated in the introduction to the exegesis of chapter 1, 2:1–5 can be seen as the counterpart of 1:1, both mentioning the Israelites and YHWH. It is a commentary on the faults made by the Israelites as described in chapter 1 and an indication of the manner in which the people of Israel now go on: not self-assured and proud, but stamped as a failure. It concludes the first introduction of the book of Judges. This describes what happened after the death of Joshua according to the way the book of Joshua is built up. After the mentioning of the death of the previous leader, the appointment of a new leader, stories about the conquering of the land, and a list of the taking and not taking of the land of the different tribes, now follows a meeting of the people as a whole, where the messenger of YHWH repeats the message already spoken by Joshua (in Josh. 24), noting that by making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land the Israelites have done what Joshua already predicted. Looking at the structure of vv. 1–5 (cf. Marx 1979, 342–343; Van der Kooij 1995, 297) it can be noted that the reference of (the messenger of) YHWH and Bochim in the beginning (v. 1a) corresponds with the explanation of the name Bochim and the reference to (the offering to) YHWH at the end (v. 5). Note also the chiasm: the order YHWH– Bochim in v. 1a is reversed in verse 5. After the introduction we first hear of the messenger speaking in the third person in v. 1b (‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)וַ יּ‬, which has its counterpart in v. 4a (‫)כּ ַד ֵבּר‬. ְ In these verses he speaks first of the “fathers” (‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ל ֲאב ֵֹת‬,ַ v. 1b) and then of the “sons (of Israel)” (‫בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ְ v. 4b). The address in the first person at the end of v. 1 (‫ )וָ א ַֹמר‬has its parallel in v. 3a (‫)וְ גַ ם ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי‬. These two discourses are also built up chiastically. In v. 1b the messenger first speaks of the relation between YHWH and Israel (“I shall never break my covenant with you”). This is followed in v. 2a by a remark on the relation between Israel and the

ThemessengerofYHWHinBochim

75

nations (“you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars”). In v. 3a we first hear of the relation between YHWH and the nations (“I will not drive them out before you”). This is followed by a remark on the relation between the nations and Israel (“they will be [a whip on your] sides to you and their gods will be a snare to you”). The sayings introduced first by ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬and then by ‫ ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי‬are both more or less literal quotations, mostly taken from Exod. 23:20-33. These quotations frame the words in v. 2b, underling their central place: “You did not listen to my voice. What have you done?” messenger of YHWH + Bochim (v. 1a) “He said” + your fathers (v. 1bA) “I said” + YHWH and Israel (v. 1bB) + Israel and the nations (v. 2a) “But you did not listen to my voice. What have you done?” (v. 2b) “So now I say” + YHWH and the nations + Israel and the nations (v. 3) “when the messenger of YHWH had spoken these words” + children of Israel (v. 4) Bochim + YHWH (v. 5)

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS 2:1 

AmessengerofYHWHwentupfromGilgaltoBochim.Hesaid:“Imade yougoupfromEgyptandIbroughtyoutothelandthatIsworetoyour fathers.AndIsaid:Iwillnotbreakmycovenantwithyouforever”.

With ‫ וַ יַּ ַעל‬this chapter opens with a verb that was used in the previous chapter of the “going up” of the main characters: Judah (1:1–4) and Joseph (1:22). Now it is a messenger of YHWH who “goes up” to remind the Israelites of the fact that in the past YHWH “made them go up” from Egypt to bring them into the Promised Land and to declare that YHWH is not pleased with the follow up of the Israelites. ‫ ַמ ְל ַאְך־יְ הוָ ה‬is often translated as “angel of YHWH”, but it is preferable to translate more literally with “messenger of YHWH”, avoiding pleonasm (in the Bible an angel is always an angel of YHWH) and emphasizing his function. On its first occurrence it is translated here with the indefinite article. Grammatically it can be both determinate and indeterminate; so the context is decisive (cf. Hilbrands 2006, 84–85). The choice for the latter is based on the fact that here and on other places in the book of Judges the messenger has no other function than delivering the message of YHWH and must be distinguished from human messengers, as they are mentioned in 7:24; 9:31;

76

Judges2:1-5

and 11:12–19 (cf. Van der Woude 1963, 2; Meier 1999, 59). Within the book of Judges the messenger of YHWH returns in the song of Deborah, cursing Meroz for not helping YHWH (5:23), in the story of the calling of Gideon (6:11), and in the story of Samson, announcing his birth (13:3). Especially in the latter two it becomes clear that it is not always easy to differentiate between the speaking of the messenger and YHWH speaking himself or even between the messenger and YHWH. Also in 2:1, the messenger seems to disappear behind the words of YHWH. In the LXX this is made more explicit. LXX (B) paraphrases: εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς τάδε λέγει κύριος, “he said to them: this is what the Lord says”. LXX (A) has: εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς κύριος κύριος ἀνεβίβασεν, “he said to them: The Lord, the Lord brought you up”. The Targum has “a prophet” instead of the messenger, leaving no doubt about the question whether we are dealing here with a human agent or a heavenly creature. In rabbinic literature there is much discussion about this topic (cf. Smelik 1995, 349–352). On the basis of this verse and 13:6 it is noted that sometimes prophets are designated as angels. The angel or prophet in 2:1 is often identified as Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, fighting idolatry according to Num. 25. Apparently, the editor or author of the book of Judges had no problem with presenting the words of YHWH in multiple ways. In 1:2 YHWH speaks directly, in 6:8–11 the messenger of YHWH is preceded by a prophet passing on the words of YHWH, and again in 10:11YHWH speaks without intermediary. The meeting with the messenger of YHWH is often compared to Joshua meeting the commander of the army of YHWH in Josh. 5:13–15 (cf. Sweeney 1997, 522), but there appears to be a more close relation to the final chapter of the book of Joshua. As in Josh. 24, the people are addressed as a whole and, just as Joshua, the messenger mediates the words of YHWH (cf. Josh. 24:2: “Joshua said to all the people: Thus says YHWH, the god of Israel”). Further comparison with Josh. 24 shows that in both texts the Israelites are reminded of YHWH making a covenant with their ancestors and of YHWH leading them out of Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land. The fact that the messenger of YHWH in Judg. 2 goes from Gilgal to Bochim clearly has a symbolic meaning. Gilgal stands for the beginning of the operation under Joshua; Bochim is exemplary for what is going to happen after Joshua’s death. Both place names in v. 1 have the article and one could translated both names: “from The Circle to The Weepers” (Boling, 1975, 53). It is more likely, however, that the definite article before Bochim was influenced by the preceding reference to Gilgal which also has the article, but for which this is normal (cf. Webb 1987, 240, n. 83). It is clear that the name Bochim was made up for the occasion and that it is assumed that the reader is well aware of the relation with “weeping”. By leaving a space after ‫הבכים‬, in the middle of verse (a so-called pisqâ

ThemessengerofYHWHinBochim

77

be-ʼemṣaʽpasûq, also found in 7:5), the Masoretes gave this name a special emphasis. According to Talmon (1966, 18) “the p.b.p. very often appears in a context in which the author obviously left many things untold, and the reader or expositor requires further information on facts, or on the reactions of the Biblical figures concerned”. Apparently there was room for explanation. We find this illustrated in the LXX which adds after a literal translation of the place name two explanatory notes: ἐπὶ τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ. So it seems to identify Bochim with Bethel. Within the book of Judges Bethel is also a place of weeping in the story of the conflict between the tribes and Benjamin (20:26; 21:1). Bethel is already associated with weeping in Gen. 35:8 mentioning ‫אלּוֹן ָבּכוּת‬, ַ “the oak of weeping” as the burial place of Deborah, the nurse of Rebekkah, located “below Bethel”. Amit explains the fact that a direct reference to Bethel itself, which was mentioned in 1:23, 26, is left out as a case of hidden polemic (Amit 2000a and 2000b, 119–129; cf. also Sweeney 1995, 522). Bethel would have been a cause of weeping, because for the first readers of this story Bethel was primarily the place where Jeroboam had placed his altar (1 Kgs. 13). According to Amit within the context of the first chapter of the book of Judges this negative view on Bethel could not be expressed directly because of its positive connotation as the place of the contact between YHWH and Jacob (Gen. 28) and the city conquered by the house of Joseph (Judg. 1:22–26). When it is true that Bochim points to Bethel and the adultery practiced there, one could also consider the possibility that the association with weeping has something to do with the character of this condemned cult. Some scholars assume that originally there was a sanctuary, next to the one in Gilgal, where the Israelites assembled in times of distress to lament and to do penance (cf. Halbe 1975, 383–384; Veijola 1982, 185). Other suggest that one could think here of traces of cultic weeping as part of the cult of the dying and rising god of fertility Baal (cf. Hvidberg 1962, 105–107) or a cult of the dead (cf. Spronk 2001, 92–94). Despite these arguments in favour of the identification with Bethel, accepted by most commentators, one cannot exclude the possibility that the author assumed a connection with the locations mentioned in the preceding stories in the book of Judges. One could then think – with some older commentators (cf. Cassel 1861, 53; Moore 1895, 58) – of Shiloh, because there the Israelites had assembled (Josh. 21:2). Even more likely would be the identification with Shechem, as the place where Joshua had gathered the tribes for his final address (Josh. 24:1). This would be in line with the remarks made above about Judg. 1 following the structure of the book of Joshua: the words of the messenger of YHWH reminding of the warning by Joshua at the end of the book is a fitting conclusion of the text proving that the Israelites had not dealt with the peoples of the land as commanded by Joshua. That is also exactly

78

Judges2:1-5

what is suggested in 2:6, which repeats Josh. 24:28, reporting that Joshua sends the tribes to their inheritance. The yiqtol ‫א ֲע ֶלה‬, ַ “I made you go up”, is odd in this place, because in an absolute beginning one would expect the qatal (cf. JM § 113g). According to Sasson (2014, 181; with reference to GK§ 107n) it can be explained as “used to express a wish or intention that has carried from a moment distant in the past”. Another possible explanation is that we are dealing here with a grammatically incorrect quote (cf. Moore 1895, 61: “copied without correcting the tense”) from Exod. 3:17, where the same expression is used for YHWH delivering Israel out of Egypt, but then as a promise. YHWH’s promise to keep to the covenant with Israel forever, is reminiscent of Lev. 26:44–45, where it is also related to the exodus and the giving of the Promised Land: “Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am YHWH their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am YHWH”. In Judg. 2:1 this promise is formulated even stronger by adding that it is “forever”, just as YHWH promised an eternal covenant to Noah (Gen. 9:16), Abraham (Gen. 17:7), and later also to David (2 Sam. 23:5). 2:2 

Andyou,youshouldnotcutacovenantwiththosewhodwellinthis land.Theiraltarsyoushoulddemolish.Butyoudidnotlistentomy voice.Whathaveyoudone?

The command not to make positive contact with the inhabitants of the Promised Land is reminiscent of similar texts in Exod. 23:24, 32; 34:12– 13; and Deut. 7:2, 5. Especially the link with Exod. 23 is very clear, because it is preceded by the announcement that YHWH will send a messenger who will guide Israel to the Promised Land and will bring them to the six peoples from Canaan, who shall then be destroyed by YHWH (Exod. 23:20–23). To this was also added the condition that Israel should listen to this messenger: “Beware of him and listen to his voice; do not provoke him, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him” (Exod. 23:21). Judg. 2:2 takes up this warning clearly: Israel “did not listen to [his] voice”. Reading Judg. 2:1–5 parallel to Josh. 24 emphasizes the dramatic turn in the behaviour of the people. To Joshua the Israelites had assured “YHWH, our Lord, we will serve, to his voice we will listen” (Josh. 24:24). Now the angel observes that they did the opposite.

ThemessengerofYHWHinBochim

79

The following question or exclamation ‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫מה־זֹּאת ֲע ִשׂ‬, ַ “What have you done?” takes, as is demonstrated in the introduction to the exegesis, a central place in this pericope. The same words are found in Gen. 3:13; 12:18; 26:10; 29:25; 42:28; Ex. 14:5, 11; Jonah 1:10 (cf. JM § 143g). Especially the comparison with the first of these texts is interesting here (cf. Moore 1895, 59; Lindars 1995, 78). It concerns the words spoken by YHWH to Eve: ‫ַמה־זֹּאת‬ ‫ע ִשׂית‬. ָ In both cases it is used absolutely, that is, without addition as in Gen. 29:25 and Exod.14:5. This parallel with the beginning of the book of Genesis is supported by the fact that the preceding words ‫א־שׁ ַמ ְע ֶתּם ְבּק ִֹלי‬ ְ ֹ ‫ל‬,ֽ “you did not listen to my voice”, have a parallel in Gen. 3:17 where Adam is blamed for listening to the voice of his wife: ‫י־שׁ ַמ ְע ָתּ ְלקוֹל ִא ְשׁ ֶתָּך‬ ָ ‫כּ‬. ֽ ִ Both texts give a reason for the impending irrevocable downfall of the people because of the disturbed relation with YHWH (cf. Marx 1979, 349–350; Spronk 2001, 90). The positive counterpart of this (according to a personal communication by Karel Deurloo) can be found in the story of the binding of Isaak, where Abraham is praised by YHWH for what he did (‫ית‬ ָ ‫יַ ַען ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬ ‫ת־ה ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Gen. 22:16), listening to the voice of YHWH (‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָשׁ ַמ ְע ָתּ ְבּק ִֹלי‬ Gen. 22:18). 2:3 

“SonowIsay:Iwillnotdrivethemoutfrombeforeyourfaceand theywillbe(awhiponyour)sidestoyouandtheirgodswillbeasnare toyou”.

‫ וְ גַ ם ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי‬can be interpreted (and translated) in two ways. It is usually seen as an announcement of punishment: “So now I say”. Some scholars prefer to read it as another reference to the past, taking up the use of the same verb in v. 1: “And I also said” (cf. Moore 1895, 59; Van der Kooij 1995, with a survey of the scholarly discussion on pp. 294–295). As both positions are grammatically possible (cf. Groß 2009, 159), the context is decisive. In this case this also involves the wider context because of the many quotes of other biblical texts. Van der Kooij bases his conclusion that these words should be read as another reference to the past on his view that Judg. 2:3 should be related to the warning given in Exod. 23:28–33. In his opinion a reference to Josh. 23:13, as advocated by Smend (1971, 508), is less likely, because of a number of differences in terminology, function and contents. The problem remains that none of the related texts mentioned in this connection corresponds in every detail with Judg. 2:1–3. Within the present context it is most likely that after the exclamation “What have you done?!” follows the reaction of YHWH to this observation that the Israelites have done wrong, just as YHWH answered Eve in Gen. 3:14 and in a positive way Abraham in 22:17.

80

Judges2:1-5

This interpretation in line with Josh. 23 also fits well with the reaction of the Israelites in Judg. 2:4. Their weeping indicates that in their ears the words of the messenger announced the fulfilment of the threat that YHWH would no longer keep to his part of the covenant. The suggested relation with Josh. 23:13 may also provide a clue to the interpretation of ‫ל ִצ ִדּים‬,ְ “to sides”, which in its present context makes no sense. It can be interpreted here as the abbreviated expression ‫לשׁ ֵֹטט ְבּ ִצ ֵדּ ֶיכם‬,ְ “to a whip on your sides”, taken over from Josh. 23:13. As with ‫ ַא ֲע ֶלה‬in v. 1 we have to assume that the text was not quoted correctly. It could be related in a similar way to Num. 33:53: ‫ל ְצנִ ינִ ם ְבּ ִצ ֵדּ ֶיכם‬,ִ “to thorns in your sides” (cf. Moore 1895, 61; Lindars 1995, 79). Other proposed attempts to come to an understandable text is to emend the Hebrew to ‫ל ָצ ִרים‬,ְ “to enemies” (cf. BHS referring LXX εἰς συνοχάς, “[causes to] dismay”, but cf. Smelik 1995, 353, n. 168, questioning this argument), or to assume a different vocalization: ‫ל ָצ ִדים‬,ְ a word that can be translated with “hunters” (cf. Spreafico 1984; Van der Kooij 1995, 297; Groß 2009, 157). To the warning against the peoples, the messenger adds a warning against their gods. It is reminiscent of similar texts in Exod. 23:33 and Deut. 7:16, but again there is no verbatim correspondence. In Judg. 2:1–3 we are clearly dealing with a mix of well-known texts about the covenant between YHWH and Israel concerning the Promised Land, giving the impression that these were quoted from a living oral tradition. 2:4–5 4

5

Ithappened,whenthemessengerofYHWHhadspokenthesewords toallthechildrenofIsrael,thatthepeoplelifteduptheirvoiceand wept. TheycalledthenameofthatplaceBochimandtheysacrificedthere toYHWH.

The reaction of the people shows that they feel guilty. They do not defend themselves or look for excuses, like Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:12–13. The fact that they start weeping indicates that they are lamenting about the consequences their acts will have, as predicted in Josh. 24:20, when YHWH’s anger is inflamed. The verb ‫בכה‬, “to weep”, characterizes this meeting and the location it takes place, giving it the name of ‫בּ ִֹכים‬, “weepers”. It can even be seen as a catch word for the book of Judges as a whole (cf. Minnaard 1989, 25; Spronk 2001). Looking at the places where it is used we see a sequence of all kinds of relations going wrong: in Judges 2:4, Israel weeps because of the disturbed relation with YHWH; in 11:37, the daughter of Jephthah weeps because she has to die as a virgin due to her father’s rash vow; in 14:16, it

ThemessengerofYHWHinBochim

81

is Samson’s wife weeping, as one of the examples of Samson’s problematic relations with women. Finally, weeping is typical of the sad stories about the tribes fighting against each other (20:23, 26; 21:2). The link with these final references to weeping is strengthened by the fact that just as in 2:5 the weeping is followed by bringing sacrifices to YHWH. In 2:5 the sacrifices are meant to restore the broken relationship with YHWH. Whether this was also accepted by YHWH remains an open question. From the story of Saul bringing sacrifices before the battle against the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:8–14), we learn that it does not automatically succeed in winning YHWH’s favour.

JUDGES 2:6–3:6

ISRAEL’S IDOLATRY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

TRANSLATION 6 7

8 9 10

11 12

13 14

15

16 17

JoshuasentthepeopleoffandthechildrenofIsraelwent,amanto hisinheritance,totakepossessionoftheland. ThepeopleservedYHWHallthedaysofJoshuaandallthedaysof theelderswhohadprolongedthedaysafterJoshua,whohadseen everygreatdeedofYHWHthathehaddoneforIsrael. Joshua,sonofNun,servantofYHWH,died,ahundredandtenyears old. TheyburiedhimintheterritoryofhisinheritanceinTimnathHeres onmountEphraim,northofmountGaash. Also that entire generation was gathered to its fathers. Another generationcameupafterthem,thatdidnotknowYHWHandthe deedhehaddoneforIsrael. ThechildrenofIsraeldidwhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH.They servedtheBaals. TheyabandonedYHWH,thegodoftheirfathers,whohadbrought themoutofthelandofEgypt,andwentafterothergods,fromthegods ofthepeopleswhoweresurroundingthem.Theyboweddownbefore themandtheyprovokedYHWH. TheyabandonedYHWHandservedBaalandtheAstartes. TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstIsrael.Hegavethemintothe handofpillagersandtheypillagedthem.Hesoldthemintothehand oftheirenemiesall-around.Theywerenolongerabletostandbefore theirenemies. Wherever they went out, the hand of YHWH was against them for evil,asYHWHhadspokenandasYHWHhadswornagainstthem. Itwasverydistressingforthem. YHWHraisedupjudgesandtheydeliveredthemfromthehandoftheir plunderers. Alsototheirjudgestheydidnotlisten,becausetheywentwhoringafter other gods and bowed down before them. They turned aside quickly fromtheroadtheirfathershadwalkedbylisteningtothecommands ofYHWH.Theydidnotdothus.

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences 18

19

20

21 22 23 3:1 2

3

4

5 6

83

WhenYHWHraisedupjudgesforthem,YHWHwaswiththejudge andhedeliveredthemfromthehandoftheirenemies,allthedaysof thejudge,forYHWHhadregretsattheirmoaningsbecauseofthose whooppressedthemandpersecutedthem. Itwasatthedeathofthejudgethattheyreturnedandactedruinously morethantheirfathersbygoingafterothergods,toservethemand bowdownbeforethem.Theywouldnotletfallawayanyfromtheir actionsandtheirshamelessroad. TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstIsrael.Hesaid:“Becausethis nationhastransgressedmycovenantthatIcommandedtheirfathers andnotlistenedtomyvoice, for my part, I will not continue to dispossess any man before them fromthenationsthatJoshualeftbehind,whenhedied”. InordertotestIsraelthroughthem:whethertheywillkeeptheroad ofYHWH,towalkonit,astheirfatherskept,ornot, YHWHgavethesenationsrest,notdispossessingthemquickly.Hehad notgiventhemintothehandofJoshua. These are the nations that YHWH had given rest, to test Israel throughthem,allthosewhodidnotknowallthebattlesofCanaan, onlyforthesakeoftheknowingofthegenerationsofthechildrenof Israel,toteachthembattle,onlythosewhopreviouslyhadnotknown them: thefiveprincesofthePhilistinesandalltheCanaanites,theSidonians, and the Hivvites who dwell on mount Lebanon, from mount Baal HermontotheentranceofHamath. TheyweretotestthroughthemIsrael,toknowwhethertheywould listentothecommandmentsofYHWH,thathehadcommandedtotheir fathers,bythehandofMoses. ThechildrenofIsraeldwelledbetweentheCanaanites,theHittites, theAmorites,thePerizzites,theHivvites,andtheJebusites. They took their daughters for themselves as wives, their daughters theygavetotheirsons.Theyservedtheirgods.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY R. Bartelmus, “Menschlicher Mißerfolg und Jahwes Initiative. Beobachtungen zum Geschichtsbild des deuteronomistischen Rahmens im Richterbuch und zum geschichtstheologischen Entwurf in Ez 20”, BN 70 (1993), 28–47; M.Z. Brettler, “Ju 1,1–2,10: From Appendix to Prologue”, ZAW 101 (1989), 433–435; J. Day, Yahwehandthe GodsandGoddessesofCanaan (JSOTSup 265), London 2002;S. Frolov, “Joshua’s Double Demise (Josh. xxiv 28-31; Judg. ii 6-9): Making Sense of a Repetition”,

84

Judges2:6–3:6

VT 58 (2008), 315–323; E. Gaß, “Joshua’s Death Told Twice – Perspectives from the History of Research”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 199–219; H. Jagersma, “Geen andere goden: Richteren 3:1-6”, ACEBT 19 (2001), 65–69; A. Krüger, “Auf dem Weg ‘zu den Vätern’. Zur Tradition der alttestamentlichen Sterbenotizen”, in: A. Berlejung, B. Janowski (eds), TodundJenseitsimaltenIsraelundinseinerUmwelt (FAT 64), Tübingen 2009, 137–150; V. Mäkipulto, “The Four Deaths of Joshua: Why the Septuagint is Pivotal for the Study of Joshua 24”, HeBAI6 (2017), 217–242; H. Niehr, ‫ ָשׁ ַפט‬šāpaṭ, ThWAT VIII (1995), 408–428; E. Noort, “Josua 24,28–31, Richter 2,6–9 und das Josuagrab: Gedanken zu einem Straßenschild”, in: W. Zwickel (ed.), BiblischeWelten (Fs Metzger), Göttingen 1993, 109–130; D. Penchansky, “Up for Grabs: A Tentative Proposal for Doing Ideological Criticism”, Semeia 59 (1992), 35–41; J.L. Ska, “Plot and Story in Genesis–Exodus and Joshua–Judges”, in: Berner & Samuel 2018, 401–409; K. Spronk, “Jozua op herhaling: Rechters 1:1-2:10 als inleidende samenvatting”, ACEBT 24 (2009), 43–50; G.W. Trompf, “Notions of Historical Recurrence”, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of theOldTestament (SVT 30), Leiden 1979, 213–229; T.C. Vriezen, “Exodusstudien Exodus 1”, VT17 (1967), 334–353; J.P.H. Wessels, “‘Postmodern’ Rhetoric and the Former Prophetic Literature”, in: S.E. Porter etal. (eds), Rhetoric,Scripture&Theology (JSNTSup 131), Sheffield 1996, 182–194; idem, “Persuasions in Judges 2.203.6: A Celebration of Differences”, in: S.E. Porter, T.H. Olbricht (eds), TheRhetoricalAnalysisofScripture (JSNTSup 146), Sheffield 1997, 120–136.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES In 2:6–3:6 the reader gets a second introduction to the stories about the judges and deliverers of the Israelites after the entrance into the Promised Land. It looks at this period from a different perspective than in the first chapter. The focus is now not on the failure of dispossessing the nations in the land but on the idolatry of the Israelites serving the gods of these nations. It opens with the repetition of the report at the end of Josh. 24, of Joshua’s final act of sending the tribes to their heritage, his death and burial. This recalls the solemn promise made by the Israelites to keep to the covenant with YHWH. It becomes clear that after one generation this promise is forgotten and that now also YHWH’s warnings and threats will become reality. In the theological considerations about the relation between YHWH and his people the author constantly quotes directly and indirectly from texts of the books of Moses. With regard to the Israelites it is stated that they keep on making the same mistakes. With regard to YHWH the emphasis is on him taking the initiative, not only in punishing his people, but also in showing mercy. The end of this pericope shows traces of an ongoing discussion about the role of the other nations and the way they were used by YHWH. It can be seen as the beginning of the debate in the history of interpretation about the way this text theologically frames the following stories of the judges and

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

85

deliverers of Israel. It can be evaluated very differently, also by modern readers. Penchansky is very negative about its abstraction, being “bloodless, empty of detail and particularity” (Penchansky 1992, 39). Keller on the other hand is impressed by the way it pictures the relationship with YHWH: “The relationship God wants us to enjoy with him – and the only relationship which will avoid idolatry – is a passionate, personal relationship of love” (Keller 2013, 28). According to Wessels Judg. 3 belongs to the humorous stories of the Hebrew Bible: “Have you ever thought about the Canaanites as ‘sparring partners’ for the Israelites to teach them war?” (Wessels 1996, 191).

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS As was indicated in the introduction to the exegesis of chapter 1, the almost verbatim repetition of Josh. 24:28–31 in Judg. 2:6–9 is much discussed (cf. Mäkipelto 2017). The present state of research is well illustrated by the survey of the history of mainly diachronic research by Gaß who concludes that “(t)he compositional knot between the book of Joshua and Judges has yet to be convincingly untangled” (2018, 219; see also the introduction to the exegesis of chapter 1). In many translations the repeated report about Joshua’s death and burial is presented as a flashback. This would take away the contradiction with the earlier report of Joshua’s death in 1:1. The problem with this solution is that such a chronological break is not supported by the syntactic layout with its uninterrupted flow of verbs in the imperfectumconsecutivum. It is also often assumed that we are dealing in 2:6–9 with an example of “Wiederaufnahme”, which is also attested in other places of the Hebrew Bible. Originally Judg. 1:1aB–2:10 would have functioned as an appendix to Joshua. Later it was given a new function as an introduction to the period after Joshua. At this point the introductory statement “after the death of Joshua” would have been inserted, to separate the books of Joshua and Judges. A problem with this suggestion is that one has to assume that the person who added it “seems to have missed the conflict it caused with 2,6” (Brettler 1989, 435). Frolov offers an interesting alternative by taking 2:6–9 “as an integral and pivotal element of much larger retrospective launched by Judg. i 27–33” (Frolov 2008, 319). In his opinion it is part of a second time line in 1:27–2:9 which should not be placed after but before the other time line and describing the conquest of the land from a different, more negative, perspective. Frolov speaks of a “temporal loop” in which the story of the conquest is told twice, with Judg. 1:27–2:9 repeating Josh. 14–24. His basic argument

86

Judges2:6–3:6

for assuming a major shift after 1:26 is the change of verbal forms from primarily imperfectum consecutivum to perfectum. A problem is that this syntactic signal is weakened by the fact that it also occurs in v. 21. Moreover, the suggestion of a break after v. 26 is contradicted by the structure of 1:1–2:5, if the reconstruction given above in the introduction to the exegesis of chapter 1 is correct. Nevertheless, a solution to the problem of the repeated text and the contradiction with 1:1 might be found in a suggestion related to the one by Frolov. As was indicated above, 1:1–2:5 can be interpreted as an introduction to the book of Judges as a recapitulation of the story of the conquest following the structure of the book of Joshua. In 2:6 the story of what happened after the death of Joshua starts again, but now from a different perspective. In chapter 1 the emphasis was on (dis)possessing the land, from 2:10 onwards the emphasis is on doing what is right in the eyes of YHWH. One could speak of a first (1:1–2:5) introduction and a second (2:6–3:6), but they should be placed next to each other as two sides of the same coin (cf. Polzin 1980, 151: “a parallel account”; Marais 1998, 85–91: a juxtaposed “second perspective”; Clinton McCann 2002, 35: “parallel and complementary”). This can be compared to the deviation from a linear chronology in other places of the book, which seems typical of the style of the author (cf. the remarks at the end of introduction § 4). It also fits in with what is written in the following verses about the repeating history itself. At the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3 different explanations are given for the ongoing presence of other nations in the Promised Land. The text is clearly not homogeneous and, within scholarly discussion, has led to many reconstructions about its formation; first by attributing it to the different sources also found in the Pentateuch, second to Deuteronomistic redactions (cf. the overview by Wessels 1997, 123–132). The most likely solution is to assume “Fortschreibung”: following the reference to the nations deliberately left by YHWH according to v. 21 a first comment was added explaining the presence of the nation as a temporary test by YHWH (vv. 22–23). In 3:1–6 a second and probably also a third comment (Jagersma 2001, 65, calls it “a midrasj”) took up the idea of testing, combined it with the statement that the nations remained to teach the Israelites how to wage war and with extra information about the identity of these nations. The title of “judge” was probably derived from the list of judges mentioned in 10:1–5 and 12:8–15 and given to some of the other leaders when their stories were united within the book in its present form (see on the history of the interpretation of the meaning and use of the verb ‫ שׁפט‬the introduction to 10:1–5).

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

87

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS Judges 2:6–9

Joshua 24:28–31

6 Joshua sent the people off and thechildrenofIsraelwent, a man to his inheritance, totake possessionoftheland. 7 Thepeople served YHWH all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who had prolonged the days after Joshua, who had seen every great deed of YHWH that he had done for Israel. 8 Joshua, son of Nun, servant of YHWH, died, a hundred and ten years old. 9 They buried him in the territory of his inheritance in Timnath Heres on mount Ephraim, north of mount Gaash.

28 Joshua sent the people off, a man to his inheritance. 29 Anditwasafterthesethings, that Joshua, son of Nun, servant of YHWH, died, a hundred and ten years old. 30 They buried him in the territory of his inheritance in Timnath Serah on mount Ephraim, north of mount Gaash. 31 Israel served YHWH all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who had prolonged the days after Joshua and who had known every deed of YHWH that he had done for Israel.

The differences between Judg. 2:6–9 and Josh. 24:28–31 (as indicated in the translation in italics) can be explained as the former quoting the latter (cf. Noort 1993, 113–114; Mäkipelto 2017, 234, concludes that “(t)he earliest extant version is mostly preserved in LXX Joshua […] The version in MT Judges, in turn, is a later adaptation to a new context and it has emerged mainly through expansive harmonization”). This is most clear in Judg. 2:7 speaking of “every great deed of YHWH” instead of “every deed of YHWH”. It is not likely that an author quoting a text would feel the need to diminish YHWH’s work. In Judg. 2:6 the added “and the children of Israel went (…) to take possession of the land” complements the texts of Josh. 24:28, adapting it to a situation where “going to his inheritance” is not something that can be taken for granted: there is still much work to be done. The verb ‫ירשׁ‬, “to take possession”, was used many times in 1:19–33, but there to indicate most of the time the failure to dispossess the inhabitants of the land. In comparison with Josh. 24:31 the corresponding verse in Judg. 2:7 is not placed after the report of Joshua’s death, but before it. Another difference is that in Josh. 24:29 the report of Joshua’s death is preceded by the phrase ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬, “and it was after these things”. This is missing

88

Judges2:6–3:6

in Judg. 2:8 and can again be explained by the fact that here the text is not a conclusion, as in the book of Joshua, but an introduction to a new situation. This probably also explains the transfer of the verse about Israel serving YHWH. In the book of Judges the presence of Joshua makes the difference: things change after his death. By placing the remark about Israel serving YHWH before the report of Joshua’s death there can be no doubt about it that precisely serving YHWH will become a problem now Joshua is no longer there to lead the people (cf. Noort 1993, 114–115). From now on the verb ‫עבד‬, “to serve”, will be used to denote Israel’s idolatry (cf. 2:11, 13, 19; 3:6, 7, 8, 14). Against this background the honourable title ‫ע ֶבד יְ הוָ ה‬, ֶ “servant of YHWH”, given to Joshua (v. 8) is extra meaningful. It puts Joshua on a par with Moses (cf. Josh. 1:1, where Moses is given the same title, but Joshua still has to earn it). Another difference between Judg. 2:7 and Josh. 24:31 is the replacement of the verb ‫ידע‬, “to know” by ‫ראה‬, “to see”. This may have been influenced by Exod. 34:10, part of a text that is also related to Judg. 2:2–3 and that also speaks of the “people seeing the deed of YHWH”. LXX, translating here with ἔγνωσαν, “they had known”, is clearly an attempt to harmonize this verse with Josh. 24:31. The same phenomenon can be observed in a number of Hebrew manuscripts with ‫ת־ס ַרח‬ ֶ ַ‫ ִת ְמנ‬instead of ‫ת־ח ֶרס‬ ֶ ַ‫ ִת ְמנ‬in v. 9, harmonizing the name of Joshua’s burial place with Josh. 24:30. The same variant occurs in some Targum manuscripts (cf. Smelik 1995, 356) and also the Greek translations show a number of variants. ‫ ֶח ֶרס‬can be interpreted as a reference to the sun (cf. 14:18 and Job 9:7). So, it is very well possible that it keeps alive the memory of the miracle of sun in the valley of Ajjalon (Josh. 10:12–13). The exact location and the question what was the original name remains a question of dispute. The reference to the sun in Judg. 2:9 could be seen as part of the idealization of the golden age of Joshua in contrast to the dark-age ahead (cf. Noort 1993, 129). 2:10 

Also that entire generation was gathered to its fathers. Another generationcameupafterthem,thatdidnotknowYHWHandthe deedhehaddoneforIsrael.

The change of generations and the change of knowledge that can come with it, is often compared to the new situation of the Israelites in Egypt as described in the first chapter of the book of Exodus (cf. Vriezen 1967, 336–339; Ska 2018, 402–405). After the death of Joseph, of all his brothers and of that entire generation (Exod. 1:6) there comes a new king who did not know Joseph (v. 8). Judg. 2:10 also mentions “that entire generation” (‫ל־הדּוֹר ַההוּא‬ ַ ‫)כּ‬, ָ but

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

89

here it is Israel itself that does not “know” anymore the blessings of the past. Guest sees a dissonance in the fact that Israel is presented here as both innocent and (in the next verses) guilty (2019, 27–31). The repeated reference to the fathers, however, shows that it is also a matter of passing on the story of YHWH from generation to generation, as was commanded in Deut. 6:20– 25. The normal expressions of death and burial in the Hebrew Bible are ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬ ‫ל־ע ָמּיו‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֶ “he was gathered to his kinsmen” (Gen. 25:8) and ‫ם־אב ָֹתיו‬ ֲ ‫ע‬, ִ “he lay down with his fathers” (1 Kgs 14:20). The expression used in Judg. 2:10 is a mix of both: ‫בוֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ל־א‬ ֲ ‫ נֶ ֶא ְספוּ ֶא‬and is only used here and in 2 Kgs 22:20 and its parallel 2 Chron. 34:28 (cf. Krüger 2009, 143). The use of “fathers” instead of the customary “kinsmen” was probably prompted by the in the present context specially important reference to (the god of) the fathers in v. 12. 2:11–13 11 12

13

The children of Israel did what is evil in the eyes of YHWH. They servedtheBaals. TheyabandonedYHWH,thegodoftheirfathers,whohadbrought them out of the land of Egypt, and went after other gods, from the godsofthepeopleswhoweresurroundingthem.Theyboweddown beforethemandtheyprovokedYHWH. TheyabandonedYHWHandservedBaalandtheAstartes.

The basic theme in the first chapter was the question of whether or not the Israelites would be able to take possession of the land by dispossessing the inhabitants. After the promising start by Judah and Joseph the refrain was that the tribes did not meet the expectations. From now on the recurring phrase is “the children of Israel did what is evil in the eyes of YHWH”. It will be repeated in 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; and 13:1, and then change into “a man did what is good in his own eyes” (17:6; 21:25). 2:11–13 gives most details about Israel’s sin, but the information remains superficial. In contrast to the plural “Baals” in v. 11, the singular “Baal” is used in v. 13 but now with the plural “Astartes”. From Ugaritic texts we know Baal as the god of fertility and Astarte as his consort. The plural can point to local manifestations of Baal and Astarte, but also could be a way of speaking about Canaanite gods and goddesses generally (cf. Day 2002, 131). Some manuscripts of the LXX translate ‫ בעל‬in v. 13 with the feminine form τῇ Βααλ instead of the masculine τῷ Βααλ (as in the Vaticanus). This can be interpreted as a way to indicate that the name of Baal should be replaced by the word αἰσχύνη, “shame” (cf. Kabiersch 2011, 672).

90

Judges2:6–3:6

The narrator clearly has no intention to be very precise in the description of the idols. He did pay attention, however, to the structure of the description of the idolatry. The initial line in vv. 11b–12a (“They served the Baals. They abandoned YHWH”), is reversed in v. 13 (“They abandoned YHWH and served Baal”) and expanded with “and the Astartes”. In between, v. 12 gives extra information about Israel’s history with YHWH (“the god of their fathers, who brought them out of the land Egypt”) and about the origin of the other gods (“the gods of the peoples who were surrounding them”). To this the author adds new information showing the idolatry getting worse: from “going after other gods”, to “bowing down before them” and “provoking YHWH”. This verb ‫ כעס‬hiphil, “to provoke”, is also used in Deut. 4:25 and 31:29, together with the phrase “to do what is evil in the eyes of YHWH”, where this idolatry of Israel is predicted together with the announcement that YHWH shall punish the Israelites severely for that. The Targum avoids a reference to the eyes of YHWH, because this is considered as too anthropomorphic, and therefore translates “what was evil before the Lord” (cf. Smelik 1995, 357–359). 2:14–15 14

15

TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstIsrael.Hegavethemintothe handofpillagersandtheypillagedthem.Hesoldthemintothehand oftheirenemiesall-around.Theywerenolongerabletostandbefore theirenemies. Wherever they went out, the hand of YHWH was against them for evil,asYHWHhadspokenandasYHWHhadswornagainstthem. Itwasverydistressingforthem.

Just as the previous verses about the idolatry this description of YHWH’s anger is well structured. First the reference to the anger of YHWH is described as a twofold action, with the parallel phrases “to give into the hand” and “to sell into the hand” (v. 14). In the next verse this is taken up in the reference to the hand of YHWH being “against them for evil”. The use of the word ‫רעה‬, “evil”, indicates that YHWH returns to Israel their “evil in the eyes of YHWH”. This is followed again by a twofold phrasing of YHWH’s verbal reaction: “as YHWH had spoken” and “as YHWH had sworn against them”. This anger of YHWH was predicted in texts like Deut. 6:15; 7:4; and Josh. 23:16, where the Israelites were warned not to serve other gods in the Promised Land. In the previous verses many phrases used there were taken over by the author of the book of Judges. Now he adds a new element which contrasts sharply with the situation described in Josh. 21:44, using precisely

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

91

the same words (cf. Becker 1990, 77). In Josh. 21:44, we read that YHWH gave Israel “rest all around, according to all that he had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; YHWH delivered all their enemies into their hand”. According to Judg. 2:14b–15 the roles will be reversed: YHWH will “sell them in the hands of their enemies all-around” and the Israelites will “no longer be able to stand before their enemies”. This is theologically shocking and Guest rightly criticizes commentators who “either simply note this action without so much as a nod to the ethics involved or actively defend it” (2019, 40). However, her conclusion based on the application of attachment theory is less convincing. She maintains that “YHWH is presented as a deity who does not surrender control in the way that a healthy mother gives up her omnipotence to give exploratory space for the developing child. (…) The only danger that can come to Israel is from YHWH himself. His is the reaction of a deity with unmet attachment needs, but he does not have the skills of resolving this other than through reassertion of his own omnipotence time and time again, largely achieved by this large-scale game play” (pp. 111–112). This is a modern image of YHWH which would have been unacceptable to the ancient author, who on the other hand would agree that the relation between YHWH and his people is seriously disturbed. 2:16 

YHWH raised up judges and they delivered them from the hand of theirplunderers.

The judges are mentioned here for the first time. The two verbs used here to denote the persons (‫שׁפט‬, “to judge”) and their function (‫ ישׁע‬hiphil, “to deliver”) will return in the following chapters in describing their actions: judging (3:10; 4:4; 10:2, 3; 11:27; 12:7; 12:7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14; 15:20; 16:31) and delivering (3:9, 31; 8:22; 10:1, 12, 13, 14; 12:2; 13:5). Only in 2:16– 19 the term “judge” is used for a person and the term ‫מוֹשׁ ַיע‬, ִ “deliverer”, is only used for a person in 3:9 and 15. The emphasis is on the action, not on the title. It is clear that “judge” does not point here to someone judging in the judicial sense, like the judges that had to be appointed according to Deut. 16:18 (cf. Smelik 1995, 363–364, about the Targum translating with “leaders”). It is better to compare these persons raised up by YHWH to the king of whom it is said in Ps. 72:4 that “he shall judge the poor of the people and deliver the children of the needy”. So “judging” and “delivering” are part of the job of a king. And being a good judge and deliverer makes the king a proper representative of YHWH as “our judge, our lawgiver, our king, who will deliver us” (Isa. 33:22; cf. also Ezek. 34:22; Ps. 36:7; 76:10 for

92

Judges2:6–3:6

the combination of “judging” and “delivering” as actions that are characteristic of YHWH). Solomon shows himself to be an exemplary king when in his prayer to YHWH he asks for “an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and evil” (1 Kgs 3:9). After what is said in the previous verses of Judg. 2 about Israel’s sin as “doing evil in the eyes of YHWH”, this judgment appears precisely what is needed. This connection between the leaders in the book of Judges and the ideal king fits in very well with the observation that the book of Judges can be read as an introduction to the books of Samuel and Kings (cf. introduction § 3.3). The use of the term “judge” as a political and military leader in Israel probably finds its origin in the way the leadership of Samuel is described in 1 Sam. 7 and 8. In 1 Sam. 7:15, the verb ‫ שׁפט‬points to Samuel’s work as someone deciding lawsuits. When Samuel appoints his sons as judge, people start complaining about their misconduct and ask for a king “to judge over us” (1 Sam. 8:5). At this point ‫ שׁפט‬seems to get the more extensive meaning, which it also has in the book of Judges. This use of the term judge on a literary level, makes the search for a plausible historical background of the term with a function that can be compared to what is told of the leaders with that name in the book of Judges less relevant. It might also explain why it appears to be so difficult to come to convincing results (cf. the survey of research by Niehr 1995, 423–425). There is more chance of finding historical traces in the period described in the book of Judges when focusing on specific persons. See, for instance, the notes below on Shamgar and Deborah. LXX translates καὶ ἔσωσεν αὐτοὺς, “and he delivered them”, taking YHWH as the subject instead of the judges. This was probably caused by the wish to harmonize this verse with v. 18. There could also be a theological motive, placing everything in the hand of YHWH. This concerns not only the positive actions but also the negative, as is clear from the fact that in v. 15 LXX also takes YHWH as the subject of ‫וַ יֵּ ֶצר‬: ἐξέθλιψεν αὐτοὺς σφόδρα, “(the Lord) oppressed them greatly”. Some scholars suggest to insert ‫וַ יִּ זְ ֲעקוּ ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬, “and they cried out to YHWH”, as in 3:9, 15; 6:6; and 10:10, but without ‫( ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬cf. BHS; Bartelmus 1993, 36; but rejected by Groß 2009,206). This ignores the possibility that there may have been a good reason to leave out this line here (and also in 13:1). A reference to Israel crying out to YHWH would be the only positive action of Israel in this survey of the history of YHWH and Israel. Since the death of Joshua, as recounted in 2:8, nothing good can be said of Israel. When YHWH reacts it is to punish them and also when YHWH decides to deliver Israel again, it is not because of Israel’s prayer or conversion but because of his “regrets at their moaning” (v. 18).

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

93

2:17–21 17

18

19

20

21

Alsototheirjudgestheydidnotlisten,becausetheywentwhoringafter other gods and bowed down before them. They turned aside quickly fromtheroadtheirfathershadwalkedbylisteningtothecommands ofYHWH.Theydidnotdothus. WhenYHWHraisedupjudgesforthem,YHWHwaswiththejudge andhedeliveredthemfromthehandoftheirenemies,allthedaysof thejudge,forYHWHhadregretsattheirmoaningsbecauseofthose whooppressedthemandpersecutedthem. Itwasatthedeathofthejudgethattheyreturnedandactedruinously morethantheirfathersbygoingafterothergods,toservethemand bowdownbeforethem.Theywouldnotletfallawayanyfromtheir actionsandtheirshamelessroad. TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstIsrael.Hesaid:“Becausethis nationhastransgressedmycovenantthatIcommandedtheirfathers andnotlistenedtomyvoice, for my part, I will not continue to dispossess any man before them fromthenationsthatJoshualeftbehind,whenhedied”.

These verses indicate that every time the Israelites sin anew against YHWH it gets worse. “Going after other gods” (v. 12) has now become “whoring after other gods” (v. 17). And whereas v. 10 only mentions that this idolatry was happening after the time of the generation who had known Joshua, it is now explicitly stated that the Israelites have chosen a different road than their fathers. Also YHWH’s actions are described more elaborately. Compared to v. 16 it is now added that “YHWH was with the judge” (v. 18) and we also hear about his motivation: he reacts to their moaning. The word used here (‫נאקה‬, “moaning”) is reminiscent of YHWH hearing the cries of the Hebrews in Egypt (Exod. 2:24). In Judg. 2:18 there is no sign of the Israelites showing regret, contrary to what is suggested in the Targum which renders v. 18b: “the Lord reversed what he had said and accepted their prayers and saved them from those who confined and oppressed them” (cf. Smelik 1995, 364). After this the relapse of the Israelites is described as even deeper than before, as they “acted ruinously more than their fathers” (v. 19). In his turn now also YHWH becomes angrier and less forgiving (vv. 20–21). Again it is mentioned that “the anger of YHWH flared up against Israel” (v. 20; cf. v. 14). This time it is motivated by YHWH speaking himself about Israel breaking the covenant. He adds that now he is not bound anymore to his part of the covenant and will stop dispossessing the nations of Canaan. The fact that he refers to the Israelites not with ‫עם‬, but with the more detached ‫הגּוֹי ַהזֶּ ה‬, ַ “this

94

Judges2:6–3:6

nation”, also has “a tone of alienation” (Moore 1895, 74; cf. Block 1999, 133; Sasson 2014, 193). With ‫וַ יָּ מֹת‬, “and he died”, v. 21 ends with a familiar closing of an episode in the book of Judges (cf. 1:7; 2:8; 3:11 etc.). It is the third time that Joshua’s death is mentioned (after 1:1 and 2:8). This is not surprising given the fact that threefold repetition is characteristic of the book of Judges (cf. introduction § 2.4), but in the present context the use of an imperfectumconsecutivum seems syntactically awkward. One would have expected something like ‫במותו‬ (cf. Nowack 1902, 20; Wessels 1997, 125). The LXX has καὶ ἀφῆκεν, “and let be”. In v. 23 the same words are used to translate ‫וַ יַּ נַּ ח‬, “he left in peace”. The Old Latin does not translate it at all or may have been based on a shorter Hebrew text. It also connects the end of v. 21 to the beginning of v. 22, making Joshua the one who is testing: “… which Joshua left to test Israel” (cf. BHQ, 48*). Richter (1964, 37) suggests to skip ‫וַ יָּ מֹת‬, because the reference to Joshua’s death is superfluous, but he does not explain why someone would have wanted to add it. As will be explained below, the next verses probably have to be attributed to a later scribe adding one or two theological considerations about the presence of the other peoples remaining in the Promised Land. The syntactically problematic insertion of ‫ וימת‬might be ascribed to this redactional activity as well. Its function would be to make clear that the following statement refers to considerations by YHWH and not by Joshua, because it refers to the situation after his death. The picture described in these verses of an ever returning sequence of apostasy by the Israelites, punishment by YHWH, crying out of the Israelites, and deliverance by a judge sent by YHWH has clear parallels in ancient Greek literature (cf. Spronk 2015b, 124–125). It can be compared to what the Stoic philosopher Zeno (334–262 BCE) said about the eternal recurrence of things. For the Stoics there was only one history, which was repeated an infinite number of times (cf. Trompf 1979). Polybius (2nd century BCE) describes how the blessing of democracy is lost by the generation who forgot how it replaced the bad situation of oppression by oligarchs. He concludes “This is the cycle of constitutions, the natural way in which systems of government develop, metamorphose, and start all over again” (Histories, VI.9). Within the Hebrew Bible we find in the book of Qohelet a similar idea of the ever returning patterns in life, especially in 1:4–7. 2:22–23 22 23

InordertotestIsraelthroughthem:whethertheywillkeeptheroad ofYHWH,towalkonit,astheirfatherskept,ornot, YHWH gave these nations rest, not dispossessing them quickly. He hadnotgiventhemintothehandofJoshua.

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

95

The final section of the second introduction discusses the theological problem of the presence of the peoples who were not driven out of the Promised Land. They had already been mentioned in the first introduction in chapter 1 and were also mentioned in the second introduction by YHWH announcing that he will stop dispossessing them (v. 21). To this is added now an extra, more positive motivation: YHWH uses the nations to test Israel, like he did before with his people on its way to the Promised Land (cf. Exod. 15:25; 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 16; 33:8), and also the reassuring remark that eventually these nations will be dispossessed, but that YHWH will not act quickly. The way v. 22 is connected to v. 21 is not fully clear. It is possible to read it as the continuation of YHWH’s words (cf. Niditch 2008, 47–48) or to take it, as is suggested in the translation given above, as a new statement, referring to YHWH in the third person. By placing the subordinate clause in front (taking “YHWH gave these nations rest” in v. 23 as the main clause), the emphasis comes on the idea of testing Israel. Another ambiguity is that it is possible to connect ‫ל ַמ ַען נַ סּוֹת‬,ְ “in order to test”, with the preceding ‫ר־עזַ ב‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַע‬ ֻ ְ‫י‬, “that Joshua left behind”, but also – which is usually done – with ‫לֹא‬ ‫הוֹרישׁ‬ ִ ‫אוֹסיף ְל‬, ִ “I will not continue to dispossess”. The former makes Joshua responsible (a suggestion defended by Weinfeld 1967, 100), the latter YHWH. As was indicated in the remark on the Old Latin version of v. 21 above, the insertion of ‫ וימת‬may have been meant precisely to make clear that it is YHWH who is the decisive force behind all this. This is also in line with how this theme is developed in the following verses. 3:1–6 1 2

3

4

5 6

These are the nations that YHWH had given rest, to test Israel throughthem,allthosewhodidnotknowallthebattlesofCanaan, onlyforthesakeoftheknowingofthegenerationsofthechildrenof Israel,toteachthembattle,onlythosewhopreviouslyhadnotknown them: thefiveprincesofthePhilistinesandalltheCanaanites,theSidonians, and the Hivvites who dwell on mount Lebanon, from mount Baal HermontotheentranceofHamath. TheyweretotestthroughthemIsrael,toknowwhethertheywould listen to the commandments of YHWH, that he had commanded to theirfathers,bythehandofMoses. ThechildrenofIsraeldwelledbetweentheCanaanites,theHittites, theAmorites,thePerizzites,theHivvites,andtheJebusites. They took their daughters for themselves as wives, their daughters theygavetotheirsons.Theyservedtheirgods.

96

Judges2:6–3:6

To the explanation of the remaining nations as a test is now added the idea that the nations were left by YHWH to teach the Israelites how to battle. Three times the verb ‫ידע‬, “to know”, is used in vv. 1–2. Extra attention is now also given to the identity of the nations, first in v. 3 and then again in vv. 5–6. In fact the information is given twice, with v. 4 taking up the theme of “testing” and “knowing”, followed in vv. 5–6 with a second list of names of the nations. One can ascribe this to different redactions, but also link it to other examples of a twofold description (see the remarks on 2:14– 15). After the discussion above about the question of who is made responsible for the testing of Israel: YHWH or Joshua, it is interesting to note the translation of the first words of v. 1 in LXX (A): καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἀφῆκεν Ἰησοῦς, “And Iesous left these nations” (in LXX [B] this is corrected again to: καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἃ ἀφῆκεν κύριος). This points towards a Greek translator who appears to have had theological problems in ascribing temptation to God. In the translation of the LXX of v. 2 there is no explicit reference to “the knowing” (‫ )דעת‬of the people. The suggestion in BHQ and by a number of commentators to delete it and explain the text of the MT as caused by dittography is not convincing. The Hebrew may be difficult here, but can be explained as due to the wish to emphasize the central place of the verb ‫ ידע‬in these verses (cf. Frolov 2013, 80, 84, 357). In v. 4 the verb ‫ ידע‬is repeated but used differently. Now the subject is YHWH, evaluating the outcome of his test. Also the test itself is formulated differently. It is no longer connected to learning the war. Instead, it is related to keeping the commandments. The more traditional list in v. 5 of the nations (cf. Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11) looks like a correction of the one in v. 3, in which especially the reference to the Philistines and Sidonians is remarkable. Compared to the list in v. 3 the emphasis is more on the peoples within the boundaries of the Promised Land. The reference to the Philistines and the Sidonians in the list in v. 3 can be explained by the important role they will play in some of the following stories (cf. 3:31; 10:6–7; 13–16 with regard to the Philistines; and 10:6, 12; 18:17 with regard to the Sidonians). In v. 6 we read that the Israelites exactly did what had been forbidden in Deut. 7. Together with the list of the nations in v. 5 it almost reads like a copy of this text. These nations should have been destroyed, no covenant should be made with them, “nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son” (Deut. 7:3). The reference to Israel breaking this commandment foreshadows the story of Samson in chapter 14.

Israel’sIdolatryanditsConsequences

97

The concluding remark that “they served their gods” forms an inclusio with the beginning of this pericope describing the transition from serving YHWH (2:7) to serving other gods (2:11).

JUDGES 3:7–11

OTHNIEL

TRANSLATION 7 8

9

10

11

ThechildrenofIsraeldidwhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH.Theyforgot YHWHtheirgodandservedtheBaalsandtheAsherahs. TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstIsrael.Hesoldthemintothe handofCushanRishataim,thekingofAramNaharaim.Thechildren ofIsraelservedCushanRishataimforeightyears. ThechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWH.YHWHraisedupadeliverer forthechildrenofIsrael.Hedeliveredthem:Othniel,thesonofKenaz, thebrotherofCaleb,youngerthanhe. UponhimwasthespiritofYHWH.HejudgedIsrael.Hewentout tobattle.YHWHgaveinhishandCushanRishataim,thekingofAram. HishandwasstrongoverCushanRishataim. Thelandhadrestforfortyyears.Othniel,thesonofKenaz,died. ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

C.T. Begg, “Israel’s First Judge according to Josephus”, NedThT60 (2006), 329–336; J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265), London 2002; G. Dossin, “Kushan Rish‘atayim, roi de l’Aram Naharayim”, in: G. van Driel etal. (eds), ZikirŠumim (Fs Kraus), Leiden 1982, 9–11; H. Hänsler, “Der historische Hintergrund von Richter 3,8–10”, Bib 11 (1930), 391–418; 12 (1931), 3–26, 395–410; J.R. Levinson, “Prophetic Inspiration in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum”, JQR 85 (1995), 275–296; A. Malamat, “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East Around 1200 B.C.”, JNES 13 (1954), 231–242; B. Oded, “Cushan-Rishathaim (Judges 3:8-11): An Implicit Polemic”, in: M.V. Fox etal. (eds), Texts,Temples,and Traditions (Fs Haran), Winona Lake 1996, 89–94 (Hebr.); R.S. Sadler, CanaCushite Change His Skin? An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible, New York 2005; A. Sima, “Nochmals zur Deutung des hebräischen Namens ῾Oṯnī᾿ēl”, BN 106 (2001), 47–51; K. Spronk, “Cushan-Rishataim”, EBR 5, Berlin 2012, 1196; E. Täubler, “Cushan-Rishathaim”, HUCA 20 (1947), 137–142; M. Streck, S. Weninger, “Zur Deutung des hebräischen Namens ῾Oṯnī᾿ēl”, BN96 (1999), 21–29.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES Othniel is the ideal judge. He perfectly fits into the picture of the deliverer sent by YHWH as described in the introduction. We already knew him as the

Othniel

99

one with the perfect marriage, in contrast to what was said of the Israelites in 3:6. He is now presented as the one who does a perfect job. With the spirit of YHWH upon him, he delivers his people and brings peace for forty years. In this sense 3:7–11 can be seen as the final part of the introduction to the following stories of the judges and deliverers: Othniel is the model with whom they should be measured. One could also see Cushan Rishataim as the “ideal enemy”. His name, which can be translated as “the Cushite of double wickedness” and the place where he comes from, Mesopotamia, picture him as the most fearful opponent someone in Israel could think of. Israel is presented here as one people. In the following stories the focus will be on different tribes and the cooperation between the tribes will become problematic. The relation between Israel and YHWH is very schematic: Israel sins, YHWH punishes, Israel cries out, YHWH raises a deliverer. There is no room for theological or psychological considerations, as in the previous chapter, about the reasons behind Israel’s unfaithfulness or about the way YHWH acts. In the retellings of the book of Judges in Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum Othniel is not mentioned. Instead, a long story is told in chapters 25–29 about Kenaz. According to Judg. 1:13 and 3:9, 11, he is the father of Othniel, but in the retelling this affiliation is not confirmed. Kenaz is presented in a very positive way as the first leader after Joshua with much attention for his being inspired by the spirit of the Lord (cf. Levinson 1995). In Josephus’ retelling of Judg. 3:7–11, in Ant.5.179–184 (cf. Begg 2006), the hero of the story is called Keniaz. Apparently Josephus followed the same tradition as Pseudo-Philo, although in contrast to the LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum Josephus follows the story line of the book of Judges, be it that he placed the events described in Judg. 17–21 before the story of Keniaz/Othniel. In his version of the story Josephus gives more details about Israel’s sin and the domination by Cushan Rishataim (“Chusarsathus, king of the Assyrians”). It is also remarkable that Josephus leaves out a reference to Israel’s cry for help and also to the spirit of YHWH. Keniaz is called “a man of the tribe of Judah (…) vigorous and noble hearted, being warned by an oracle not to leave the Israelites to lie in such deep distress, but to essay to vindicate their liberty”. In later Jewish tradition Othniel is praised as a great scholar (cf. Ginzberg 2003, 860–862). This is probably based on his role in capturing Kirjath-Sefer (1:12–13), because this name can be translated as “city of the book”. He would have restored seventeen hundred forgotten traditions of Moses and set up an academy for Torah study. Some also ascribe the victory over Adoni-Bezek and the capture of the city of Luz to him. He was not held responsible for the sins of Israel. He even seems to have been considered to be one of the few who reached paradise alive.

100

Judges3:7–11 SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(I):

INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

The story of Othniel is closely related to the introduction given in the previous chapter. It can be regarded as the illustration of the more general statements there, repeating the most important lines and adding little more than some personal names and some periods of time. The central figure, Othniel, was already introduced in 1:13 and just as in 1:1 and in chapter 2 the Israelites are presented as one people. New elements are the reference to Israel crying out to YHWH and to the spirit of YHWH given to the deliverer. These elements will return many times in the following stories. Also the fact that the name of Cushan Rishataim seems to have been made up by the author for the present context makes it likely that the story of Othniel as a judge of Israel does not derive from an ancient source. It probably was written as part of the second introduction as a hinge between two episodes. On the one hand, it is connected with the first introduction by the reference to Othniel already mentioned there. As a member or the generation after Joshua he is someone who still knows the history of the exodus and as participant of the conquest he is “a suitable character to be the first deliverer” (Lindars 1995, 128). On the other hand, this story makes the connection with the following stories of the deliverers and judges showing as “narratives Beispielstück” (Richter 1964, 91), how the principal ideas of the second introduction function as the framework in the rendering of these stories. Traces of this history of the growth of the text can still be found in the LXX of the book of Joshua. At the end of the book a connection is made with the story of Ehud, as if the first chapters of the book of Judges, including the story of Othniel, were not known to the translator. Also the fact that, in the retelling in the LiberAntiquitatumBiblicarum, the first part of the book of Judges is not represented could point to a situation in which these chapters were not yet seen as authoritative scripture. The story appears to be built up chiastically: Oppression by Cushan Rishataim (2×) + served by Israel for eight years (v. 8) Othniel delivered Israel (v. 9) The spirit of YHWH upon him / he judged (v. 10a) He went out to battle (v. 10b) Defeat of Cushan Rishataim (2×) + the land was quiet for forty years (v. 10–11)

In this structure the emphasis is on the gift of the spirit of YHWH. It also explains the fact that the order of events – delivering, giving of the spirit, judging, going out to battle – is not chronological. SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(II): EXEGESIS

3:7 

ThechildrenofIsraeldidwhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH.Theyforgot YHWHtheirgodandservedtheBaalsandtheAsherahs.

Othniel

101

To the much used phrase of “doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH” (cf. 2:11; 3:12) this verse adds the more rare expression that the Israelites forgot (from the verb ‫ )שׁכח‬YHWH. This is only used here in the book of Judges and also in the reference to the period of the judges by Samuel (1 Sam. 12:9). It is reminiscent of the reproach by Moses in Deut. 32:17–18 to the people sacrificing to idols and forgetting their god. The author keeps on changing the names of the idols. In 2:11 he called them “the Baals” in 2:13 “Baal and the Astartes”, in 3:7 “the Baals and the Asherahs”, and in 10:6 “the Baals and the Astartes”. This gives the impression that the author did not make any effort to be very precise. He may even have been deliberately inaccurate in describing the gods of the Canaanites (cf. Scherer 2005, 37: “Einer Differenzierung der Göttinnen Astarte und Aschera und ihrer religionsphänomenologisch korrekten Zuordnung zu Baal stehen die Dtr. völlig gleichgültig gegenüber”). The plural ‫ ָה ֲא ֵשׁרוֹת‬used in 3:7 is uncommon (the usual plural is ‫)אשׁרים‬. It is found only here and in 2 Chron. 19:3 and 33:3. The more common ‫ אשׁתרות‬is attested in a number of Hebrew manuscripts, the Peshitta and the Vulgate (cf. BHS), but this can be explained as a harmonization. There is much discussion about the meaning of ‫ אשׁרה‬in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Day 2002, 42–67). The word usually refers to a cult symbol, but it can also denote the name of a goddess (cf. 1 Kgs 15:13; 18:19; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:4). Not everyone agrees that Judg. 3:7 can also be interpreted as a reference to this specific deity (cf. Wyatt, DDD, 102, 112), although it could very well indicate “continuing awareness of Asherah as a goddess at a relatively late date” (Day 2002, 45). 3:8 

TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstIsrael.Hesoldthemintothe handofCushanRishataim,thekingofAramNaharaim.Thechildren ofIsraelservedCushanRishataimforeightyears.

The name Cushan Rishataim was probably manufactured to indicate the perfect enemy as opponent of the first and perfect deliverer. His name rhymes with the name of his country. Aram naharaim can be translated as “Aram of the two rivers” and denotes northern Mesopotamia (cf. Gen. 24:10), the homeland of the Assyrians and from where also the later threat of the Babylonians would come. The name Cushan Rishataim gets much attention: in this short text it is used twice in v. 8 and also twice in v. 10. The first element relates him to Cush with an often used ending “-an”. In the Hebrew Bible Cush is the name of Ethiopia and also of other places, but is also very well possible that we have to assume an association here with Cush, the father of Nimrod, the first “mighty warrior on the earth” (Gen. 10:8). The second part of the name can be read as a dual of ‫רשׁע‬: “double wickedness”. In rabbinic literature, where his name is explained as reference to two evil deeds, he is

102

Judges3:7–11

identified as Laban (y.Naz 9:1; b.San 105a; t.Sot 11:10). In the Targum he is called “Cushan the sinner”. His name can be compared to the names given in Gen. 14:2 to the kings of Sodom (Bera, ‫בּ ֵרע‬, ֶ “in evil”) and Gomorrah (Birsha, ‫בּ ְר ַשׁע‬, ִ “in wickedness). Attempts by modern scholars to identify him with a king known from other sources (cf. Hänsler 1930–31: Tušratta from Mitanni; Malamat 1954: Isru from Syria) or to reconstruct a historical background (cf. Täubler 1947: Midian; Dossin 1982: the Mesopotamian city of Guzana; Oded 1996: hostilities with a nomad tribe in southern Judah) are not convincing. Emendation of the Hebrew text (reading “Edom” instead of “Aram”; cf. Lindars 1995, 133) is not necessary. “Serving” Cushan Rishataim can be regarded as a fitting punishment for “serving” the idols of the Canaanites. 3:9–11 9

10

11

ThechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWH.YHWHraisedupadelivererforthechildrenofIsrael.Hedeliveredthem:Othniel,thesonof Kenaz,thebrotherofCaleb,youngerthanhe. UponhimwasthespiritofYHWH.HejudgedIsrael.Hewentoutto battle.YHWHgaveinhishandCushanRishataim,thekingofAram. HishandwasstrongoverCushanRishataim. Thelandhadrestforfortyyears.Othniel,thesonofKenaz,died.

For the first time we read of Israel “crying out” (‫ )זעק‬to YHWH. This will be repeated in 3:15; 6:6–7; and 10:10 (in 4:3 and 10:12 the related ‫ צעק‬is used). It is reminiscent of Exod. 2:23–24, although this text is more elaborate: “the children of Israel groaned because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry came up to God because of the bondage. So God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob”. The author of the book of Judges restricts himself to the facts and does not describe any feelings, be it of despair of the Israelites or of YHWH having compassion. One would also like to hear more about the effects of receiving the spirit of YHWH, but we can only speculate about that (cf. the lengthy elaborations “on being touched by the divine” by Sasson 2014, 211–214). Othniel was already introduced in 1:13 as the heroic son-in-law of Caleb. So there can be no doubt about his qualities as a leader. He sets the standard for the following leaders, both as deliverer (v. 9) and judge (v. 10). Apparently the book of Joshua functioned here as the source, but only for the person, not for the story. Whereas Cushan Rishataim’s name is part of the message, the name of Othniel does not seem to have a special function here. The meaning of his name is a matter of dispute (cf. Streck, Weninger 1999; Sima 2001).

Othniel

103

Although a possible translation as “God has helped me” (cf. Sima 2001, 50) would fit very well, it is doubtful whether this meaning plays a role in this story. YHWH is the central figure in this pericope. His name is mentioned seven times and he is very much in charge as the one who has a hand in everything: he “sells” the Israelites “into the hand of Cushan Rishataim” (v. 8) and then gives this king “into the hand” of Othniel (v. 10). The third time a hand is mentioned it concerns the hand of Othniel being “strong over Cushan Rishataim”. These three references to Cushan Rishataim in combination with the word “hand” show that Cushan Rishataim is not the one who was really in charge. In his turn also Othniel is in every respect dependent upon YHWH. Always the action of YHWH comes first. YHWH raises up a deliverer and then Othniel delivers Israel; YHWH gives his spirit and then Othniel judges and goes to battle; YHWH gives Cushan Rishataim in his hand and then Othniel’s hand is strong over Cushan Rishataim. Within the book of Judges only Gideon, Jephthah and Samson will also receive the spirit of YHWH (6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; and 15:14). It is the signal of a new action of YHWH working through man. The conclusion that the land had rest is also used at the end of the stories of Ehud (3:30), Deborah and Barak (5:31) and Gideon (8:28). In contrast to Josh. 11:23 and 14:15, this phrase is now combined with a specific period, giving it a negative undertone: it will be only temporary. There is no mention of the burial of Othniel, which is in line with the lapidary character of the report about this judge. One could also read it as the introduction to the next episode: after the death of the leader the people tend to fall back into the bad old habits, as it is more explicitly formulated in 2:10, 19; 4:1.

JUDGES 3:12–30

EHUD

TRANSLATION 12

13 14 15

16 17 18 19

20

21 22

23 24

ThechildrenofIsraelcontinuedtodowhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH. YHWHstrengthenedEglon,thekingofMoab,overIsrael,becausethey didwhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH. HegatheredtohimthechildrenofAmmonandAmalek.Hewentand struckIsraelandtheytookpossessionoftheCityofthePalms. ThechildrenofIsraelservedEglon,thekingofMoab,foreighteen years. ThechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWH.YHWHraisedupforthem adeliverer:Ehud,sonofGera,aBenjaminite,amanrestrictedinhis right hand. The children of Israel sent through his hand tribute to Eglon,thekingofMoab. Ehudmadeforhimaswordwithtwomouths,aspanlong,andgirded itunderhisclothes,overhisrightthigh. He offered the tribute to Eglon, the king of Moab. Eglon was very well-nourished. It happened, when he had finished offering the tribute, that he sent awaythepeoplewhohadbeencarryingthetribute. HehimselfhadturnedaroundfromtheidolsthatareinGilgal.Hesaid: “AsecretwordIhaveforyou,king”.Hesaid:“Hush”.Allwhowere standingaroundhimwentoutfromhim. Ehudhadcometohimandhewassittinginthecoolupper-chamber thathehadforhimself.Ehudsaid:“AwordofGodIhaveforyou”. Hearosefromhisseat. Ehud sent his left hand, he took the sword from his right thigh and thrustitintohisbelly. Eventhegripenteredafterthebladeandthefatclosedupafterthe blade,becausehedidnotdrawtheswordfromhisbelly,andthefeces cameout. Ehudwentouttowardtheporchandclosedthedoorsoftheupperchamberbehindhim,boltingthem. Hehadgoneoutandhisservantshadcomein.Theysaw,look,thedoors oftheupper-chamberwerebolted.Theysaid:“Surely,heiscoveringhis feetinthecoolchamber”.

Ehud 25

26 27 28

29 30

105 Theywaitedtremblinguntiltheywereashamed.Look,hedidnotopen thedoorsoftheupper-chamber.Theytookthekeyandopened(them). Look,theirlord,fallenontheground,dead. Ehudhadescapedwhiletheytarried.Hepassedtheidolsandescaped toSeirah. IthappenedwhenhecamethatheblewthehornonmountEphraim. ThechildrenofIsraelwentdownfromthemountains,hebeforethem. Hesaidtothem:“Pursueafterme,becauseYHWHhasgivenyour enemies,Moab,intoyourhand”.Theywentdownafterhimandtook thecrossingsoftheJordantoMoab.Theydidnotletamancross. TheystruckMoabatthattime,abouttenthousandmen,allwell-fed andallmenofvalor.Nomanescaped. Moab was humbled on that day under the hand of Israel. The land hadrestforeightyyears.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY J.K. Aitken, “Fat Eglon”, in: G. Khan, D. Lipton (eds), Studies on the Text and VersionsoftheHebrewBible(Fs Gordon), Leiden 2012, 141–154; Y. Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30): The Form and the Message”, in: J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs andWonders:BiblicalTextsinLiteraryFocus, Atlanta 1989, 97–123; H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, “Characterizing the LXX Translation of Judges on the Basis of Content-Related Criteria: The Greek Rendering of Hebrew Absolute Hapax Legomena in Judg 3,12-30”, in: H. Ausloos etal. (eds), AfterQumran:OldandModernEditions oftheBiblicalTexts:TheHistoricalBooks, Leuven 2012, 171–192; H. Ausloos, “The Story of Ehud and Eglon in Judges 3:12-30: A Literary Pearl as a Theological Stumbling Block”, OTE 30 (2017), 225–239; M.L. Barré, “The Meaning of pršdn in Judges III 22”, VT 41 (1991), 1–11; U. Bauer, “Struktur und Zeitablauf in Ri 3,1230”, in: H.-J. Barkenings etal. (eds), TunundErkennen (Fs Weyer), Duisburg 1994, 171–181; M. Brettler, “‘Never the Twain Shall Meet?’ The Ehud Story as History and Literature”, HUCA 62 (1991), 285–304; idem, TheCreationofHistoryinAncient Israel, London 1998;E.S. Christianson, “A Fistful of Shekels: Scrutinizing Ehud’s Entertaining Violence (Judges 3: 12–30)”, BibInt 11 (2003), 53–78; R.B. Chisholm, “Ehud: Assessing an Assassin”, BS 168 (2011), 274–282; A.C. Cottrill, “A Reading of Ehud and Jael through the Lens of Affect Theory”, BibInt22 (2014), 430–449; F. Deist, “‘Murder in the Toilet’ (Judges 3:12-30)’, Scriptura 58 (1996), 263–272; K.A. Deurloo, “Net als het lemmer: Ehud. Richteren 3:19-26”, in: H. Blok etal. (eds), Omvoortelezen–Miqra (Fs Hoogewoud), Maastricht 2005, 57–61; F. Dexinger, “Ein Plädoyer für die Linkshänder im Richterbuch”, ZAW89 (1977), 268–269; I. Finkelstein, “Historical-Geographical Observations on the Ehud-Eglon Tale in Judges”, in: I. Finkelstein etal. (eds), Alphabets,TextsandArtefactsintheAncientNear East (Fs Sass), Paris 2016, 100–108; E. Gaß, ‘Zur Ehud-Tradition in historischtopographischer Hinsicht’, ZDPV 124 (2008), 38–50; L.A. de Groote, “Darkroom: ‘Ehud meets Eglon’”, AlefBeet 22/2 (2012), 37–42; B. Halpern, “The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked-Room Murder Mystery”, BibleReview 4/6 (1988), 32–41,

106

Judges3:12–30

44; L.K. Handy, “Uneasy Laughter”, SJOT 6 (1992), 233–246; U. Hübner, “Mord auf dem Abort?”, BN 40 (1987), 130–140; T.A.G. Hartmann, “‫ גמד‬in Richter 3,16 oder die Pygmäen im Dschungel der Längenmaße”, ZAH 13 (2000), 188–193; E. Jugel, H.-D. Neef, “Ehud als Linkshänder”, BN 97 (1999), 45–54; E.A. Knauf, “Eglon and Ophrah: Two Toponymic Notes on the Book of Judges”, JSOT 51 (1991), 25–44; G.P. Miller, “Verbal Feud in the Hebrew Bible: Judges 3:12–30 and Judges 19– 21”, JNES 55 (1996), 105–117; N. Na’aman, “Royal Inscriptions versus Prophetic Story: Mesha’s Rebellion According to Biblical and Moabite Historiography”, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and the Fall of the Omri Dynasty (LHB/OTS 421), London 2007, 145–183; H.-D. Neef, “Eglon als ‘Kälbermann’? Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Jdc 3: 12–20”, VT 59 (2009), 284–294; T. Römer et al., “Ehud and Eglon, Story of”, EBR 7 (2013), 530–538; H.N. Rösel, “Zur EhudErzählung”, ZDPV 93 (1977), 270–272; idem, “Ehud und die Ehuderzählung”, in: M. Weippert, S. Timm (eds), Meilenstein (Fs Donner), Wiesbaden 1995, 225– 233; J.M. Sasson, “Ethically Cultured Interpretations: The Case of Ehud’s Murder (Judges 3)”, in: G. Galil etal. (eds), HomelandandExile:BiblicalandAncient Near Eastern Studies (Fs Oded, SVT 130), Leiden 2009, 571–595; M.S. Smith, God in Translation. Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World, Grand Rapids 2008;J. van Soest, “Ga je niet met mij dan ga ik niet: De opbouw van Richteren 3 en 4”, in: B. Becking et al. (eds), Door het oog van de profeten (Fs Van Leeuwen), Utrecht 1989, 97–108; J.A. Soggin, “᾿Ehud and ῾Eglon: Bemerkungen zu Richter III 11b–31”, VT 29 (1989), 95–100; L.G. Stone, “Eglon’s Belly and Ehud’s Blade: A Reconsideration”, JBL 128 (2009), 649–663; K. Vermeulen, “The intentional use of Polysemy: A Case Study of ‫( דבר סתר‬Judg 3:19)”, in: K.A.D. Smelik, K. Vermeulen (eds), ApproachestoLiteraryReadingsofAncient JewishWritings (SSN 62), Leiden 2014, 115–136; A. Wénin, “Le ‘point de vue raconté’, une catégorie utile pour étudier les récits bibliques? L’exemple du meurtre d’Églôn par Éhud (Jdc 3, 15–26a)”, ZAW 120 (2008), 14–27; idem, “La dimension axiologique de la narration biblique de meutres. Les exemples d’Éhud (Jg 3,16–22) et de Joab (2 S 3,27–30; 20, 8–10)”, RThL45 (2014), 211–231; E. van Wolde, “Moord in een afgesloten kamer”, Schrift 234 (2007), 195–199; G.T.K. Wong, “Ehud and Joab: Separated at Birth?”, VT 56 (2006), 399–412.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES After the rather sketchy report of Othniel now follows the story of Ehud with many details about the way he killed Eglon, the king of Moab, as the decisive act initiating the delivery from the Moabites. Whereas Othniel represented the tribe of Judah, Ehud is a Benjaminite. This follows the order of the tribes as given in the first chapter (with the exception of the tribe of Simeon siding with Judah). These are also the two tribes that figure prominently at the end of the book of Judges. YHWH is presented as the one who is in charge of the events. He strengthens Eglon, giving him the power to oppress the sinful Israelites. After the Israelites had called out to him, he raises Ehud as deliverer (he is not called a judge). At the end Ehud acknowledges YHWH as the one who gave Israel

Ehud

107

the victory. With regard to the execution of the delivery, however, it is Ehud who devices a plan and executes it cunningly. His opponent is pictured as big but helpless with servants not knowing what to do. In the history of interpretation (cf. the overviews by Gunn 2005, 34–52, and Römer etal. 2013) much attention is given to the question how to evaluate the way Ehud misleads and kills Eglon. Josephus retells the story in a less grotesque manner (cf. Feldman 1998, 137–152): Ehud (Judes) has easy access to the king, because he had won his confidence by giving him frequently presents, he arouses his interest with the announcement of a divine interpretation of a dream and kills him by stabbing him in the heart. Details about Eglon’s belly and what came out are not mentioned. Also later rabbinic writings appear to be reluctant with regard to Ehud’s actions (cf. Feldman 1998, 139; Vermeulen 2014, 128–129). In Gen.Rab. 99.3 Ehud is related to Jacobs’ blessing of Benjamin (Gen. 49:27): “Benjamin is a devouring wolf. One speaks about his judge. As this wolf seizes, so did Ehud seize the heart of Eglon”. According to RuthRab. 2.9 God blessed Eglon because he rose from the throne out of respect for the announced word of God. God’s promise to him is: “I will raise up from you a son who shall sit on my throne”. In t.Naz. 23b we read the details: “For as reward for the forty-two sacrifices which the wicked Balak offered, he was privileged to be the progenitor of Ruth, for R. Jose son of R. Hanina has said that Ruth was descended from Eglon, [the grandson of Balak,] king of Moab”. In modern discussions Ehud’s way of liberating Israel is assessed in different ways (see the overviews by Wong 2006a, 406–410; Sasson 2009, 587–592; Chisholm 2011; and Vermeulen 2014, 125–133). Much depends on the way the story is classified: is it history, ethnic humour (cf. Handy 1992), or satire (cf. Brettler 1998, 79–90)? Does the story deliberately leave open more than one interpretation? Do we have to differentiate between a primitive old story and a more sophisticated later redaction? We also have to reckon with the possibility that the ancient author and his audience had different views on issues like obesity and violence than modern readers. Nevertheless, the story of Ehud appears to offer good material for extensive discussions especially on the issue of violence (cf. Christianson 2003; Cottrill 2014).

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

The story of the Benjaminite Ehud delivering the Israelites from the oppression of Moab is much more detailed than the previous story of Othniel, but it is introduced in the same way. This suggests that an existing story about a Benjaminite hero was taken up by the author of the book of Judges and

108

Judges3:12–30

presented within the framework of the list of judges and deliverers between Joshua and Samuel. Within the historical-critical approach there is discussion about the question whether it is possible to discern one or two redactional layers. Groß (2009, 230) finds a pre-Deuteronomistic adaptation of the Benjaminite story in 3:13, 27–29 turning it into a history concerning Israel as a whole. By adding vv. 12, 14, 15 (until the mentioning of the deliverer), and 30 the Deuteronomistic editor would have given the story its place within the present context (cf. also the discussion by Richter 1966, 1–29, and Becker 1990, 107–122). Dating the assumed original story is very difficult, because the biblical text contains little information that can be connected to extra-biblical evidence (cf. the survey of the scholarly discussion by Brettler 1991 and Rösel 1995, 228–231). The most reliable information comes from the reconstruction on the basis of archaeological and literary data of the history of the Moabites, which indicates that a Moabite occupation of this part of the territory of Israel could hardly have taken place any time before the 8th century BCE (cf. Na’aman 2007, 168; Gaß 2008, 47; see on the topographical data Rösel 1975, 184– 190). According to Soggin (1989, 99) this is a story and not history. It cannot be excluded, however, that the story goes back to a period before the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, when the struggles between Israelite and Moabite tribes had not resulted yet in a stable situation (cf. Halpern 1988 and Scherer 2005, 40). As indicated above, we have to assume that there is a long period between the time of the writing of the story and the time it describes and that an older story was adapted for its present place in the book of Judges. That does not exclude the possibility, however, that in its present form this pericope forms a coherent unity with specific literary qualities (cf. Alonso Schökel 1962, 148–158; Wénin 2008). Amit discerns seven units, each of them describing a different time, a different place and different characters: (1) the exposition in vv. 12–15; (2) the description of the making of the dagger in v. 16; (3) the description of the offering of the tribute in vv. 17–18; (4) the murder scene in vv. 19–23; (5) the description of the servant’s delay in vv. 24–25; (6) the description of the war and the victory in vv. 26–29; (7) the summary report in v. 30 (Amit 1989, 100). They appear to be organized symmetrically: (1) corresponds with (7); “the tricky dagger” (2) corresponds with “the war trick” (6); “the tricky tribute offering” (3) with “the trick of fooling the servants” ( 5); which leaves the scene about the murder (4) as the central part (Amit 1989, 103). Bauer (1994, 174–176) also notes a chiastic structure, but he describes it differently. He distinguishes three scenes: vv. 12–17, 18–26, and 27–30 and points to the way the first and the third are connected. In v. 13 it is told that Moab struck Israel, in the corresponding part in the third scene it is the other

Ehud

109

way around: Israel struck Moab (v. 29). A second correspondence concerns the mentioning of YHWH in vv. 12, 15, and 28. In the middle scene the name of YHWH is not mentioned, but replaced by ‫אלהים‬, “God”. Also the word ‫אישׁ‬, “man” is used only in the first and the last scene (vv. 15, 17, 29). Finally, there is a correspondence in the time periods mentioned in v. 14 and v. 30, which together with the word for years also stand out through alliteration: ‫( ְשׁמוֹנֶ ה ֶע ְשׂ ֵרה ָשׁנָ ה‬v. 14) and ‫( ְשׁמוֹנִ ים ָשׁנָ ה‬v.30). Building upon the analysis by Amit, Bauer and others (cf. also Van Soest 1989, 101–102; O’Connell 1996, 85–87; Younger 2002, 113; Mobley 2005, 86; Van Wolde 2007, 199; Neef 2009, 293; Ausloos 2017, 231) one may note the following corresponding elements in this story, pointing to a chiastic structure: YHWH strengthened Eglon, king of Moab (v. 12) Moab and his allies strike (‫ )ויך‬Israel (v. 13) YHWH raises up a deliverer (v. 15) Ehud returns from the idols (‫הפסילים‬, v. 18) The servants go out (‫יצא‬, v. 19) Ehud comes in (‫בוא‬, v. 20a) Ehud kills Eglon (vv. 21–22) Ehud goes out (‫יצא‬, v. 23) The servants come in (‫בוא‬, v. 24) Ehud passes the idols (‫הפסילים‬, v. 26) Ehud assembles an army (v. 27) The Israelites strike (‫ )ויכו‬Moab (v. 29) Moab was humbled (v. 30)

This goes together with the timing of the story (cf. Alonso Schökel 1961, 154–156). In the beginning we hear of the long period of eighteen years. In v. 13 this is followed by the report of Ehud making his preparations, which will have taken at least some days. The journey to Eglon, who was in Jericho, back to Gilgal and then to Jericho again, can be made in one day. The speed of the story slows down even more in the description of the conversation and the killing is described as a kind of slow motion scene, zooming in on Ehud taking his sword and on the sword going through Eglon’s belly. Time also plays an important role in the scene following the speedy departure of Ehud. The servants of Eglon are waiting a long time, before finding their dead master. From now on the events, the assembling of an army and the striking of the Moabites take place again within days. The story ends with the reference to a period of eighty years. These stylistic elements of using chiastic structures, zooming in, and also playing with names (see the remarks below on the name of Eglon) are found in many other places of the book of Judges as well. They show that we are not dealing here with a loosely connected collection of originally separate stories. It looks more like the work of a skillful author who produced a

110

Judges3:12–30

coherent piece of literary art about power and relationships between YHWH and mankind. The story of the assassination of Eglon by Ehud shows clear resemblances with the accounts of Abner’s killing of Asahel in 2 Sam. 2:23, Joab’s murder of Abner in 2 Sam. 3:27, and Joab’s murder of Amasa in 2 Sam. 20:8–12 (cf. Wong 2006a; Sasson 2014, 234–235; Wénin 2014). In the first story it is told that Abner warns Asahel to back off. Asahel does not listen and then Abner kills him by striking him in the stomach with the blunt end of the spear, so that the spear came out of his back. In the second story it is told that Joab takes Abner aside to speak to him privately and then stabs him in the stomach. In the third story Joab pretends that he wants to kiss Amasa grasping his beard with his right hand, but instead stabs him in the stomach causing his entrails to come out. An interesting detail is that Joab also seems to fool Amasa by a trick with his sword, letting it fall down first and then using it for an upward thrust. According to Wong (2006a, 403–405) the stories about Joab make allusions to the story of Ehud, but the fact that there are no direct quotations leaves open the possibility that it was the other way around. Especially when one takes also the story of the killing of Asahel into account, the story of the killing of Eglon seems to combine elements from the different stories: the spear coming out of the back, the tricking of the opponent, and the use of a specific hand. In that case we would have here another example of the book of Judges as a prefiguration of the books of Samuel and Kings (see introduction § 3.3). The story of Ehud shows a number of clear parallels with the story of the killing of Sisera (cf. Finkelstein 2016). The verb ‫ תקע‬used in describing how Ehud “thrusts” his sword in Eglon’s belly (v. 21) is also used in 4:21 describing how Jael pierces the head of Sisera. There is also a clear correspondence in the way bystanders find out what has happened, in the repeated use of ‫והנה‬, followed by the observation: ‫מת‬, ֵ “dead” (3:24–25; 4:22). They share the basic theme as well: the assassination of the leader of the enemy, be it that the order is reversed. In the story of Ehud and Eglon the defeat of the occupying army follows after the murder, in the story of Jael and Sisera it precedes the murder. The parallels within the book of Judges and with the stories in the book of Samuel are another indication that the author of the book of Judges may have used older sources but that he also adapted this material giving it its place in a new framework.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(II): EXEGESIS

3:12–13 12

ThechildrenofIsraelcontinuedtodowhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH. YHWHstrengthenedEglon,thekingofMoab,overIsrael,becausethey didwhatisevilintheeyesofYHWH.

Ehud 13

111 HegatheredtohimthechildrenofAmmonandAmalek.Hewentand struckIsraelandtheytookpossessionoftheCityofthePalms.

The story of Ehud is introduced as a continuation of the previous history. So the reader knows what to expect. It is also presented as a story about YHWH. His name is mentioned three times in the first verse. After this YHWH is only mentioned in v. 15 as the one who raised up Ehud as a deliverer and in the end where Ehud confirms to the people that they are delivered by YHWH (v. 28). The phrase about “Israel continuing to do what is evil in the eyes of YHWH” is also used in 4:1; 10:6; and 13:1, but only in 3:12 it is repeated. It surrounds the statement that YHWH strengthened Moab and thus explains the astonishing situation of the god of Israel taking sides with the arch-enemy. It gets even worse when the first action of the king of Moab is to get the support of two of the other traditional enemies of Israel: Ammon and Amalek. Their names seem to function primarily to denote the extreme hostility mentioning a threefold enemy, according to the style of the author who often uses the number three. The name of Amalek will return in 5:14: 6:3, 33, as a continuing threat for Israel, from the time of the exodus (cf. Exod. 17:8–16) to the time of the exile (cf. the story of Esther and the Amalekite Haman). The Ammonites will play an important role in the story of Jephthah. Within the now following story of Ehud these allies are not mentioned again. As it is presented here they only seem to have participated in the taking of the City of the Palms. LXX and Vulgate have the singular in the final verb: “he took possession”. Some scholars suggest changing the MT accordingly (cf. BHS), but it is more likely that the translations harmonized the original text. The City of the Palms was mentioned before in 1:16 as the base of operations of Judah together with the Kenites. It is another name of Jericho (cf. Deut. 34:3) and is reminiscent of the successes of the conquest as recounted in the book of Joshua. Now it is taken by the Moabites, it indicates that this good history of Israel, YHWH and the Promised Land is reversed. The name of the king of Moab can be related to the word ‫עגֶ ל‬, ֵ “calf”, with ‫ ון‬as a diminutive ending (as with Samson). So in Hebrew his name sounds like “little calf”. This is in line with him being called ‫בּ ִריא‬, ָ “fat” or “well fed”, because this is something that is usually said of cattle (cf. Gen. 41:2), and also with the way he will be killed. Although this association is made by many scholars (cf. also Brettler 1991, 295; 2002, 31, who assumes that the phrase “he brought the tribute to Eglon”, using the verb ‫ הקריב‬in vv. 17–18, uses animal sacrifice terminology; MacDonald 2008, 113–114, relates it to the theme of crossing the boundaries between animals and humans in the book of Judges), such a pun is not as obvious as with Cushan Rishataim in 3:8. One could also argue that his name indicates strength: “Bullock Man” (Stone 2009, 654–657; cf. also Neef 2009, 288–289).

112

Judges3:12–30

3:14–15 14 15

The children of Israel served Eglon, the king of Moab, for eighteen years. ThechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWH.YHWHraisedupforthem adeliverer:Ehud,sonofGera,aBenjaminite,amanrestrictedinhis right hand. The children of Israel sent through his hand tribute to Eglon,thekingofMoab.

The report about Israel and Eglon is exactly the same as what we read in 3:8–9 about Israel and Cushan Rishataim. The only difference is the period of time it takes for the Israelites to cry out to YHWH: eighteen instead of eight years. This can be explained as an indication that the Israelites had not learned much from the earlier experience. It even took them ten extra years to realize where they should seek help. YHWH reacts in the same way as in 3:9. Like Othniel, Ehud is presented as a deliverer raised up by YHWH. Unlike Othniel, it is not told of Ehud that he also judged Israel. His name can be related to ‫הוד‬, “splendour, majesty”, and could be a shortened form of Abihod, “my father is majesty”, or Ayehod, “where is the Majesty?” (cf. Sasson 2014, 226) or, as with Achsah, the name could be an indication of the positive view of parents on their child (see the remarks on 1:12). There are no clear indications of wordplay here, but all the more with the name of his tribe Benjamin (Ausloos 2017, 228–229). This is already indicated by the fact that it is written as ‫יְמינִ י‬ ִ ‫ן־ה‬ ַ ‫ ֶבּ‬and not as ‫יָמן‬ ִ ְ‫ ִבנ‬as in 1:21. This invites the reader to read it as “son of the right hand”, establishing a pun with Ehud as ‫ִאישׁ ִא ֵטּר‬ ‫ד־יְמינוֹ‬ ִ ַ‫י‬, “a man restricted in his right hand”. LXX translates this as ἀμφοτεροδέξιον, “ambidextrous”, the Peshitta as “crippled” (cf. Targum “emaciated”, cf. Smelik, 372, n. 265). It is usually assumed that it is no more than a way of saying that Ehud was “lefthanded” (cf. KJV, RSV) and that he was not crippled (cf. Jugel & Neef 1999, who suggest to translate: “wenig geschickt an der rechten Hand”). The fact, however, that the same expression is used in 20:16 to denote a group of elite soldiers makes it likely that it refers to the skill of being able to use both hands in battle (cf. also 1 Chron. 12:2 speaking of Benjaminite soldiers “using both the right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows with the bow”). The restriction of the right hand could indicate the special training of the left hand (cf. Rösel 1995, 232–233; Ausloos 2017, 228). The author continues to play with the word ‫יד‬, “hand”, when he describes how the Israelites send tribute to Eglon “through his hand”. His hand is also explicitly mentioned when Ehud kills Eglon (v. 21) and it will also be no coincidence that the hand of Israel is mentioned twice in the concluding verses (vv. 28 and 30) (cf. Mobley 2005, 78).

Ehud

113

3:16 

Ehudmadeforhimaswordwithtwomouths,aspanlong,andgirded itunderhisclothes,overhisrightthigh.

It is for the reader to decide whether “for him” (‫ )לך‬refers to Ehud or to Eglon. At first sight one would think that Ehud made a sword “for himself” (RSV; JM § 146k), but the Hebrew also leaves open the possibility to interpret “for him” as a reference to Eglon. The second option is supported by the fact that Eglon was explicitly mentioned in the previous line (Wénin 2008, 17). Read in this way, the text suggests that the unspecified tribute of v. 15 will turn out to be this deadly sword (Alonso Schökel 1961, 149). Ehud pays much attention to this weapon. As a skilled warrior he knows the importance of a well-suited armament. In the Hebrew Bible this detailed description of a weapon is rare. The closest parallel is the description of the weapons of Goliath (1 Sam. 17:5–7). It is much more common in Homer’s Iliad (cf. Stone 2009, 657). Ehud’s sword should be fit as a stabbing weapon, sharp on two sides. The word ‫גּ ֶֹמד‬, which is used only here in the Hebrew Bible, is translated here according to the reading in the LXX: σπιθαμή, “span”, that is the space between the thumb and the little finger, about 11 cm. This would mean that the entire length was about 21 cm (cf. Hartmann 2000, 192; Stone 2009, 660–663, speculates that we are dealing with a short version of a weapon newly introduced in Iron I Canaan with a length between 19.5 and 33 inches), short enough to hide it under his clothes. Both the fact that it could not be seen and that it was not kept on the side where most soldiers have their swords would help him to smuggle it inside the palace. 3:17 

He offered the tribute to Eglon, the king of Moab. Eglon was very well-nourished.

Bringing tribute to the foreign oppressor was known only too well in ancient Israel with its history of occupation by Egyptian and Mesopotamian rulers. These rulers recorded it in their annals expressing their superiority. A wellknown example is the stele of the Assyrian king Shalmanezer III picturing the kings of the minor states in the Levant, the Israelite king Jehu among them, bowing before him and bringing many goods with them. Also the word ‫מנחה‬, translated here as “tribute”, points to subordination. It is also the word used in 6:18 and 13:19 for the offering brought to the messenger of YHWH. This possible association with a cultic activity is intriguing because of the fact mentioned above that the name Eglon can be interpreted as an indication of the way this king will end his life like an animal being slaughtered.

114

Judges3:12–30

This idea is strengthened by Eglon being called ‫בּ ִריא ְמאֹד‬, ָ “very wellnourished”, something that could be said of cows. It is matter of dispute whether this qualification should be interpreted as positive or negative. The translation by LXX: ἀστεῖος, “beautiful”, (cf. Old Latin: subtilis) is clearly positive. According to some scholars this is based on a misunderstanding, relating it to the verb “to create:” “well made” (cf. Fernández Marcos, BHQ, 49*), but others accept it as a legitimate translation (cf. Aitken 2012). In most modern translations and commentaries it is interpreted as ridiculing, but one should be careful with bringing in modern Western ideas about the ideal human weight and size, turning Eglon into a stupid fatty. In Dan. 1:15 the word ‫ בריא‬is used to denote how healthy Daniel and his companions were despite their meagre diet. So the terms used to portray Eglon can also be interpreted as denoting him “as a formidable, healthy, robust man” (Stone 2009, 654). In this stage of the story of Ehud it is most likely that it is part of the description of his success: he receives tribute and this attributes to his life in luxury. Just as his name, however, there is also a hint to the coming events. His big belly is there to be pierced soon (cf. Neef 2009, 288: “Sein beleibter Körper ist vielmehr die Voraussetzung für Ehuds Tat der Tötung Eglons”). 3:18–19 18 19

It happened, when he had finished offering the tribute, that he sent awaythepeoplewhohadbeencarryingthetribute. HehimselfhadturnedaroundfromtheidolsthatareinGilgal.Hesaid: “AsecretwordIhaveforyou,king”.Hesaid:“Hush”.Allwhowere standingaroundhimwentoutfromhim.

Apparently Ehud was accompanied by a number of people. We can think here of servants carrying the goods to be delivered to Eglon, as in the scene pictured on the stele of Salmanasser III mentioned above. It is not clear which route they have taken. The only place mentioned is Gilgal, which is close to Jericho, the City of the Palms, taken by Eglon (v. 13). Because there is no reference to any other place, the text suggests that Ehud had gone to Jericho to bring the tribute. The exact location of Gilgal is not known, but from the stories in the books of Joshua one can learn that it lies somewhere between Jericho and the river Jordan. We have to assume that Ehud and his companions made a detour from Jericho to the hills of Ephraim which are located to the north-west of Jericho. More important for the narrator than giving a precise description of the route may have been the symbolic meaning of Gilgal. It is the place where Israel had celebrated Passover before further entering the Promised Land (Josh. 5:10). It is also the place where the

Ehud

115

messenger of YHWH came from (Judg. 2:1). Now it is the place of “idols” (also mentioned in v. 26). These were strictly forbidden and YHWH had ordered the Israelites to destroy them at the moment they would enter the Promised Land (Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:3). Their presence underscores Israel’s idolatry (cf. 2 Kgs 17:41), which had brought them in dire straits. Within this story they also function “as a threshold, between ‘home’ and ‘away’” (Mobley 2005, 99). According to LXX (A) it was Eglon who returned from the idols (see on the different versions of the Greek text LaMontagne 2016, 52–53). Apparently the Greek translator had problems with the possible association of Ehud with idols. Sasson (2014, 230) leaves open the possibility that it is the correct interpretation of the Hebrew text and that it is a sign of Eglon’s control over this area. It is not told how Ehud got admitted again to the king. His message that he has “a secret word” for Eglon seems to be enough. This phrase can be interpreted in many ways (see on its ambiguity Vermeulen 2014; Ausloos 2017, 232), although the suggestion that it could also mean that Ehud is “offering a homosexual liaison” (Miller 1996, 115) is not likely. Maybe it was precisely the fact that Ehud had returned from idols that made Eglon curious: had he received some divine message? This is precisely what Ehud insinuates in the next verse. It can also be deduced from the command of Eglon to be silent (‫)הס‬. The same word is used in Neh. 8:11, asking for silence on a day devoted to God. The people standing around Eglon interpret this as a command to leave the room. 3:20 

Ehudhadcometohimandhewassittinginthecoolupper-chamber thathehadforhimself.Ehudsaid:“AwordofGodIhaveforyou”. Hearosefromhisseat.

The going out (‫ )יצא‬of Eglon’s servants coincides with Ehud’s coming in. The use of the perfectum‫בּא‬suggests ָ that the coming in and the going out happened at the same moment: they had crossed each other. The location is described as a room that Eglon had for himself, which underlines that Ehud was given a private audience. Again the story is not very precise here. We have to assume that they went from a bigger room, where people were surrounding the king, to another location. Whereas Ehud first spoke of “a secret word for you” (‫ר־ס ֶתר ִלי ֵא ֶליָך‬ ֵ ‫)דּ ַב‬, ְ he now in almost the same words specifies this as “a word of God for you” (‫ֹלהים ִלי ֵא ֶליָך‬ ִ ‫ר־א‬ ֱ ‫)דּ ַב‬. ְ The same expression is used by Samuel announcing a message of God to Saul (1 Sam. 9:27). It is striking that Ehud does not use

116

Judges3:12–30

the name of YHWH, but speaks more generally of ‫אלהים‬. One could call this a case of “cross-cultural translatability in a broad sense” (Smith 2008, 107), because it suggests that they share a concept of divinity, where it does not matter of what specific god Ehud was thinking. It could be Ehud’s god, but also Chemosh, the god of the Moabites (cf. McCann 2002, 44) or a god associated with the idols at Gilgal. There may also be some ambiguity in the use of the word ‫דבר‬: is it referring to a verbal message or do we have to think also of the possible reference to a thing, that is, the sword Ehud is hiding (cf. the discussion by O’Connell 1996, 91–92, n. 52; Vermeulen 2014, 117–118, 133–136)? Eglon rising from his seat has been interpreted as an indication of respect for the divine (see the rabbinic texts mentioned above in “Essentials and perspectives”). Within the story line this detail functions in the first place as a way to slow down the action. It shows that he is eager to hear the message and also makes possible the coming violent act of Ehud. 3:21–22 21 22

Ehud sent his left hand, he took the sword from his right thigh and thrustitintohisbelly. Eventhegripenteredafterthebladeandthefatclosedupafterthe blade,becausehedidnotdrawtheswordfromhisbelly,andthefeces cameout.

The good preparation as described in vv. 16–17 and referred to here by mentioning the left hand and the right thigh, now pays out. We have to assume that before entering the presence of the king his guards had checked Ehud on weapons but were fooled by his trick. Instead of telling the full story the narrator focusses on the gory details of the killing. The verb ‫ תקע‬used describing how he “thrust” his sword in Eglon’s belly (v. 21) has a parallel in 4:21 describing how Jael pierces the head of Sisera. The consequence of Ehud’s act is not entirely clear because the narrator uses the uncommon word ‫ ַה ַפּ ְר ְשׁד ֹנָ ה‬at the end of v. 22 (cf. the overview of the discussion about its translation by Barré 1991; Lindars 1995, 146–148; Sasson 2014, 236– 237; Ausloos 2017, 233; and in BHQ, 50*). Within the present context the most likely interpretation is the one that fits the reaction of the servants mentioned in the next verse. Their suggestion that Eglon “is covering his feet”, that is, relieving himself, must have been caused by the smell of the feces that had come out of his belly. The word used here can be explained as a combination of ‫פרשׁ‬, “dung”, and Aramaic ‫שׁדא‬, “to cast out”, as suggested in the Targum (cf. Smelik 1995, 374). It may have been coined for the occasion by the narrator to create a rhyme between the final words of v. 22 and the

Ehud

117

beginning words of v. 23: ‫ וַ יֵּ ֵצא ַה ַפּ ְר ְשׁד ֹנָ ה‬// ‫( וַ יֵּ ֵצא ֵאהוּד ַה ִמּ ְס ְדּרוֹנָ ה‬cf. Deurloo 2005, 60–61; Neef 2009, 291, however, assumes dittography and suggests to skip v. 22b). Just as the feces went out from Eglon, so Ehud went out of the room. It is a kind of wordplay that is typical of the style of the author. The same can be said of the detailed description of the killing. Another example can be found in 5:26–27 about Sisera’s death. It is not common in the Hebrew Bible; it is reminiscent instead of the many war scenes in Homer’s Iliad (cf. Stone 2009, 659). 3:23–25 23 24

25

Ehudwentouttowardtheporchandclosedthedoorsoftheupperchamberbehindhim,boltingthem. Hehadgoneoutandhisservantshadcomein.Theysaw,look,thedoors oftheupper-chamberwerebolted.Theysaid:“Surely,heiscoveringhis feetinthecoolchamber”. Theywaitedtremblinguntiltheywereashamed.Look,hedidnotopen thedoorsoftheupper-chamber.Theytookthekeyandopened(them). Look,theirlord,fallenontheground,dead.

The narrator pays much attention to the timing. Just as in vv. 19–20 Ehud and Eglon’s servants are crossing each other: at the moment the one goes out the others come in (cf. Alonso Schökel 1962, 153). The text leaves open where precisely he went and how precisely he was able to lock the door behind him. This has given rise to a lot of speculation in the commentaries. It is usually assumed that Ehud left the room unnoticed via some other exit and had bolted the door to the upper-chamber from the inside. The verb used to indicate the closing of the door (‫ )סגר‬was also used in v. 22 describing the fat “closing up” after the blade. The perfect ‫ וְ נָ ָעל‬at the end of the verse is abnormal and therefore often changed into an infinitive absolute or an imperfectumconsecutivum, but there are other examples of this syntactical structure (cf. JM § 119z). ‫ מסדרון‬is usually translated as “porch”, suggesting that he used one of the corridors of the palace. Some scholars assume that it refers to a shaft beneath Eglon’s toilet, which suggests a less elegant escape. The former would seem to be more in line with the rest of the story picturing Ehud as someone easily fooling his Moabite opponents. The text leaves open the possibility that Ehud simply passed the servants of Eglon on his way out (cf. Groß 2009, 238) and that the servants did not surmise any problems with their king other than constipation (the discreet phrase “covering one’s feet” for relieving oneself is also found in 1 Sam. 24:4 about another king, Saul). This is also suggested in the paraphrasing translation in LXX (B): “And Aod went out by

118

Judges3:12–30

the vestibule. And he went out past those who had been stationed, and he closed the doors of the roof-chamber on him and wedged them” (see on the different versions of the LXX on these verses Lamontagne 2016, 53–54). We have to assume a locking system which made it possible to lock the door both from the inside and the outside. Whether the cool chamber was a toilet with a special installation for removing the excrements, as is suggested is a number of studies, remains doubtful. It is more likely that the servants confronted with the smell coming from the other side of the door thought that Eglon was using a chamber pot (cf. Hübner 1987). The hesitation of the servants is indicated by the repeated use (three times, which is typical of this author) of ‫והנה‬, “look”, in vv. 24–25. Only after the third time it becomes clear to them what has happened. Again, there is a correspondence with the story of the killing of Sisera, with two times ‫והנה‬ and the same observation: ‫מת‬, ֵ “dead” (4:22). The exact cause of his death is not mentioned. According to the medical expert De Groote we have to assume that the sword had hit the aorta and that he bled to death quickly. He also explains that Eglon had not been able to cry for help, because this would have been too painful. He was only able to groan with pain (De Groote 2012, 41; cf. also Stone 2009, 659), a sound which can also be interpreted differently. 3:26–30 26 27 28

29 30

Ehudhadescapedwhiletheytarried.Hepassedtheidolsandescaped toSeirah. IthappenedwhenhecamethatheblewthehornonmountEphraim. ThechildrenofIsraelwentdownfromthemountains,hebeforethem. Hesaidtothem:“Pursueafterme,becauseYHWHhasgivenyour enemies,Moab,intoyourhand”.Theywentdownafterhimandtook thecrossingsoftheJordantoMoab.Theydidnotletamancross. TheystruckMoabatthattime,abouttenthousandmen,allwell-fed andallmenofvalor.Nomanescaped. Moab was humbled on that day under the hand of Israel. The land hadrestforeightyyears.

Only after the servants had found Eglon they realized that they should have stopped Ehud when he went past them in the palace, but he is already safe in his home country. The fact that he passed the idols at Gilgal can be interpreted as a positive sign: this is not the place to be for a deliverer of Israel. A place called Seira is only mentioned here in the Hebrew Bible. It can be translated as “female goat”, which is remarkable in a story about the assassination of a king whose name can be translated as “little calf”.

Ehud

119

Ehud now presents himself as the leader of the Israelites. He summons them by blowing the horn (cf. 6:34 for Gideon doing the same) from a special place: mount Ephraim, which was mentioned before as the region where Joshua was buried (2:9). So there may also be a reminiscence of the conquest of Jericho in the good old days of Joshua, because on that occasion the horn was also blown many times. The Hebrew verb ‫ תקע‬used in the phrase “blowing the horn” is the same as in the phrase describing that he “thrust” his sword in Eglon’s belly (v. 21). Ehud asks the Israelites to follow him pursuing the Moabites. Again, the text leaves it to the reader to fill in the blank spaces. We have to assume that after the loss of their king the Moabites panicked and tried to escape. Many scholars suggest that ‫ ִר ְדפוּ‬has to be corrected into a form of ‫ירד‬, “descend”, as is also indicated by the LXX. MT, however, is supported by the Peshitta and the Targum. Ehud’s message to the Israelites that YHWH has given Moab “into your hand” (v. 28) is a fitting conclusion to a story in which Ehud’s hand plays a special role. It is underlined by the final remark that Moab was humbled “under the hand” of Israel (v. 30). The humbling of the enemy (‫כנע‬, with a pun on the name of the Canaanites) is also mentioned in 4:23; 8:28; and 11:33. The fact that the Moabites are described as “fat” (‫ )שׁמן‬is reminiscent of what was said of their king, be it that a different word is used. It has to be interpreted positively, just like the added qualification as “man of valor” (‫ִאישׁ‬ ‫)חיִ ל‬. ָ The reference to the crossings of the Jordan does not make clear which direction the Moabites were taking. Within the present context the most likely option is that they were retreating from the occupied Israelite territory and returning to the homeland on the east side of the river Jordan. In v. 29 it is told in two ways that the roles of Israel and Moab are reversed. Whereas the story started with telling that the king of Moab struck Israel we now read how the Israelites struck Moab. And when it is added that no one of the Moabites could escape the Israelites, this contrasts the double reference of Ehud’s escape from the Moabites in v. 26. At the end of v. 30 LXX adds καὶ ἔκρινεν αὐτοὺς Αωδ ἕως οὗ ἀπέθανεν, “and Aod judged them until he died”. This is clearly a way of harmonizing the text, taking away the tension caused by the reference to Shamgar in 3:31 before the report of Ehud’s death in 4:1. It also attributes to Ehud the function of judge, which is not given to him in the Hebrew text. In LXX (A) the reference to the death of Ehud in 4:1 is left out. The text may have been mixed up by the later addition of the verse about Shamgar (see the notes below).

JUDGES 3:31

SHAMGAR

TRANSLATION AfterhimwasShamgar,sonofAnat.HestruckthePhilistines,sixhundred men,withanox-goad.AlsohedeliveredIsrael. ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Alt, “Megiddo im Übergang vom kanaanäischen zum israelitischen Zeitalter”, KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsraels,BandI, München 1953, 256–273; B. Beem, “The Minor Judges: A Literary Reading of Some Very Short Stories”, in: K.L. Younger etal. (eds), TheBiblicalCanoninComparativePerspective:Scripture inContextIV, Lewiston 1991, 147–172;P.C. Craigie, “A Reconsideration of Shamgar Ben Anath (Judg 3:31 and 5:6)”, JBL 91 (1972), 239–240; E. Danelius, “Shamgar Ben ῾Anath”, JNES 22 (1963), 191–193; F.C. Fensham, “Shamgar Ben ῾Anath”, JNES 20 (1961), 197–198; B. Maisler, “Shamgar Ben ῾Anath”, PEQ66 (1934), 192– 194; A. Scherer, “Simson und Schamgar: Zur Frage nach der ursprünglichen Position der Schamgarnotiz im Richterbuch”, ZAW 114 (2002), 106–109; A. van Selms, “Judge Shamgar”, VT 14 (1964), 294–309; N. Shupak, “New Light on Shamgar Ben ῾Anath”, Bib 70 (1989), 517–525; M.S. Smith, “ ‘Midrash’ in the Book of Judges: The Cases of Judges 3:31 and 6:7-10”, CBQ 78 (2016), 256–271; S.D. Snyman, “Samgar Ben Anat onder die Rigters”, HTS 60 (2004), 831–841; idem, “Shamgar Ben Anath: A Farming Warrior or a Farmer at War?”, VT 55 (2005), 125–129; K. Spronk, “Shamgar ben Anat (Judg 3:31) – a Meaningful Name”, ZAW 128 (2016), 684–687; J. Trebolle Barrera, “Division Markers as Empirical Evidence for the Editorial Growth of Biblical Books”, in: R. Rezetko, R. Person (eds), EmpiricalModelsChallengingBiblical Criticism(Ancient Israel and its Literature 25), Atlanta 2016, 165–215.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES The notice about Shamgar does not fit into the returning scheme of deliverers and judges of Israel. This may have been precisely the goal of the narrator: to show that YHWH (who remains behind the scenes) also uses unlikely candidates. The name Shamgar and the fact that he is called “son of Anat” indicate that he is a foreigner. In contrast to Ehud he seems to be ill prepared for his battle and uses the unlikely weapon of an ox-goad. This puts him on a line with Jael (also non-Israelite) using a tent pin to kill her adversary. Shamgar and Jael are mentioned together in 5:6.

Shamgar

121

In the history of interpretation Shamgar received little attention. Josephus adds to the information given in the book of Judges that Shamgar (Shamgat) was “elected for their governor, but died in the first year of his government” (Ant.5.197). In this way he fits better in the overall framework of the book.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

Shamgar takes a special place among the deliverers and judges. He is often mentioned as one of the “minor judges” because of the little information given about him, but – with exception of the way it is related to the previous text with the preposition ‫ – ַא ַחר‬this information is not structured in the way it is found in the two lists with the other “minor judges” (cf. 10:1–5; 12:9–15). He is also the only one who is mentioned in the story of another deliverer or judge, more than just at the beginning in describing the transition from one judge to the other. Shamgar is mentioned together with Jael in the song of Deborah and Barak, describing the problematic situation of Israel before the arising of Deborah (5:6). The scarcity of information led to much speculation, which is furthered by the fact that in the Lucianic recension of the LXX and in the Old Latin version the note on Shamgar is repeated after the story of Samson. According to Trebolle Barrera (2016, 195) it “is better placed at the end of chapter 16 because of the common reference to the Philistines rather than in chapter 3 where it interrupts the narratives of chapters 3 and 4”. In his opinion the fact that the text in the MT is framed by setumot supports this interpretation. Also Fernándos Marcos leaves open this possibility (BHQ, 51*; cf. earlier also Moore 1895, 105). According to Scherer (2002) the note about Shamgar has its original placed before the story of Deborah and Barak to explain the presence of Shamgar in 5:6. The double reference in the translations was due to a translator who thought that the note about Shamgar fitted better after the story of Samson. Later this would have been corrected by moving it back but in some manuscripts it was forgotten to skip the text after 16:31. Many commentaries follow Richter (1964, 92–97) who states that in 3:31 we are dealing with a later addition, explaining the reference to Shamgar in 5:6, but disturbing the smooth transition from the story of Ehud to that of Deborah at the end of chapter 3. There remain doubts, however, about the assumed editorial process behind the Masoretic text (cf. Scherer 2005, 75). One also finds the opinion that this verse fits very well within its present context. According to Beem 1992, 160, “(i)n its theme and imagery it looks back to the story of Ehud and forward to the story of Deborah-Jael”. Elaborate, but not very convincing speculations about the historical background can be found with Alt 1953 and Van Selms 1964.

122

Judges3:31 SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(II): EXEGESIS

AfterhimwasShamgar,sonofAnat.HestruckthePhilistines,sixhundred men,withanox-goad.AlsohedeliveredIsrael. Shamgar’s story is connected to the preceding story by the phrase ‫ואחריו‬, “and after him”, which is not unusual in the book of Judges in the references to “minor judges” (cf. 10:3; 12:8, 11, 13). The link with his predecessor gets extra emphasis in the final phrase, stating that “he also” (‫ )גַּ ם־הוּא‬delivered Israel. It is also remarkable that only after the report about Shamgar the death of Ehud is mentioned (4:1), whereas the customary death notice of Shamgar is missing, just as the information about the length of a period of judging and of peace for the land. Another uncommon fact is the comparatively very long period of eighty years of rest for the land after the liberation from the Moabites by Ehud (3:30). Because this is twice the period of rest related to the previous judge, Othniel (3:11), one might consider the possibility that forty of the eighty years of rest can be attributed to Shamgar (cf. Scherer 2005, 76). Because Ehud’s death is mentioned after the report about Shamgar, it is more likely that Ehud and Shamgar worked next to each other and not after each other. It is interesting in this connection that ‫ ואחריו‬can also be translated as “next to him” (cf. Sasson 2014, 222). It would be another example of a phenomenon that can be observed on a number of places in the book of Judges (see the remarks at the end of § 4 of the introduction). It is usually stated that the name Shamgar is not Hebrew and is probably of Hurrian origin (cf. Sasson 2014, 242–243), but it is far more attractive to follow an old suggestion that like so many other names in the book of Judges also the name of Shamgar is part of the story (cf. Spronk 2016). Shamgar is reminiscent of the name Gershom, reversing the two syllables. The name Gershom is explained in Exod. 2:22 as referring to the fact that Moses had been a stranger in a foreign land, relating it to the words ‫שׁם‬, ָ “there”, and ‫גֵ ר‬, “stranger”, and to the well-known phrase ‫גוּר ָשׁם‬, “to stay there as a foreigner” (Gen. 12:10; 35:27; Deut. 18:6; 26:5; Isa 52:4; Jer. 42:15, 17, 22; 43:2; 44:8, 12, 14, 28). It is interesting to note that in Judg. 17:7 the Levite priest is explicitly introduced as a foreigner: ‫ר־שׁם‬ ָ ָ‫וְ הוּא ג‬. Within the story of Micah and the Danites this remarkable statement at the beginning about the Levite priest forms an inclusio with the end of story identifying him as the son of Gershom. The epithet “son of Anat” emphasizes the non-Israelite character of the name Shamgar and again one can note a relation to Gershom. The reference to the relation with the Canaanite goddess Anat stands opposite to Gershom being a son of Moses. Whereas the name Gershom son of Moses pointed to

Shamgar

123

the situation of an Israelite living in a foreign country, the name Shamgar son of Anat points to a foreigner in Israel. In Judg. 5:6 Shamgar is placed next to Jael. What unites them is that they both are no Israelites, but nevertheless fight against enemies of Israel. Jael is presented in 4:11 as the wife of Heber, a descendent of the Kenite Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses. Just as Jael is coupled to Deborah, Shamgar seems to have been coupled to Ehud: after (or next to) the Israelite saviour, support comes unexpectedly from a non-Israelite. Shamgar and Jael also have in common that their deadly weapons are non-military: an ox-goad and a tent peg. Even closer is the parallel with Samson, who killed thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (15:15). The Greek translators had problems with the hapax ‫בּ ַמ ְל ַמד‬, ְ “ox-goad”. LXX (A) has: μόσχων τῶν βοῶν, “as well as calves of cattle”; LXX (B): ἐν τῷ ἀροτρόποδι τῶν βοῶν, “with a bull’s ploughshare”. Smith (2016, 266) makes the interesting suggestion that the choice for this unique word may have been influenced by the use of the verb ‫למד‬, “to teach”, in 3:2(!), where the presence of the foreign nations, among whom the Philistines, is explained as necessary to teach the Israelites how to fight wars. With the instrument used by a farmer (cf. Snyman 2005) to teach the ox where to go now Shamgar teaches the Philistines a lesson. The Philistines are mentioned throughout the book of Judges (3:3, 31; 10:7, 11; 13–16), but only here and in the story of Samson there is a direct confrontation. The fact that this fight with the Philistines is mentioned after stories about Judah (Othniel) and Benjamin (Ehud) mirrors the sequence at the end of the book, where the story of Samson’s battles with the Philistines is followed by stories about the outrage in Benjamin (chapter 19) and the punitive expedition headed by Judah (20–21). The number six hundred does not seem to have a special meaning. One may note the contrast with the one enemy killed by Ehud with a normal weapon or relate it to the use of triplicates in the stories of Samson. Groups of men with the same number are mentioned in 18:11 and 20:47, suggesting that it was a round number for this narrator. He may also have been influenced by the number of soldiers mentioned in 1 Sam. 13:15; 14:2; 1 Sam. 27:2; and 2 Sam. 15:18. Looking for the historical background of this very short story many scholars have pointed to the clear parallels with the information about David’s heroes in 2 Sam. 23:8–12,18-23 (cf. Maisler 1934, 192; Shupak 1989, 517; Smith 2016, 262). In the list in 2 Sam. 23:11–12 we read: “And after him (‫ )ואחריו‬was Shammah (‫)שׁ ָמּא‬ ַ son of Agee, the Hararite. The Philistines gathered together at Lehi, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the army fled from the Philistines. But he took his stand in the middle of the plot, defended it, and killed the Philistines; and YHWH brought about a great victory”. There is also a correspondence with the story of Samson

124

Judges3:31

slaying thousand Philistines at Lehi, which also speaks of a “great victory” (Judg. 15:14–16). To this one can add that in the list of heroes which includes Shammah the Harodite, also a certain Abiezer the Anathothite is mentioned (2 Sam. 23:27). This is a combination of the name of a forefather of Gideon (Judg. 6:11) with another reference to Anat. It may be tentatively suggested that the author of the book of Judges adapted information from a traditional list of heroes to create the foreign hero Shamgar ben Anat. He not only took over names and events, but also the way the information is presented, as can be deduced from the special use of the preposition ‫אחר‬ at the beginning of the verse, which has a parallel in 2 Sam. 23:11, juxtaposing two events (cf. Sasson 2014, 245). Against the assumption that we are dealing here with a very late addition to the existing book of Judges (Smith 2016, 271, states that it even may have been “written in the Greco-Roman context”) pleads that it fits in well with the structure of the book, the style of its writer who often plays with names and the tendency to relate the stories in this book to elements from the books of Samuel and Kings. So it does not contradict the hypothesis followed in the present commentary that in its present form the book of Judges is the work of one author living in the Hellenistic period who adapted a number of stories taken from different sources, among whom the books of Samuel and Kings, to one coherent unity.

JUDGES 4:1–5:31

DEBORAH, BARAK AND JAEL

TRANSLATION 4:1 2

3

4 5

6

7

8 9

10 11

12

The children of Israel continued to do what is evil in the eyes of YHWHandEhudhaddied. YHWH sold them into the hand of Jabin, the king of Canaan, who waskinginHazor.ThecommanderofhisarmywasSisera.Hewas dwellinginHaroshetofthenations. ThechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWH,becausehehadninehundred chariotsofironandhehadoppressedthechildrenofIsraelwithstrength fortwentyyears. Deborahwasawoman,aprophetess,thewifeofLapidot.Shewas judgingIsraelatthattime. ShewasdwellingunderthepalmofDeborah,betweenRamahand Bethel,inmountEphraim.Toher,thechildrenofIsraelcameupfor judgment. ShesentandcalledBarak,thesonofAbinoam,fromKedeshinNaphtali. Shesaidtohim:“HasnotYHWH,thegodofIsrael,commandedyou: go and deploy at mount Tabor and take with you ten thousand men fromthechildrenofNaphtaliandfromthechildrenofZebulon. Iwilldeployagainstyouatwadi-Kishon,Sisera,thecommanderof thearmyofJabin,hischariotsandhisarmy.Iwillgivehiminyour hand”. Baraksaidtoher:“Ifyougowithme,Iwillgoandifyoudonotgo withme,Iwillnotgo”. Shesaid:“Iwillgo,yes,gowithyou;butitwillnotbeyourgloryon theroadwhichyouaregoing,becauseinthehandofawomanYHWH willsellSisera”.DeboraharoseandwentwithBaraktoKedesh. Barak called up Zebulon and Naphtali to Kedesh. At his feet came uptenthousandmen.Deborahcameupwithhim. Heber,theKenite,hadpartedfromtheKenites,fromthechildrenof Hobab,thefather-in-lawofMoses.Hespreadhistentasfarasthe terebinthinZaanannim,whichisnearKedesh. They told Sisera that Barak, the son of Abinoam, had come up to mountTabor.

126 13

Judges4:1–5:31

5:1

Siseracalledupallhischariots,ninehundredchariotsofiron,and thepeoplethatwerewithhimfromHaroshetofthenationstowadiKishon. Debora said to Barak: “Arise, because this is the day that YHWH hasgivenSiserainyourhand.DoesnotYHWHgooutbeforeyou?” BarakcamedownfrommountTaborandtenthousandmenbehind him. YHWH brought in confusion Sisera, all the chariots and the whole campbythemouthofthesword,beforeBarak.Siseragotdownfrom thechariotandfledonhisfeet. Barakwaspursuingafterthechariotsandafterthecampasfaras Haroshetofthenations.ThewholecampofSiserafellbythemouth ofthesword.Notonewasleft. SiserahadfledonhisfeettothetentofJael,thewifeofHeber,the Kenite, because there was peace between Jabin, the king of Hazor andthehouseofHeber,theKenite. JaelcameouttomeetSiseraandshesaidtohim:“Turnaside,my lord,turnaside.Donotfear”.Heturnedasidetoher,tothetent,and shecoveredhimwiththecurtain. Hesaidtoher:“Givemetodrinkalittlewater,becauseIamthirsty”. Sheopenedaskinbottleofmilkandgavehimtodrink.Shecovered him. Hesaidtoher:“Standattheentranceofthetentandletitbe:ifa mancomesandasksyouandsays:isthereamanhere?Youmustsay: nobody”. Jael,thewifeofHeber,tookatentpegandputahammerinherhand. Shecametohimsecretlyandthrustthepeginhistemple.Itwentinto theearth.Hehadbeenindeepsleep,hewasexhausted.Andhedied. Look,BarakpursuingSisera.Jaelcameouttomeethim.Shesaidto him:“GoandIwillshowyouthemanwhomyouareseeking”.Hecame toherand,look:Sisera,fallen,dead,thepeginhistemple. GodhumbledonthatdayJabin,thekingoftheCanaanites,before thechildrenofIsrael. ThehandofthechildrenofIsraelwentandwenthardagainstJabin, thekingoftheCanaanites,untiltheyhadcutoffJabin,thekingof theCanaanites. DeborahandBarak,thesonofAbinoam,sangonthatday:

2  3  

Withletting(their)hairhanglooseinIsrael,  withapeoplevolunteering,blessYHWH. Hear,kings;listen,rulers.  I,toYHWHIwillsing.   IwillmakemusicforYHWH,thegodofIsrael.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

Deborah,BarakandJael

127

4    5 

YHWH,inyourgoingoutfromSeir,  inyoursteppingoutfromthefieldofEdom theearthquaked,alsotheheavensdripped,  alsothecloudsdrippedwater. MountainsshookbeforeYHWH,  theonefromSinai,beforeYHWH,thegodofIsrael.

6    7   8   

InthedaysofShamgar,thesonofAnat,  inthedaysofJaelthepathsstopped. Whowentonroads?  wentontwistingpaths? VillagersstoppedinIsrael,theystopped,  untilIarose,Deborah;   Iarose,motherinIsrael. Didonechoosenewgods,  thentherewasbattleinthegates. Ifonlyashieldwasseen  andalanceamongfortythousandinIsrael.

9  10   11   

MyhearttothoseofIsraelwhodecree,  whovolunteeramongthepeople.BlessYHWH. Ridersoftawnyshe-asses,  thosewhositoncloths,   thosewhowalkontheway,sing! Withthevoiceofthosewhodistribute(water)betweenthedrinkingpipes,  theretheyrecounttherighteousactsofYHWH, therighteousactsofhisvillagersinIsrael.  ThenthepeopleofYHWHgodowntothegates.

12    13 

Comeon,comeon,Deborah,  comeon,comeon,speakasong. Arise,Barak,  andcaptureyourcaptives,sonofAbinoam. Thentheremnantgoesdowntothepowerful,  thepeopleofYHWHgodownformeamongthemighty.

14    15  

FromEphraim,theirrootinAmalek,  –behindyou,Benjamin,withyourkinsmen!– fromMachirthosewhodecreegodown  andfromZebulonthosewhocarrythewriter’sstaff. CommandersinIssacharwithDeborah  andIssacharlikeBarak   sentoutinthevalley,inhisfootsteps.

128

Judges4:1–5:31

  16   

InthedivisionsofReuben  (were)greatresolvesoftheheart. Whydidyousitbetweenthesheepfolds  tolistentowhistlingforflocks? TothedivisionsofReuben  (were)greatsearchingsoftheheart.

17    18 

Gilead,itdwellsacrosstheJordan  andDan,whydoesitstayasaforeigneronships? Ashersitsbytheshoreofthesea,  byhislandingplaceshedwells. Zebulon(is)apeopleriskingitslifetodeath  andNaphtali(is)ontheheightsofthefield.

19   

Kingscome,wagebattle.  Thentheywagebattle,thekingsofCanaan. AtTaanachbythewatersofMegiddo.  Profitofsilvertheydonottake.

20   21   22 

Fromtheheavenstheywagebattle,  thestarsfromtheirroads,   theywagebattleagainstSisera. Wadi-Kishonsweepsthemaway,  theancientwadi,wadi-Kishon.   Goforth,mysoul,withpower. Thenthehorse’shoovespound,  fromthegalloping,thegallopingofhismighty.

23   

CurseMeroz,saysthemessengerofYHWH,  curse,yes,curseherinhabitants, becausetheydonotcometohelpYHWH,  tohelpYHWHamongthemighty.

24   25 

MaybeblessedabovethewomenJael,  thewifeofHebertheKenite,   abovethewomeninthetentmayshebeblessed. Waterheasks,milkshegives.  Inabowlofthepowerfulshebringsnearcream.

26    

Herhandshestretchesouttothepeg,  herrighthandtothehammeroftheworkmen. ShebeatsSisera,  smasheshishead,   sheshattersandpierceshistemple.

Deborah,BarakandJael

129

27    

Betweenherfeethecollapses,  falls,islaying, betweenherfeethecollapses,  falls,wherehecollapses   therehefalls,destroyed.

28   

Throughthewindowshelooksdownandlaments,  themotherofSisera,throughthelattice. “Whyishischariotdelayedtocome,  whydothebeatsofhischariotsholdback?”

29  30    

Thewiseofherladiesanswerher,  alsosheherselfreturnsherwordstoher: “Aretheynotfinding,dividingbooty,  alaportwolapsforeachman, bootyofdyedclothsforSisera,  bootyofembroidereddyedcloths,   embroidereddyedclothfornecksofbooty?”

31 

Soperishallyourenemies,YHWH.  Andthosewholovehim(are)likethegoingoutofthesuninhismight.



Thelandhadrestforfortyyears.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Y. Amit, “Judges 4: Its Contents and Form”, JSOT 39 (1987), 89–111; B.A. Asen, “Deborah, Barak and Bees: Apis mellifera, Apiculture and Judges 4 and 5”, ZAW 109 (1997), 514–533; E. Assis, “The Choice to Serve God and Assist His People: Rahab and Yael”, Bib 85 (2004), 82–90; idem, “ ‘The Hand of a Woman’: Deborah and Yael (Judges 4)”, JHS 5 (2005), article 19; idem, “Man, Woman and God in Judg 4”, SJOT 20 (2006), 110–124; P. Auffret, “En ce jour-là Debora et Baraq chantèrent: Etude structurelle de Jg 5,2-31”, SJOT 16 (2002), 113–150; Y. Avishur, “A Common Formula for Describing a Judge Fulfilling his Duty: Daniel the Canaanite and Deborah the Israelite”, in: idem, Studies in Biblical Narrative, Tel Aviv 1999, 239–249; H.-S. Bae, “Reconsidering Barak’s Response in Judges 4”, Bib98 (2017), 504–519; C. Bailey, Bedouin Culture in the Bible, New Haven 2018; R. Baker, “A Mother’s Refrain: Judges 5:28–30 in Cultural Context”, VT 67 (2017), 505–518; M. Bal, MurderandDifference:Gender,Genre,andScholarshiponSisera’sDeath, Bloomington 1988b; U. Bechmann, DasDeboraliedzwischenGeschichteundFiktion:EineexegetischeUntersuchungzuRichter5, Sankt Ottilien 1989; S. BeckerSpörl, UndsangDeboraanjenemTag:UntersuchungenzuSpracheundIntention desDeboraliedes(Ri5), Frankfurt a.M. 1998;J. Berman, “Juxtaposed Conflicting Compositions (Gen 1–2:4a – 2:4b–24, Exod 14–15, Judg 4–5): A New Kingdom Egyptian Parallel”, JNSL 42 (2016), 1–13; D.I. Block, “Deborah among the Judges:

130

Judges4:1–5:31

The Perspective of the Hebrew Historian”, in: A.R. Millard etal. (eds), Faith,Tradition,andHistory:OldTestamentHistoriographyinitsNearEasternContext, Winona Lake 1994, 229–253; J. Bos, “Out of the Shadows Genesis 38, Judges 4 17-22, Ruth 3”, Semeia 42 (1988), 37–67; A. Brenner, “A Triangle and a Rhombus in Narrative Structure: A Proposed Integrative Reading of Judges iv and v”, VT 40 (1990), 129–138; C.A Brown, NoLongerBeSilent:FirstCenturyJewishPortraitsofBiblicalWomen, Louisville 1992; A.W. Bulloch, “Hellenistic poetry”, in: P.E. Easterling, B.M.W. Knox (eds), TheCambridgeHistoryofClassicalLiterature.I.GreekLiterature, Cambridge 1985, 541–621; P.S. Brown, The Riddle of Jael: The History of a Poxied Heroine in Medieval and Renaissance Art and Culture, Leiden 2018; A. Caquot, “Les tribus d’Israel dans la Cantique de Debora (Juges 5,13-17)”, Sem 36 (1986), 47–70; R.B. Chisholm, “What Went on in Jael’s Tent?”, SJOT 24 (2010), 143–144; 27 (2013), 216–218; E.S. Christianson, “The Big Sleep: Strategic Ambiguity in Judges 4–5 and in Classic film noir”, BibInt 15 (2007), 519–548; C.M. Conway, SexandSlaughterintheTentofJael:ACulturalHistoryofaBiblicalStory, New York 2017; M.D. Coogan, “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah”, CBQ 40 (1978), 143–166; A.C. Cottrill, “A Reading of Ehud and Jael through the Lens of Affect Theory”, BibInt 22 (2014), 430–449; G. Couturier, “Débora: une autorité politico-religieuse aux origines d’Israël”, StudiesinReligion 18 (1989), 213– 228 (reprinted in G. Couturier, “EncommençantparMoïseetlesprophètes…”Études vétérotestamentaires, Québec 2008, 323–339); P.C. Craigie, “A Note on Judges V 2”, VT 18 (1968), 397–399; idem, “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta”, JBL 88 (1969), 253–265; idem, “Some Further Notes on the Song of Deborah”, VT 22 (1972), 349–353; idem, “Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah”, JSOT 2 (1977a), 33–49; idem, “Parallel Word Pairs in the Song of Deborah”, JETS 20 (1977b), 15–22; idem, “Deborah and Anath: A Study in Poetic Imagery”, ZAW 90 (1978), 374–381; S. White Crawford, “In the Steps of Jael and Deborah: Judith as Heroine”, in: J.C. VanderKam (ed.), No One Spoke Ill of Her:Essays on Judith, Atlanta 1992, 5–16; S.V. Davidson, “Gazing (at) Native Women: Rahab and Jael in Imperializing and Postcolonial Discourses”, in: R. Boer (ed.), Postcolonialism and theHebrewBible, Atlanta 2013, 69–92; J. Day, YahwehandtheGodsandGoddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265), London 2002; B.-J. Diebner, “Wann sang Deborah ihr Lied? Überlegungen zu zwei der ältesten Texte des TNK (Ri 4 und 5)”, ACEBT 14 (1995), 106–130 (reprinted in B. Diebner, Seitwanngibtes“jenesIsrael”?:Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum, Berlin 2011, 153–192); F. van Dijk-Hemmes, “Interpretaties van de relatie tussen Richteren 4 en 5’,” in: J. Bekkenkamp et al. (eds), Proeven van vrouwenstudies theologie, deel 1, Zoetermeer 1989, 149–217; idem, SporenvanvrouwentekstenindeHebreeuwseBijbel, Utrecht 1992, 175–242; C. Echols, ‘TellMe,OMuse’:TheSongofDeborah(Judges5)intheLight ofHeroicPoetry (LHB/OTS 487), New York 2008; S. Eder, “Gewalt im Geschlechterverhältnis: Jaël, Sisera und die Konstruktion von Weiblichkeit und Männlichkeit im aktuellen Gewaltdiskurs”, in: I. Fischer (ed.), Macht–Gewalt–KriegimAlten Testament, Freiburg im Breisgau 2013, 83–106; idem, “Gender Trouble in Judges 4? An Intertextual Approach to the Violent Depiction of Jael”, ProtokollezurBibel27 (2018), 73–84; J.C. Exum, “ ‘Mother in Israel’: A Familiar Figure Reconsidered”, in: L.M. Russell (ed.), FeministInterpretationoftheBible, Philadelphia 1985, 73–85; D.N. Fewell, D.M. Gunn, “Controlling Perspectives: Women, Men, and the Authority of Violence in Judges 4 and 5”, JAAR 56 (1990), 389–411; I. Finkelstein, “Compositional Phases, Geography and Historical Setting behind Judges 4–5 and the Location of Harosheth-ha-goiim”, SJOT 31 (2017c), 26–43; J.P. Fokkelman, “The

Deborah,BarakandJael

131

Song of Deborah and Barak: Its Prosodic Levels and Structure”, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds), PomegranatesandGoldenBells (Fs Milgrom), Winona Lake 1995, 595– 628; V. Fritz, “Das Debora-Lied Ri 5 als Geschichtsquelle”, in: StudienzurLiteraturundGeschichtedesaltenIsrael, Stuttgart 1997, 165–185; idem, “The Complex of Traditions in Judges 4 and 5 and the Religion of Pre-state Israel”, in: A.M. Maeir, P. de Miroschedji (eds), ‘IWillSpeaktheRiddlesofAncientTimes’:Archaeological andHistoricalStudies (Fs Mazar), Vol. 2, Winona Lake 2006, 689–698; S. Frolov, “How Old is the Song of Deborah?”, JSOT 36 (2011), 163–184; S. Frolov, A. Frolov, “Sisera Unfastened: On the Meaning of Judges 4:21 aβ-γ”, BN 165 (2015), 55–61; W.C. Gafney, DaughtersofMiriam:WomenProphetsinAncientIsrael, Minneapolis 2008; G. Garbini, “Il cantico di Debora”, LaParoladelPassato 33 (1978), 5–31; C. García-Alfonso, Resolviendo.NarrativesofSurvivalintheHebrewBibleandin CubaToday, New York 2010; G. Gerleman, “The Song of Deborah in the Light of Stylistics”, VT 1 (1951), 168–180; S. Gillmayr-Bucher, “Rollenspiele – Debora und die Richter”, in: S. Gillmayr-Bucher et al. (eds), Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres (Fs Hentschel), Würzburg 2006, 179–192; A. Globe, “The Text and Literary Structure of Judges 5:4-5”, Bib (1974a), 168–178; idem, “The Literary Structure and Unity of the Song of Deborah”, JBL 93 (1974b), 493–512; idem, “Judges v.27”, VT 25 (1975), 362–367; idem, “The Muster of the Tribes in Judges 5.11e-18”, ZAW 87 (1975), 169–184; J. Gray, “Israel in the Song of Deborah”, in: L. Eslinger, G. Taylor (eds), AscribetotheLord (Fs Craigie; JSOTSup 67), Sheffield 1988, 421–455; B. Grossfeld, “A Critical Note on Judg 4:21”, ZAW 85 (1973), 348–351; D. Guest, “From Gender Reversal to Genderfuck: Reading Jael through a Lesbian Lens”, in: T.J. Hornsby, K. Stone (eds), BibleTrouble:Queer ReadingattheBoundariesofBiblicalScholarship, Atlanta 2011, 9–43; P. Guillaume, “Deborah and the Seven Tribes”, BN 101 (2000), 18–21; B. Halpern, “The Resourceful Israelite Historian: the Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography”, HTR 76 (1983), 379–402; S. Hanselman, “Narrative Theory, Ideology, and Transformation in Judges 4”, in: M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant:Counter-ReadingWomen’sLivesinthe HebrewBible, Sheffield 1989, 95–112; D.J. Harrington, “The Prophecy of Deborah: Interpretative Homiletics in Targum Jonathan of Judges 5”, CBQ 48 (1986), 432– 442; A.J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5”, in: E.R. Follis (ed.), DirectionsinBiblicalHebrewPoetry (JSOTSup 40), Sheffield 1987, 265–284; R. Hendel, J. Joosten, HowOldIstheHebrewBible:ALinguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library), New Haven 2018; B. Herzberg, “Deborah and Moses”, JSOT 38 (2013), 15–33; R. de Hoop, “Judges 5 Reconsidered: Which Tribes? What Land? Whose Song?”, in: J. van Ruiten, J.C. de Vos (eds), TheLandofIsraelinBible,History,andTheology (Fs Noort, SVT 124), Leiden 2009, 151–166; W.J. Houston, “Murder and Midrash: The Prose Appropriation of Poetic Material in the Hebrew Bible”, ZAW 109 (1997), 534–548; T. Ilan, “Flavius Josephus and Biblical Women”, in: E. Schuller, M.-Th. Wacker (eds), Early Jewish Writings (The Bible and Women 3.1), Atlanta 2017, 167–185; M.A. Jackson, Comedy and Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible:ASubversiveCollaboration, Oxford 2012; S.I. Johnson, AncientGreekDivination, Chichester 2008; S. Järlemyr, “A Tale of Cross-Dressers, Mothers, and Murderers: Gender and Power in Judges 4 and 5”, SEÅ 81 (2016), 49–62; J.G. Janzen, “The Root pr‘ in Judges v 2 and Deuteronomy xxxii 42”, VT 39 (1989), 393–406; F.T. Jesse, The Sword of Deborah: First-Hand Impressions of the British Women’s ArmyinFrance, London 1919; K. Jongeling, “Het lied van Debora”, AlefBeet 18 (2008), 3–13; 19 (2009), 37–46; 20 (2010), 11–18; Z. Kallai, “ ‘Dan Why Abides he

132

Judges4:1–5:31

by Ships’ – and the Rules of Historiographical Writing”, JNSL 23 (1997), 35–45; R.S. Kawashima, Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode, Bloomington 2004;E.A. Knauf, “Zum Text von Ri 5,14”, Bib 64 (1983), 428–429;idem, “Deborah’s Language: Judges Ch. 5 in its Hebrew and Semitic Context”, in: B. Burtea et al. (eds), StudiaSemiticaetSemitohamitica (Fs Vogt; AOAT 317), Münster 2005, 167–182; idem, “Meroz (Judges 5:23)”, in: D. Burns, J.W. Rogerson (eds), Farfrom Minimal (Fs Davies), New York 2012, 247–258; I. Knohl, “The Original Version of Deborah’s Song, and its Numerical Structure”, VT66 (2016), 45–65; A. van der Kooij, “On Male and Female Views in Judges 4 and 5”, in: B. Becking, M. Dijkstra (eds), OnReadingPropheticTexts(inmemoryofvanDijk-Hemmes), Leiden 1996, 135–152; H.A.J. Kruger, “Sun and Moon Grinding to a Halt: Exegetical Remarks on Joshua 10:9-14 and Related Texts in Judges”, HTS 55 (1999), 1077–1097; J. Kugel, “Is there but One Song?”, Bib 63 (1982), 329–350; Y.S. Kupitz, K. Berthelot, “Deborah and the Delphic Pythia: A New Interpretation of Judges 4:4–5”, in: M. Nissinen, C.E. Carter (eds), ImagesandProphecyintheAncientEasternMediterranean(FRLANT 233), Göttingen 2009, 95–124; C.J. Labuschagne, “The Song of Deborah in Judges 5: Logotechnical Analysis”, www.labuschagne.nl, 2015; S.C. Layton, “Ya῾el in Judges 4: An Onomastic Rejoinder”, ZAW 109 (1997), 93–94; D. Lederman-Daniely, “ ‘I Arose a Mother in Israel’: Motherhood as a Liberating Power in the Biblical Stories of Miriam and Deborah”, in: D. Cooper, Claire Phelan (eds), MotherhoodinAntiquity, London/New York 2017, 9–27; M. Le Roux, “The Battle Against Hazor and Jael’s Deadly Hospitality (Judges 4–5); JSem 27 (2018), 1–26; M. Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden: Archäologische Befunde – biblische Überlieferungen – historische Korrelationen”, ZAW 122 (2010), 1–19; C. Levin, “Das Alter des Deboralieds”, in: Fortschreibungen:GesammelteStudien zumAltenTestament(BZAW 316), Berlin 2003, 124–141; B. Lindars, “Deborah’s Song: Women in the Old Testament”, BJRL 66 (1983), 158–175; A. Malamat, “Prophecy at Mari”, in: R.P. Gordon (ed.), “The Place is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, Winona Lake 1995, 50–73; B. Margalit, “Observations on the Jael-Sisera Story (Judges 4–5)”, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs Milgrom), Winona Lake 1995, 629–641; V.H. Matthews, “Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4”, BTB 20 (1990), 13–21; T. Mayfield, “The Accounts of Deborah (Judges 4–5) in Recent Research”, CBR 7 (2009), 306–335; G.P. Miller, “A Riposte Form in the Song of Deborah”, in: V.H. Matthews et al. (eds), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient NearEast (JSOTSup 262), Sheffield 1998, 113–127; R.D. Miller, “When Pharaohs Ruled: On the Translation of Judges 5:2”, JThS 59 (2008), 651–654; J.C. de Moor, “The Twelve Tribes in the Song of Deborah”, VT 43 (1993), 483–493; F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo.RewritingtheBible, New York 1993; D.F. Murray, “Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story (Judges IV 4–22)”, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOldTestament (SVT 30), Leiden 1979, 155–189; N. Na’aman, “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV-V)”, VT 40 (1990), 423–436; H.-D. Neef, “Der Sieg Deboras und Baraks über Sisera: Exegetische Beobachtungen zum Aufbau und Werden von Jdc 4,124)”, ZAW 101 (1989), 28–49; idem, “Meroz: Jdc 5, 23a”, ZAW 107 (1995), 118– 122; idem, “Der Stil des Deboraliedes (Ri 5)”, ZAH 8 (1995), 275–293; idem, DeboraerzählungundDeboralied, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002; P. Noble, “Why Did Jael Kill Sisera? A Canonical Perspective”, in: J.K. Aitken etal. (eds), OnStoneandScroll (Fs Davies; BZAW 420), Berlin 2011, 317–328; S. Niditch, “Eroticism and Death in the Tale of Jael”, in: P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel,

Deborah,BarakandJael

133

Minneapolis 1989, 43–57; A. Portier-Young, “I Sing the Body Politic: Stillborn Desire and the Birth of Israel in Judges 5”, in: S. Ackerman etal. (eds), CelebrateHer fortheFruitofHerHands(Fs Meyers), Winona Lake 2015, 375–395; W.R. Osborne, “A Biblical Reconstruction of the Prophetess Deborah in Judges 4”, JESOT 2 (2013), 199–213; R.C. Rasmussen, “Deborah the Woman Warrior”, in: M. Bal (ed.), AntiCovenant: Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield 1989, 79–93; P.H. Reardon, “Judge Deborah: The Hebrew Prophetess in Christian Tradition”, Touchstone 13/3 (2000), 18–25; P.T. Reis, “Uncovering Jael and Sisera: A New Reading”, SJOT19 (2005), 24–47; M. Roncace, “Josephus’s (Real) Portraits of Deborah and Gideon: A Reading of Antiquities 5.198–232”, JSJ 31 (2000), 247–274; J. Roux, “Deux femmes d’élite en Israël: Débora et Yaël (Jg 4–5)”, in: M.-L. Chaieb (ed.), Élitescontestéesetcontestatairesdanslemondebiblique, Paris 2012, 37–82; M. Rozelaar, “Wat betekent het Hebreeuwse woord raqqáh?”, ACEBT 7 (1986), 123– 129; K.D. Sakenfeld, “Deborah, Jael and Sisera’s Mother: Reading the Scriptures in Cross-Cultural Context”, in: J. Douglass, J.F. Kay (eds), Women,Gender,andChristianCommunity, Louisville 1997, 13–22; J.M. Sasson, “ ‘A Breeder or Two for Each Leader’: On Mothers in Judges 4 and 5”, in: D.J.A. Clines, E. van Wolde (eds), A CriticalEngagement (Fs Exum), Sheffield 2011, 333–354; A. Scherer, “Der Rhythmus der Schlacht: Die poetische Sprachgestalt von Jdc 5,19-22”, ZAW 117 (2005), 529–542; J.D. Schloen, “Caravans, Kenites, and Casus belli: Enmity and Alliance in the Song of Deborah”, CBQ 55 (1993), 18–38; T. Schneider, “The Stigma of Submission: Reassessing Sisera’s Fate in Judges 5:25–27”, in: I. Shai etal. (eds), Tellitin Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel (Fs Maeir), Münster 2018, 562–576; J.A. Schroeder, Deborah’sDaughters:GenderPoliticsandBiblicalInterpretation, Oxford 2014; J. Shaw, “Constructions of Woman in Readings of the Story of Deborah”, in: M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in theHebrewBible, Sheffield 1989, 113–132; M.S. Smith, “What is Prologue is Past: Composing Israelite Identity in Judges 5”, in: J.J. Ahn, S.L. Cook (eds), ThusSays theLord:EssaysontheFormerandLatterProphets (Fs Wilson), New York 2009, 43–58; idem, Poetics Heroes: Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior CultureintheEarlyBiblicalWorld, Grand Rapids 2014; J. van Soest, “Ga je niet met mij dan ga ik niet: De opbouw van Richteren 3 en 4”, in: B. Becking et al. (eds), Doorhetoogvandeprofeten (Fs Van Leeuwen), Utrecht 1989, 97–108; K. Spronk, “Incantations”, in: W.G.E. Watson, N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (HdO), Leiden 1999, 270–286; idem, “Deborah, a Prophetess”, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), TheElusiveProphet (OTS 45), Leiden 2001, 232–242; idem etal., “Deborah (Judge)”, EBR, Vol. 6, Berlin 2012, 406–418; idem etal., “Jael (Person)”, EBR, Vol. 13, Berlin 2016, 670–679; L.E. Stager, “The Song of Deborah: Why Some Tribes Answered the Call and Others Did Not”, BAR 15 (1989), 50-64; J.H. Stek, “The Bee and the Mountain Goat: A Literary Reading in Judges 4”, in: W.C. Kaiser, R.F. Youngblood (eds), A Tribute to Gleason Archer. Essays on the Old Testament, Chicago 1986, 53–86; J. Stökl, ProphecyintheAncientNearEast.APhilologicalandSociological Comparison, Leiden 2012; idem, “Innibana, Deborah and Huldah: Thoughts on the Construction on Female Prophets in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible”, JAJ6 (2015), 320–334; J.A. Taylor, Deborah andtheWaroftheTanks,1917, Barnsley 2016; J.G. Taylor, “The Song of Deborah and Two Canaanite Goddesses”, JSOT 23 (1982), 99–108; R.J. Tournay, “Le cantique de Débora et ses relectures”, in: M.V. Fox etal. (eds), Texts,Temples,andTraditions (Fs Haran), Winona Lake 1999, 195–207; E. Tov, “The Textual History of the Song of Deborah in the A Text of the LXX”, VT 28 (1978), 224–232; D. Vainstub, “Some Points of Contact Between the Biblical

134

Judges4:1–5:31

Deborah War Traditions and Some Greek Mythologies”, VT 61 (2011), 324–334; N. Van der Merwe, J.H. Coetzee, “An Alternative Ideology Relating to Difference as Hidden Polemic in the Book of Judges: Judges 4–5 as an Illustration”, OTE 22 (2009), 677–694; C. Van der Walt, “ ‘Is There a Man Here?’ The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove in Judges 4”, in: L.J. Claassens, C.J. Sharp (eds), Feminist Frameworks and the Bible: Power, Ambiguity, and Intersectionality, London 2017, 117–132; P. Vellacott, Euripides.MedeaandotherPlays, London 1963; K. Vermeulen, “Hands, Heads, and Feet: Body Parts as Poetic Device in Judges 4–5”, JBL 136 (2017), 801– 819; M.A. Vincent, “The Song of Deborah: A Structural and Literary Consideration”, JSOT 91 (2000), 61–82; M. Waltisberg, “Zum Alter der Sprache des Deboraliedes Ri 5”, ZAH 12 (1999), 218–232; W.G.E. Watson, “A Note on Staircase Parallelism”, VT 33 (1983), 510–512; idem, Traditional Techniques in Classical HebrewVerse(JSOTSup 170), Sheffield 1994; M. Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East”, in: H. Tadmor, M. Weinfeld (eds), History,HistoriographyandInterpretation:StudiesinBiblicalandCuneiformLiteratures, Jerusalem 1983, 121–147; S. Weiss, EthicalAmbiguityinthe Hebrew Bible: Philosophical Analysis of Scriptural Narrative, Cambridge 2018; E. Wilkinson, “The HapaxLegomenonof Judges IV 18”, VT33 (1983), 512–513; B.E. Wilson, “Pugnacious Precursors and the Bearer of Peace: Jael, Judith, and Mary in Luke 1:42”, CBQ68 (2006), 436–456; H. de Wit, “Lezen met Jaël: Op weg naar interculturele hermeneutiek”, ACEBT 19 (2001),71–96; E. van Wolde, “Ya῾al in Judges 4”, ZAW 107 (1995), 240–246; idem, “Deborah and Ya῾el in Judges 4”, in: B. Becking, M. Dijkstra (eds), OnReadingPropheticTexts(inmemoryofvanDijkHemmes), Leiden 1996, 283–295; G.T.K. Wong, “Song of Deborah as Polemic”, Bib 88 (2007), 1–22; J.L. Wright, “War Commemoration and the Interpretation of Judges 5:15b-17”, VT 61 (2011a), 505–521; idem, “Deborah’s War Memorial: The Composition of Judges 4–5 and the Politics of War Commemoration”, ZAW 123 (2011b), 516–534; G.A. Yee, “By the Hand of a Woman: The Metaphor of the Woman Warrior in Judges 4”, Semeia 61 (1993), 99–132; K.L. Younger, Jr., “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?! Contextual Method & Intertextual Analysis: Judges 4 and 5”, in: idem et al. (eds), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, Scripture in ContextIV, Lewiston 1991, 109–146; Y. Zakovitch, “Sisseras Tod”, ZAW 93 (1981), 364–374; D.J. Zucker, M. Reiss, “Subverting Sexuality: Manly Women; Womanly Men in Judges 4–5”, BTB 45 (2015), 32–37.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES The story of Deborah, Barak and Jael has much in common with the previous one about Ehud, but also contains a number of important new elements in the ongoing history about the ups and downs of the relation between Israel and YHWH in the Promised Land. Both stories contain a vivid description of the murder of the leader of the enemy. In the story of Ehud the assassination of Eglon was the beginning of the liberation, in the narrative in chapter 4 the killing of Sisera follows after a decisive military victory. In both cases the confrontation with the corpse, the servants finding the body of Eglon and Barak being showed the body of Sisera, takes a prominent place and is described in a similar way. A big difference in the stories concerns

Deborah,BarakandJael

135

the presentation of the leader of Israel. In 3:12–30 all credit goes to Ehud, but his male counterpart in chapters 4–5, Barak, is overshadowed by two women. Deborah acts as intermediary between Barak and YHWH, Jael is honoured as the one who killed the leader of the enemy. The story of Deborah, Barak and Jael also distinguishes itself from the story of Ehud and from all other stories in the book of Judges by the addition of a song. This calls forth the comparison with the victory over the Egyptian army as recounted and sung about in Exod. 14–15. There can be no doubt that it is YHWH who is responsible, first for the punishment of sinful Israel by giving it into the hands of the Canaanites and then, for the liberation of Israel. This is indicated clearly at the beginning and end of chapter 4 and by the elaboration of the role of YHWH in the song in chapter 5. This goes together with the diminishing of the role of the male heroes by subordinating the male leaders of Israel and Canaan to the Israelite prophetess Deborah and the foreign woman Jael. It is a woman’s tale, starting with the appearance of Deborah, followed by Jael who suits the action to the words of Deborah (her name can be translated as “she of the word”), concluded by a conversation between the mother of Sisera and other Canaanite women. The song in chapter 5 reacts to events recounted in chapter 4, highlighting some aspects and also adding some new elements. Next to the emphasis on the role of YHWH and the added conversation of the Canaanite women, this concerns the role of the tribes. The narrative mentioned only Zebulon and Naphtali, the song adds eight tribes and whether or not they were willing to cooperate in the war against the Canaanites. Because of the tensions and contradictions in chapters 4–5 it is likely that the author used different sources. It can be reasonably assumed that the author repeated much of the narrative in the song in order to stimulate the involvement of the reader, first by praising YHWH for his active role, secondly by raising the question of who is willing to participate in the struggle for freedom. Some tribes are praised for their commitment, others are blamed for remaining inactive. The enigmatic reference to the unknown Meroz (5:23) plays a central role. It is cursed for not helping YHWH. The name can be interpreted as one of the many puns in this book. Like Bochim denoting the weeping Israelites (2:1–5) it may have indicated the Israelites who did not cooperate as people fading away. Because this pun leaves open a more specific identification to the reader, it calls for the question: would this apply to me? In the history of interpretation of Judges 4–5 (cf. the surveys by Reardon 2000; Gunn 2005, 53–92; Spronk etal. 2012 and 2016; Schroeder 2014; Conway 2017) much attention is given to the surprising division of roles between men and women in the story of the two couples Deborah–Barak and Jael–Sisera.

136

Judges4:1–5:31

A first retelling of the story can already be found in the book of Judith (1st century BCE) in which the roles of Jael and Sisera are taken by Judith and Holofernes (cf. Crawford 1992; via Judith there is also a line to Mary; cf. Wilson 2006). Flavius Josephus redresses the balance between man and woman by downplaying the roles of Deborah and Jael and building up those of Barak and Sisera. Josephus leaves out the references to Deborah as a judge and a leader and also dropped the song from his retelling. Barak is blamed for his cowardice, but nevertheless is said to have killed the Canaanite king Jabin and to have functioned as general of the Israelites for forty years. Josephus abridges the story of the meeting between Jael and Sisera. Jael does not take the initiative to invite Sisera into her tent. According to some scholars this is an example of Josephus’ misogyny (Feldman 1998, 162), but it is also maintained that Deborah is “the most important, positively depicted figure in this story” (Roncace 2000, 259; cf. also Ilan 2017, 170–174). The 1st century author known as Pseudo-Philo takes the liberty in his Liber AntiquitatumBiblicarumto add more details to the story, making it three times longer than the biblical text (cf. Brown 1992, 39–92; Murphy 1993, 136– 153). Deborah is presented as the woman who ruled Israel, “enlighting” them for forty years (L.A.B. 30.2; in 32.18 it is explicitly stated that “she judged Israel for forty years”). The verb illuminare is used elsewhere, mostly with God or Moses as subject. So this clearly honours her as a woman acting in the name of God. Likewise, Pseudo-Philo adds a chapter after his version of the song of Debora, in which he describes her final days as “the woman of God” who is as a mother for Israel (33.1). The gender perspective is clearly present when Deborah commands Barak: “Get up and gird your loins like a man, go down and attack Sisera” (31.1). We also find it in the final words spoken by Sisera: “Behold, pain has seized me, Jael, and I die like a woman” (31.7). Jael answers sneering, that he can go boasting in the netherworld to his father that he was killed by a woman. Pseudo-Philo also pays attention to the question whether there may have been a sexual aspect in the relation between Jael and Sisera. Erotic elements added to the story can be found in the fact that Jael is described as very beautiful, that she approaches Sisera adorned with jewels and that Sisera finds roses strewn on the bed when he enters the tent (31.3). Apparently, he is attracted to her, but he also reacts remarkably composed: “If I will be saved, I will go to my mother, and Jael will be my wife”. In later rabbinic literature the erotic element is much increased. Jael is mentioned among the most beautiful women of the world. Even her voice would have aroused desire (t.Meg. 15a). It is stated that 4:18 indicates that she engaged in intercourse with Sisera. They would have had sex seven times, as much as there are verbs in 5:27 (t.Yev. 103a, t.Naz.23b). The milk

Deborah,BarakandJael

137

she gave Sisera to drink would have come from her breasts (t. Nid. 55b). The medieval exegete Radaq, however, denies that they had sex. On the bases of the fact that Jael is mentioned next to Shamgar in 5:6 Rashi states that Jael was a judge. The song of Deborah (and Barak) is read together with the song of Moses in the cycle of synagogue readings. It is also one of the ten most important songs listed in the Mekilta of rabbi Ismael commenting on Exod. 15:1 (cf. Kugel 1982, 329). These ten songs are mentioned in Isa. 30:29; Exod. 15:1; Num. 21:17; Deut. 31:24; Josh. 10:12(!); Judg. 5:1; 2 Sam. 22:1; Ps. 30:1; 2 Chron. 20:21; Isa. 42:10. It can be compared to what Origen writes in his first homily on Song of Songs about climbing from song to song to the summit: the Song of Songs. It goes from Exod. 15:1, via Num. 21:17, Deut. 32:1, Judg. 5:1, 2 Sam. 22:1, and Isa. 5:1 to the Song of Songs. The story of Deborah and especially that of Jael has always been a popular subject of visual artiests (cf. Veldman, in: Spronk et al. 2016, 414–416, on Deborah; and Conway 2017, 68–89; Brown 2018 on Jael in medieval and renaissance art) and of ethical debate (cf. Weiss 2018, 207– 213). In modern interpretation, the special role of women in these chapters has been discussed elaborately in feminist literature (cf. Exum 1985, Bal 1988b, Bos 1988, Van Dijk-Hemmes 1989 and 1992, Shaw 1989, Yee 1993, Hanselman 1989, Rasmussen 1989, Guest 2011, Jackson 2012, 99–115, Portier-Young 2015, Zucker & Reiss 2015, Lederman-Daniely 2017, Van der Walt 2017, Eder 2018). An important element which is often highlighted is the breaking down of role patterns (cf. Van der Merwe & Coetzee 2009; Järlemyr 2016; Le Roux 2018). A related subject is the discussion about the detailed description of violent acts in these stories. Usually the women are the victim of male violence, but this time it is the other way around. The story ends, however, with women taking for granted that other women are violated by victorious soldiers (cf. Eder 2013). In the history of interpretation much attention is given to the role of Deborah and Jael as warriors with very different evaluations (cf. Schroeder 2014, 251–253). For Shakespeare the name of Deborah was associated with feminine power: “Thou art an Amazon, and fightest with the sword of Deborah” (HenryVI, part I, act I, scene 2). In the First World War the same phrase is used to denote the British Women’s Army in France (Jesse 1918; cf. Schroeder 2014, 240–241, for related more recent associations of female military personnel with Deborah). Also a famous tank used in this war was named after Deborah (Taylor 1917, 60). The stories of Deborah and Jael also appear to be suitable for intercultural and post-colonial reading (cf. Sakenfeld 1997, De Wit 2001, Davidson 2007, García-Alfonso 2010).

138

Judges4:1–5:31 SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(I):

INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

Chapters 4–5 are related in number of ways to the previous text about Ehud. The first three verses are a variation on the introduction in 3:12–15a and likewise the final verse 5:31b on 3:30b. Like the story of Ehud it also tells of the spectacular killing of the leader of the enemy, albeit that this murder is not the beginning but the end of the war. An important difference is also that this decisive blow is not dealt by the man called by YHWH as Israel’s liberator but by a woman. The calling by YHWH is emphasized by the fact that it is mediated by a prophetess, Deborah, who is mentioned before the appointed liberator. This prophetic intermezzo has a parallel in the following story of Gideon (6:7–10). The text about Deborah and Barak is more than two times longer than that about Ehud (1023 against 417 words). This is caused by the added song in chapter 5. This combination has no parallel in the book of Judges but it can be compared with the song of Moses in Exod. 15, celebrating the victory over the Egyptians recounted in the preceding chapter. Also with regard to the contents there are clear parallels between Judg. 4–5 and Exod. 14–15 (cf. Hauser 1987; O’Connell 1996, 134–137; Nelson 2017, 84): they both mention the chariots of the enemy, the panic and following flight of the enemy (Exod. 14:24, 27; Judg. 4:15, 17), the total annihilation (Exod. 14:28; Judg. 4:16), the exposure of the dead (Exod. 14:30; Judg. 4:22), and YHWH’s might overwhelmingly visible in nature. Whereas Exod. 15 fits very well to the events of which it sings the praises, the comparison between Judg. 4 and 5 (cf. the detailed overview by Block 1999, 178–184, and Nelson 2017, 86–91) shows a number of differences that cannot be ascribed to the difference in genre. Namely, the fact that Jabin is not mentioned in chapter 5, which refers to the kings of Canaan (v. 19) instead of Jabin as the one king of Canaan in 4:2. Another difference which is difficult to explain is the reference in 5:14–18 to many more than the two tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali in 4:10. Also the reference to Meroz in 5:23 is puzzling. All this indicates that one cannot simply see the song in chapter 5 as a reflection added to the story in chapter 4 or that the story in chapter 4 was added as an introduction to the song clarifying some obscure poetic passages. The latter option is also unlikely because the version of the story in chapter 4 is not so clear itself. The geographical background of the story is “extremely odd” (Na’aman 1990, 431). Deborah lives far away from the location of the actual events and it is also very difficult to locate the places mentioned in the story and to make a plausible reconstruction of the movements by Barak and Sisera and their armies. All these problems attracted a lot of attention and led to a rich history of interpretation (cf. the surveys by Mayfield 2009 for the period between 1990 and 2008 and by Bartelmus 1991, 239–243, for the four decades after 1945)

Deborah,BarakandJael

139

which was also furthered by the assumption that the song in chapter 5 was one of the oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible (cf. recently again Hendel & Joosten 2018, 104: “The consilience of the linguistic and historical data indicate that this is a very early text, composed in the premonarchical or early monarchical period.”), with some important information about the possible origin of Yahwism (recently defended again by Smith 2014, 211–266). Despite the continuous stream of scholarly studies there is no consensus in sight: not in the reconstruction of the formation of the text (cf. Groß 2009, 337–341, who concludes with regard to chapter 5: “Das Lied ist nicht aus einem Guß neu geschaffen” (340), but – very exceptionally – does not offer a reconstruction himself), not in the analysis of the structure by those who prefer a synchronic approach, and not in the dating of the texts. Even the still prevalent view that the song was composed in the pre-monarchic period is challenged (cf. Frolov 2011). Although time and again the same arguments are used to come to different conclusions, one may note some tendencies in recent research. With regard to the formation of the text it is usually assumed that old heroic local material lies at the basis and that later layers were added from a pan-Israelite and a monotheistic perspective (cf. Echols 2008 with a thorough discussion of the secondary literature). Smith (2014, 242–251) sees 5:2–13 as a later added Yahwistic introduction to a polytheistic warror poem in vv. 14–30. Finkelstein assumes that an old heroic tale about the fight between Sisera and Barak and the killing of Sisera by Jael was given “a broad North Israelite ambiance” (2017c, 30) by adding the introduction with Deborah. It would have received a Deuteronomistic redaction which linked it to the account in Josh. 11 by adding references to king Jabin, a description of the intervention by YHWH and some topographic clarifications. The same hands would also have added to the song of chapter 5 the references to Deborah, the list of tribes, the description of the battle and the Jael episode, and later the segments about the adoration of YHWH. Another tendency – which seems to be but not has to be in contrast to the first one – is to give more attention to the text in its present form, in line with the work of Alter and others on Hebrew Bible as literary art. For the book of Judges this was specifically furthered by the publications of Bal and with regard to Judg. 4–5 it was taken up by amongst others Murray (1979) on chapter 4 and by Fewell & Gunn (1990) on chapters 4 and 5. Much attention is given to the study of the structure of the song in chapter 5 by scholars who agree on the conclusion that it can be interpreted as a coherent unity, but disagree on the division in smaller units and in the way these units are related to each other. According to Gerleman (1951, 171) “this song has a certain unity. But its unity lies more in the atmosphere of feeling than in the composition, more in the emotional colouring than in the outline”.

140

Judges4:1–5:31

“The events have been strung together like pearls on a necklace, with no regard for their logical causes and consequences”. Other scholars have attempted to uncover its hidden structure. Globe (1974a, 174b, 1975) divides the text into three parts, with nine strophes, and a conclusion: 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–11d || 11e–15c, 15d–18 || 19–22, 23–27, 28–30 || 31. Coogan (1978) divides the text into five stanzas (the first and the last consisting of two units) in a chiastic structure ABCDCBA: 2–5, 6–8 || 9–13 || 14–18 || 19–23 || 24–27, 28–30. Fokkelman (1995) divides the text into three sections with seven (2+3+2) stanzas with twenty strophes: 2–3, 4–5c / 6a–d, 7a–d, 8a–d || 9–11c, 11d–13ab / 14–15c, 15de–16, 17–18 / 19a–d, 20–21b, 21c–22ab, 23a–e || 24–25, 26a–e, 27a–e / 28a–d, 29–30, 31ab. He also points to the well-balanced division in length of the stanzas when counting the cola: 17 + 12 || 16 + 19 + 16 || 15 + 13. Stanzas 3 (vv. 9–13) and 5 (vv. 19–23) form a ring around the middle stanza 4 (vv. 14–18). Vincent (2000) divides the text into three sections: 2–8, 9–22, and 23– 31, with many parallels between the stanzas of the first two sections: v. 2 // v. 9, 3//10, 4–5//11d–13, 6–7//14–18, 8//19–22. Important markers are found in the opposition between the curse (v. 23) and the repeated blessing (vv. 2 and 9). Auffret (2002) divides the text into two parts: 2–18 and 19–30/31 subdivided into eight sections, fourteen strophes and a conclusion: 2–3, 4–5 / 6–7b, 7cd, 8 / 9–11c, 11d–13 / 14–15c, 15d–17, 18 || 19, 20–22 / 23, 24–27 / 28, 29–30 || 31. He points to many relations between the different parts, especially between vv. 2–5 and v. 31. Labuschagne (2015) divides the text into six cantos with fifteen strophes and a coda: 2–3, 4–5 || 6–8, 9–11 || 12–13, 14–15c, 15d–16, 17–18 || 19, 20–22, 23 || 24–25, 26–27 || 28, 29–30 + 31a–b. In his view the third canto is the central core of the poem. He also points to the fact that canto 1 (vv. 2–5) consists of 44 words, canto 3 (vv. 12–18) of 88 words, and canto 5 (vv. 24–27) of 44 words. Also the total number of words in the poem is a multiple of 11 (352= 32×11). Knohl (2016) divides the text into seven stanzas: 2–5, 9–11, 12–13, 14–18, 19–23, 24–27, 28–31a. He builds on the work of Fokkelman, but skips vv. 6–8 as a later addition. Like Labuschagne (a first version of Labuschagne’s analysis was already published in 2007) he also assumes a sophisticated numerical structure around the number eleven and the number eight in the total number of words of the stanzas. By leaving out vv. 6–8 also canto 2 fits perfectly in this pattern, because now it counts 33 instead of 69. By skipping the word ‫ מלאך‬in v. 23 as secondary he also arrives at the very regular total of 55 words in stanza 5 (vv. 19–23).

Deborah,BarakandJael

141

In this combination of a synchronic and a diachronic approach Knohl differs from the other scholars mentioned here. Hebrew, as is rightly indicated by Vincent in his methodological considerations: “there are dangers with analyzing a text which one has cut down to its putative ‘original form’, especially if one has done the cutting-down oneself. It is all too easy to cut down and create a text according to the analysis to which one wishes it to conform” (Vincent 2000, 62). A more convincing combination of the synchronic and diachronic approach, which also takes into account the problems with regard to the relation between chapters 4 and 5, is possible. A good example is offered by O’Connell when he states: “since it is my aim to discover the rhetorical purpose of Judges’ compiler/redactor, there is no reason to resist comparing details of the hymn with those of its framing prose version, as though to do so would adulterate the original autonomous form of either version. The Judges’ compiler/redactor evidently intended the two versions to complement each other, and the reader who fails to interpret them as complementary will also fail to discern the compiler/redactor’s rhetorical aims” (O’Connell 1996, 102, n. 75). As is indicated before (see introduction § 3.2) the challenge is to find the right balance between taking serious both the traces of the growth of the text and the text as it has been handed over to us. There are good reasons to assume – and therefore it is taken as a starting point of the analysis here – that the present text is the work of one author who used different sources but used them to create his own text (cf. Smith 2014, 258; following Alsonso Schökel he speaks of a “secondary unity”). A similar position is taken by Wright in his study of Judg. 4–5: “In arguing that the authors of Judges heavily supplemented and blended their sources, my approach to the composition of the book differs from conventional approaches, which isolate redactional activity primarily to the framework” (Wright 2011b, 524, n. 27). The history of interpretation shows that according to many scholars there are good reasons to see both chapter 4 and chapter 5 as a coherent text. In both chapters, this is indicated by a concentric structure (cf. with regard to chapter 4 Van Soest 1989, 101–102; Van Dijk-Hemmes 1992, 215–217; Stek 1986, 54–59, and with regard to chapter 5 Coogan 1978, 160; Fokkelman 1995, 626). Chapter 4 opens with a short sketch of the situation, mentioning the Israelites, YHWH, and Jabin (vv. 1–3). It ends in vv. 23–24 with a sketch of the changed situation, mentioning again the Israelites, YHWH and Jabin. The story in between tells how the one situation turned into the other. The deciding moment is placed in the middle of the chapter: Deborah giving Barak a last boost to go against Sisera and YHWH giving Barak the victory. Just as at the beginning, at the end the central figures are mentioned together again. This central part is surrounded by the description of Sisera’s army

142

Judges4:1–5:31

advancing (vv. 12–13) and by the description of its flight (v. 16). Before and after, we read of conversations; first of Deborah and Barak (vv. 4–10 and later of Sisera and Jael (vv. 17–21). So we have the following concentric structure: Introduction mentioning the Israelites, YHWH, Jabin, and Sisera (vv. 1–3) Conversation between Deborah and Barak (vv. 4–10) Information about Heber (v. 11) Sisera’s army advancing (vv. 12–13) Turning point with Deborah, Barak, YHWH, and Sisera (vv. 14–15) Sisera’s army fleeing (v. 16) Introduction of Jael, the wife of Heber (v. 17) Conversation between Jael and Sisera (vv. 17–21) Conclusion mentioning God, Jabin, Sisera, and the Israelites (vv. 22–24)

In chapter 5 the most conspicuous formal marker is the repeated call to bless: first YHWH in v. 2 and v. 9 and then Jael in v. 24. The text can be divided accordingly into vv. 2–8, 9–23, 24–30 (cf. Fokkelman 1995). The first part describes the situation before the battle against Sisera, the final part describes what happened after the battle. They are related by the reference to Jael (vv. 6 and 24) and to the “mother in Israel” (v. 7) and the mother of Sisera (v. 28). Within the middle part the blessing of YHWH (v.9) forms an inclusio with the opposite statement of the messenger of YHWH cursing Meroz (v. 23). The “riders of tawny she-asses” (v. 10) have a counterpart in “the horse’s hooves pound” (v. 22). Also the verses about Reuben are arranged chiastically, with v. 16b repeating v. 15b. This is all the more remarkable because of the fact that this strophe can be regarded as the center of the poem (cf. Labuschagne 2015, 6). To this can be added the observation of a chiastic arrangement placing the non-participating tribes (vv. 15b–17) between references to participating tribes (vv. 14–15a and 18; cf. Wong 2007, 7). Other strophes with a chiastic structure are vv. 4–5, 6–8, 9–11, and 19 (see the remarks below). When it comes to the counting of the poetic elements one may have some reservations about the assumed role of the numbers eleven and eight and especially about the way in which Knohl adapts the text to arrive at his conclusions. Labuschagne’s analysis does seem to point at numerical features that can hardly be coincidental. To the numbers mentioned by Labuschagne and Knohl can be added that it is remarkable that the name of Israel is mentioned eight times in both chapter 4 and chapter 5 (where Israel is only referred to in the first part of the song, vv. 2–11). Also the fact that the name of YHWH is mentioned eight times in chapter 4 and exactly fourteen (or 2 × 7) times in chapter 5, with the liturgical formula “bless YHWH” as the first and seventh appearance (Knohl 2016, 58, referring to an observation by Avishur)

Deborah,BarakandJael

143

seems to be hardly coincidental and can be seen as another indication that the present text is the result of conscious effort to create the story of Deborah and Barak, in the combination of a narrative and a song, a coherent unity. All this does not take away, however, the problem of the tensions and inconsistencies mentioned above in these chapters, both separate and in combination. The most likely explanation is that, as is clear from other parts of the book of Judges, the author used different sources. Among the many possible reconstructions of the formation the one by Wright (2011b) is most interesting here, because from a different perspective it confirms or at least does not contradict the approach taken in the present commentary. Wright assumes that the authors blended a hymn to the divine warrior and a prose text. Both texts were about a battle in the Jezreel Valley, but originally they were not connected. The combination would have been the work of authors who added Deborah’s prophecy, the Jael material and the references to the tribes in 5:14–18. This reconstruction would explain amongst other things the strange transition after 4:16, which describes the killing of all Canaanites, but is followed by the vicissitudes of one of them; the adding of 5:6–7 referring to Shamgar, Jael and Deborah; and the reference to Sisera in 5:21, which is not in line with the plural “them” in the next line. Wright presents this theory as an alternative to the more common scholarly view that an original heroic tale was reworked by adding more theological elements. In his view it is more likely that the motivation of the authors was to emphasize the unity of Israel together under YHWH, with the important contributions of the one (the unexpected help of Jael as an outsider) and the many (tribes). A compelling argument for a more than just editorial activity of the author(s) is that the suggested additions fit very well to other characteristics of the book of Judges as a whole. Wright refers to parallels with the story of Ehud, especially when it comes to the graphic portrayal of the killing of the leader of the enemy: like Ehud she “thrusts” (‫ )תקע‬her weapon into his body; the opponent falls dead; his body is shown (Wright 2011b, 523; the similarities of the two narratives are also noted by, amongst others, AlonsoSchökel 1961, 166-167; Assis 2006, 115–118). He also refers to the special role of women in the book of Judges playing a role bringing down in different ways the male heroes. To this can be added that also the element of a prophecy preceding the actual intervention by YHWH is something which returns in the following stories. The suggested formation of the text can also be seen as another example of “revision through introduction” in this book (Milstein 2016, 45). For this and other reasons outlined below it seems likely that the material about Deborah represents an originally separate tradition taken up by the author. Also the formal way in which the material is presented shows the characteristics of the work of the author as can be found in other parts of the book. This is especially clear in the use of concentric structures (see the

144

Judges4:1–5:31

remarks on 2:1–5; 7:7–11, 12–30) and the repeated use of puns on names (on Sisera in 4:18, Barak in 4:21; Deborah in 5:12). To this can be added the phenomenon of placing two different versions of the same story next to each other (cf. Marais 1998, 104–105), because it can be compared to the double introduction to the book in chapters 1–3 and also to the way the story of Samson is told in two parallel panels (see introduction § 2–3). With regard to the date of the sources behind this story, Finkelstein (2017a; 2017b, 176–178) gives plausible arguments for assuming turbulent historical events which took place in the 10th century, events which were written down in the 8th century BCE. This would apply to a narrative about Barak. The song could very well date from about the same period. As was indicated above, there is much discussion about the age of this poem. It cannot be excluded that the author wanted to make this special part of the book sound old (cf. De Moor 1993, 484; Waltisberg 1999, 225). It can be compared to the archaizing style which is characteristic of the Homeric hymns and also of Hellenistic poetry (cf. Bulloch 1986, 543). It would be one of the many parallels in these chapters with elements from the Greek literature, a phenomenon that is present throughout the book (see introduction § 3.4).

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(II): EXEGESIS

4:1–3 1 2

3

The children of Israel continued to do what is evil in the eyes of YHWHandEhudhaddied. YHWH sold them into the hand of Jabin, the king of Canaan, who waskinginHazor.ThecommanderofhisarmywasSisera.Hewas dwellinginHaroshetofthenations. ThechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWH,becausehehadninehundred chariotsofironandhehadoppressedthechildrenofIsraelwithstrength fortwentyyears.

The story starts with the same words as in 3:12. The added notice of Ehud’s death is surprising. In LXX (A) it is moved to 3:30. LXX (B) follows the MT and may be a correction of LXX (A). (N.B. in the following comments not all variants in the Greek translations will be discussed, because especially the material with regard to the song in chapter 5 is very complex [cf. Tov 1978 and Herlé 1999, 47–52], illustrating that already at a very early stage readers had difficulties in understanding the Hebrew of the poem.) The present text suggests that chronologically Shamgar, who was mentioned after Ehud, should not be placed after Ehud but next to him. The only place in the

Deborah,BarakandJael

145

book of Judges where the introduction to a new episode is paired with a reference to the death of the previous leader is the reference to the death of Joshua in 1:1. Just as the book of Judges has to be read in the light of the book of Joshua, so the story of Deborah should be read in the light of the story of Ehud (cf. Assis 2006, 114–115). The combination of Israel’s idolatry and the death of the deliverer is not surprising. It confirms what was announced in 2:19 and so is YHWH’s reaction: he “sells” the Israelites in the hand of a violent enemy. The same expression is used in 2:14 and 10:7. This time the enemy is Jabin, king of Canaan, residing in Hazor. A king of Hazor with the same name was mentioned in Josh. 11 as the leader of a coalition of Canaanite kings who wanted to stop the conquest by the Israelites who already had been successful in the southern regions. Despite their power with men “as many as the sand of the sea” and with “very many horses and chariots” (Josh. 11:4) they suffered a crushing defeat against the Israelites. It is explicitly told that they were wiped out completely: none of the soldiers survived, the horses were hamstrung, the chariots burned with fire, Hazor was taken, its inhabitants killed, the city burned down (Josh. 11:8–11). One can speculate about how Hazor recovered from this massive blow and about the relation between Jabin and his namesake. More important, however, is in this connection the symbolic value of Hazor as the most important city of the northern part of the Promised Land. It is as if Joshua’s conquest of the land is annulled. First Jericho was lost to Eglon, now Hazor appears to be threatening as ever. Because Jabin is indicated as king of Canaan, we have to assume that just as in Josh. 11 he represents a number of city states. Also the name of the dwelling place of the commander of the army points in that direction. ‫ ֲחר ֶֹשׁת ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬can be translated as “forests of the nations” or as “plowing field of the nations”. There is no clear external evidence concerning its nature (a city or a region) and its location (cf. Na’aman 1990, 426–434; Gaß 2005, 235–240). The story in Judg. 4–5 points to a location in the valley of Megiddo. The second part of the name can be seen as an indication that the name could have been manufactured to indicate the magnitude of the opponents of the Israelites. The first part of the name may be a case of “shame vocalization” (Nelson 2017, 71), which is all the more interesting here because the same can be the case with the dwelling place of Deborah (see the remarks below on “the palm of Deborah”). This would support Finkelstein’s suggestion that the name is a pun of the Canaanite city Anaharatu (2017, 37–38). Within the book of Judges it is remarkable that next to the king also the commander of his army is mentioned. This could be interpreted as an indication that in an earlier phase the story was only about Sisera and that the connection with Jabin was made later to bring the story in line with other stories in the book of Judges in their relation to the book of Joshua. That Sisera

146

Judges4:1–5:31

is the real enemy is also clear from the reference to this episode in 1 Sam. 12:9 mentioning only “Sisera, the commander of the army of Hazor”. In the book of Judges there are no other references to a “commander of the army”. It is a more common expression in the books of Samuel and Kings (cf. 2 Sam. 2:8; 10:16; 19:14; 1 Kgs 2:32; 16:16; 2 Kgs 5:1). The name Sisera does not sound Semitic, although it also occurs in Ezra 2:53 and Neh. 7:55. Soggin 1981, 63, relates it to the Luwian personal name zi-za-ru-wa; Garbini 1978, 17-21, assumes a connection with the Minoic deity (j)a-sa-sa-ru. After the play with the names of the previous opponents, Cushan Rishataim and Eglon it comes as no surprise that there is a pun on the name Sisera in v. 18, relating it to his fatal turning from the right path. According to Diebner (1995, 116) it can be related to Greek σισΰρα, which means “cloak made of goatskin”. In ancient Greek literature, since Herodotus, this is used to indicate the barbarian: σισυροφόρος, “one who is wearing a goatskin”. There are no indications in the text, however, that the author wanted to present the commander of the Canaanite army as a barbarian. It is more likely that he took over the name from his source and added to this the association with the old enemy, Jabin the king of Hazor. The Canaanites were feared by the Israelites because of their superior weaponry, especially their iron chariots (cf. Josh. 11:4; 17:16). Even the Judahites who had succeeded in taking most of the land allotted to them had to give in to their military supremacy (Judg. 1:19). The remark that he (we have to assume that Sisera is meant here) oppressed the Israelites “with strength” (‫ )בחזקה‬is reminiscent of the introduction to the story of Ehud where it was said that YHWH had “strengthened” (‫ )ויחזק‬Eglon (3:12). 4:4–5 4 5

Deborahwasawoman,aprophetess,thewifeofLapidot.Shewas judgingIsraelatthattime. She was dwelling under the palm of Deborah, between Rama and Bethel,inmountEphraim.ToherthechildrenofIsraelcameupfor judgment.

The name Deborah means “bee”. It is remarkable that so many names in this book can be related to animals. Next to Eglon (“little calf”, 3:12) we also find this with Jael (“mountain goat”, 4:17) and the Midianite kings Orev (“raven”, 7:25), and Zeev (“wolf”, 7:25). There are many suggestions about a possible message behind this name (an extreme example is the attempt by Asen 1997 to relate the story to the life cycle of the honeybee). Some scholars assume a relation to Greek divinatory practices, with prophetesses being called μέλισσα, “bee”, and bees being seen as mediators between

Deborah,BarakandJael

147

men and gods (cf. Vainstub 2011, 325–327). Also the fact that she is called “the wife of Lapidot” might point in this direction (see the remarks below). All the same an association with Greek practices is possible, given the fact that it would not be the only one (see also the remarks on Jael below). In 5:12 there is a pun on the name of Deborah relating it to the verb ‫דבר‬, “to speak”, which is of course fitting for a prophetess, speaking the word of God (Van Wolde 1996, 288; Gafney 2008, 90). In his LiberInterpretationis HebraicorumNominum Jerome left open the possible translation of the name of Deborah as either “bee” or “talkative” (apisvelloquax, CCL 72.99; cf. CCL 72.64: apissiveeloquentia, “bee or eloquence”). Jerome seems to combine these two meanings when he explains the name Deborah as “the bee whose prophecy is the sweetest honey” (InEzechielem 1.16.13; CCL 75A.178). This interpretation returns more explicitly in the medieval Glossaordinaria: “Deborah means bee or speech (apis vel loquela) which signifies prophecy and which brings together the delightful honeycombs of heavenly doctrine and the sweet honeys of divine speech” (Strabo, GlossaOrdinaria.LiberJudicum4; PL 113.524C; quoted by Reardon 2000, 19). Deborah is introduced in v. 4 in a manner similar to the presentation of Ehud in Judg. 3:15: “Ehud, son of Gera, a Benjaminite, a man restricted in his right hand”, and of Jephthah in Judg. 11:1: “Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior. He was the son of a whore”. So first comes the name and this is followed by some personal information. To this is added in the next verse a reference to the place where she was active, with the same syntactical construction (personal pronoun followed by a participle) of the information given in v. 2 about Sisera: ‫בוֹרה‬ ָ ‫יוֹשׁ ֶבת ַתּ ַחת־תּ ֶֹמר ְדּ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִהיא‬, “and she was settled under the palm of Deborah” // ‫רשׁת ַהגּוֹיִם‬ ֶ ‫יוֹשׁב ַבּ ֲח‬ ֵ ‫וְ הוּא‬, “and he was dwelling in Haroshet”. Much emphasis is put on the fact that she is a woman: she is twice called ‫ ִא ָשּׁה‬and twice referred to with the independent feminine pronoun ‫היא‬. ִ Compared to Ehud and Jephthah we hear relatively little about Deborah’s family. Another peculiarity is the reference to her profession. This has no parallel in the otherwise related introductions and thus attracts extra attention. Just like Samuel she is both a prophetess and a judge (cf. 1 Sam. 3:20; 7:15). Nothing is said of her father or her tribe. Instead, she is called ‫א ֶשׁת ַל ִפּידוֹת‬. ֵ At first sight this seems to be no more than the indication that Deborah was a married woman: the wife of an otherwise unknown man called Lapidoth. As with Ehud and Jephthah one would expect this information to serve a certain purpose. A number of scholars relate it to the prophetesses mentioned in the Mari letters being called “the wife of a man” (aššat awîlim, ARM, XIII, 114: 8). According to Malamat (1995, 64) this was done here and also in the case of the prophetess Huldah, “the wife of Shallum” (2 Kgs 22:4) “probably to stress their stability and reliability”. One can also

148

Judges4:1–5:31

formulate this less positive as the attempt of a male redactor to “domesticate” the female cultic functionary Deborah. In Judg. 5 she appears without this “woman’s customary trapping of a husband” (Ackerman 1998, 108). One can also think, however, of a symbolic meaning of this name, because the normal (masculine) plural form ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬can be used as another word for “lightning” (cf. Exod. 20:18), which is also the meaning of the name Barak (cf. Lindars 1995, 182, referring to an idea already found in the commentary of Kimchi that Barak and Lapidot are one and the same person). Some commentators take it as an indication of her character: “an inflamed and inflaming woman” (Bal 1988, 209; Schneider 2000, 87: “fiery one”; cf. also Breuer 1922, 35: “Weib zündender Begeisterung”). Less likely is the suggestion by Kupitz and Berthelot (2009, 117) to change ‫ לפידות‬into ‫ דלפיות‬and assume that Deborah is compared by the author to “a/the woman of Delphi”. They may have a point, however, when they see a relation to Greek mantic practices in the role of the palm tree as a symbol of the solar god in Greek culture (Kupitz & Berthelot 2009, 106–108). To this parallel can be added that a reference to torches can be associated with the ancient Greek divinatory technique of empyromancy: finding the message of the gods by looking at the flames (cf. Johnston 2008, 98). Also the fact that the Hebrew word ‫ לפיד‬was probably derived from Greek λαμπάς (HAL, 506–507) can be taken as an argument for the theory that the author may have been thinking here of related Greek practices. Deborah has also been connected to the goddess Anat as she is described in Ugaritic texts (cf. Craigie 1969, 1977, and 1978), which led to the idea of Deborah as a “woman warrior” (Rasmussen 1989). The arguments for that association appear to be questionable (cf. Day 2002, 137–139; Sasson 2011, 342–343, n. 25) and the Greek connection as suggested above, has found more support recently (cf. Stöckl 2012, 188). The first words of v. 4 can be read as a poetic line with ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ ִא ָשּׁה נְ ִב‬being parallel to ‫א ֶשׁת ַל ִפּידוֹת‬. ֵ This is supported by the fact that ‫ ַל ִפּידוֹת‬has a feminine ending instead of the common masculine. This may be due to the influence of the feminine ending of the parallel ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫( נְ ִב‬cf. Van Wolde 1995, 240, n. 4). For this reason, ‫ ֵא ֶשׁת ַל ִפּידוֹת‬seems to denote Deborah as the counterpart of Barak. It is also symbolic for her relation with God, as can be derived from the fact that ‫ל ִפּיד‬,ַ “lightning, torch”, is mentioned in descriptions of the theophany in Exod. 20:18 and Ezek. 1:13. Her dwelling place “between Rama and Bethel” puts her on one line with Samuel, because these places are related to this prophet (cf. 1 Sam. 7:16– 17). It is another indication that Deborah is pictured as a prefiguration of this famous prophetic successor, as is also indicated by Gillmayr-Bucher: “Das changierende Bild, das die Texte von der Richteren, Retterin, Sängerin und Prophetin Debora entwerfen, hebt sie von anderen Richtergestalten ab,

Deborah,BarakandJael

149

stellt sie aber zugleich in eine Linie mit den großen Führergestalten Mose und Samuel”(Gillmayr-Bucher 2006, 190). Herzberg 2013 points to the many links between Deborah and Moses as well, but fails to note the more explicit links with Samuel. This link with Samuel was probably more important for the author than to give an accurate description of the geographical background. No explanation is given for the fact that Deborah is living and working far away from the events taking place in the northern part of the land. Whereas the Israelites were coming to her to receive her judgement, she herself would have had to travel far to bring the message of YHWH to Barak. Deborah’s place of residence is specified with “under the palm of Deborah”. Avishur (1999) compares this to the place where according to the Ugaritic text KTU 1.17.V:6–8 Dani’ilu was sitting when he “judged the case of the widow”. However, the Ugaritic word used (᾿adrm) probably does not have the meaning “tree” as suggested by Avishur. Other scholars assume that a later editor related the Deborah of Judg. 4–5 with the woman bearing the same name who was the nurse of Rebecca and who was buried under an oak below Bethel (Gen. 35:8). According to Lindars (1995, 183) “the later editor, knowing the place, has decided that it was the right place for Deborah simply because the name was the same. This was not necessarily due to simpleminded confusion, but was the result of an hermeneutical principle, whereby one passage of scripture is elucidated by reference to another. In this case it furnished the location of Deborah, which was not given in the text”. A problem with this interpretation is that the trees have different names. Richter solves this problem by relating both trees to “the oak of Tabor” (‫)אלוֹן ָתּבוֹר‬ ֵ mentioned in 1 Sam. 10:3, which is also located in the vicinity of Bethel. This would be a corruption of ‫בוֹרה‬ ָ ‫אלוֹן ְדּ‬, ֵ “the oak of Deborah”. This does not explain, however, the use of the word ‫ תּ ֶֹמר‬in Judg. 4:5 instead of the expected ‫אלוֹן‬. ֵ According to Lindars (1995, 183) the unusual vocalization might indicate “a different tree from the various kinds of palm (...) it might denote any tree”. Why did the editor not use then, one could ask, the normal word in Hebrew for tree? More to the point seems to be here the explanation of this word (also noted, but not accepted by Lindars) as polemically vocalized with the vowels of ‫ב ֶֹשׁת‬, “shame”, just as may be the case with Haroshet in v. 2. This would indicate that we are dealing here with a pagan cult object. This could be interpreted as an indication that what was originally practiced there was a form of necromancy (cf. Spronk 2001; rejected by Osborne 2013, 207–209). The pejorative reference used here is usually connected with elements of the rejected Baal cult, as can be seen in the names Ishboshet and Mephiboshet replacing the original Ishbaal and Mephibaal. Death cult and necromancy can be seen as elements of the cult of Baal (cf. Spronk, DDD, 147–148). An important element of necromancy is that it offers the

150

Judges4:1–5:31

opportunity to ask the dead for advice. A good example of the procedure can be found in the Ugaritic mantic text KTU 1.124 (cf. Spronk 1999, 284). In this text the deified ancestor of the royal family gives an answer to a sorcerer called “the lord of the great gods” on a question about the fate of an apparently sick boy child. This answer is indicated as his “judgement” (l.3: mṯpẓ). It can be compared to the situation in Judg. 13:12 where Manoah asks the divine messenger: “what will be the judgment (‫)מ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ִ of the boy?” Precisely the same seems to have been indicated in 4:5 when it is said the Israelites come to Deborah for a judgment (‫)ל ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬. ַ This might indicate that she functioned as an intermediary, like the woman consulted by Saul in Endor, “the woman who is a mistress of the spirit of the dead” (‫א ֶשׁת ַבּ ֲע ַלת־אוֹב‬, ֵ 1 Sam. 28:7). In this case the consulted dead person would have been Deborah, who was buried there. As in 1 Sam. 28, the sorceress was probably anonymous. When this story got its new place in the book of Judges, the author took the anonymous sorceress and the venerated spirit of a dead person called Deborah together and reformed them into Deborah the prophetess. Roux (2012, 43) points to a parallel with the messenger of YHWH in 6:11: like Deborah he was sitting under a tree and also remained there when Gideon left to make him a sacrifice (6:18). It would point to their authority as mediator of the words of YHWH. Other speculations about the background of Deborah can already be found very early. The Targum paraphrases v. 5 with a lot of extra information about her income: “she was living in her city, in Ataroth-Deborah, supporting herself out of her own means. She possessed palm trees in Jericho, gardens in Ramah, oil yielding olive trees in the Valley, irrigated soil in Beth-El, and white soil on the King’s Highlands”. Apparently she was pictured as economical independent to indicate that she could not be bribed (cf. Smelik 1995, 380–381). Rasmussen (1989) speculates about an earlier story in which Deborah was the woman warrior who fought Sisera; this would have been replaced by a Yahwistic version eliminating this role of Deborah which made her look too much like the Canaanite goddess Anath (cf. also Craigie 1978). One may note wordplay with the name of Deborah’s residence ‫תּ ֶֹמר‬, “the palm tree”, and the repeated references to her speaking. Three times it is reported that she speaks ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ;וַ תּ‬in vv. 6, 9, and 14. This can also be related to the pun on her name Deborah as “the woman of the word” in 5:12 (cf. Diebner 1995, 115). 4:6–10 6

ShesentandcalledBarak,thesonofAbinoam,fromKedeshinNaphtali. Shesaidtohim:“HasnotYHWH,thegodofIsrael,commandedyou: goanddeployatmountTaborandtakewithyoutenthousandmen fromthechildrenofNaphtaliandfromthechildrenofZebulon.

Deborah,BarakandJael 7

8 9

10

151

Iwilldeployagainstyouatwadi-KishonSisera,thecommanderof thearmyofJabin,hischariotsandhisarmy.Iwillgivehiminyour hand”. Baraksaidtoher:“Ifyougowithme,Iwillgoandifyoudonotgo withme,Iwillnotgo”. Shesaid:“Iwillgo,yes,gowithyou;butitwillnotbeyourgloryon theroadwhichyouaregoing,becauseinthehandofawomanYHWH willsellSisera”.DeboraharoseandwentwithBaraktoKedesh. Barak called up Zebulon and Naphtali to Kedesh. At his feet came uptenthousandmen.Deborahcameupwithhim.

The name of Barak means “lightning”, which is a fitting name for a fierce fighter. As was mentioned above, there is a contrast between Deborah as the “woman of torches” and this “man of lightning”. A literal translation of the Hebrew could give the impression that Deborah is referring to an earlier command, but her words should be interpreted as said “with a certain exclamatory nuance” (JM § 161c): “This is what YHWH commands!”. For the first time since the introduction of judges/deliverers we now hear of separate tribes instead of the Israelites acting as one people. The tribes of Naphtali and Zebulon were mentioned in 1:30 and 33 as tribes who had not been able to drive out the Canaanites. Of Zebulon it was said that “the Canaanites dwelled in its midst” (1:30). Of Naphtali it was formulated the other way around: “It dwelled in the midst of the Canaanites” (1:33). Their territory in the northern part of the land was directly involved, because Hazor was part of the land allotted to Naphtali. The territory of Zebulon was located to the south-west of Naphtali. Barak has to raise an army of ten thousand men, which is as big as the army of the Moabites (3:29) and face Sisera at wadi-Kishon which is on the southern border of the territory of Naphtali. Despite the divine calling and promise of victory Barak is reluctant. He only wants to go on the condition that Deborah comes along. According to Bae (2017) this may have reflected his youth and inexperience in military matters, but most commentators see this as a sign of cowardice. Roux (2012, 49) assumes that Barak expected that Deborah would take other tribes next to Zebulon and Naphtali, namely the tribes mentioned in 5:13–15, with her. One could also see Barak’s response as “acting in a customarily self-deferential way, characteristic of called leaders in the ancient Near East (e.g., Moses, Gideon, and Saul)” (Osborne 2013, 211) or that “he is wise to know that victory comes with the presence of God’s favorite” (Niditch 2008, 65). Building on the latter remark, it is interesting to relate Barak’s reaction to Samuel’s command to Saul before going to war with the Philistines. He told Saul to wait for him so that he could bring sacrifices and tell him what to

152

Judges4:1–5:31

do (1 Sam. 10:8). Things went wrong for Saul precisely because he became impatient and started acting before Samuel’s return (1 Sam. 13:8–11). His outcry “what have you done?!” is reminiscent of the reaction of the messenger of YHWH in Judg. 2:2. One could say that Barak did not want to make this mistake of acting without being certain that he was following YHWH’s orders. This interpretation is supported by the fact noted above that Deborah is in many ways comparable to Samuel. Also the Greek translator seems to have considered the possibility that Barak’s hesitation may have had a positive aspect. The LXX adds to Barak’s answer: “for I do not know the day in which the Lord will send his angel on a good journey with me”. Deborah’s answer does indicate, however, that Barak had not reacted properly. The use of the absolute infinitive in ‫הֹלְך ֵא ֵלְך ִע ָמְּך‬, ָ “I will go, yes, go with you”, points to a reaction opposed to the previous remark (cf. JM § 123i). Moreover, she announces that he will not receive the glory for the coming victory. The glory will be given to a woman, but one could also say that the glory is YHWH’s, because he is the one who will give the enemy in her hand. The final line in v. 9 and the last words of v. 10 show again that the initiative is with Deborah. It is emphasized at the end of v. 9 by mentioning her first and with two actions: she is the one who stands up and goes. Barak is the one who follows her. At the end of v. 10 it is repeated: Deborah is present. This can be compared to what was told about Achsah and Othniel in 1:14–15. It is she who suggests her husband go and ask her father for better land, but apparently he remains inactive and she takes action. In the stories of Jephthah and his daughter and of Samson and his wives we will come across new variations on this theme. 4:11 

Heber,theKenite,hadpartedfromtheKenites,fromthechildrenof Hobab,thefather-in-lawofMoses.Hespreadhistentasfarasthe terebinthinZaanannim,whichisnearKedesh.

This verse presents a third party, next to the Canaanites (vv. 2–3) and the army led by Deborah and Barak (v. 10). This information is relevant because of the role the wife of Heber will play in the following story. It is not necessary to assume that it is the work of a later editor. The constant shifts in perspective are typical of this story (cf. Amit 1987, 90; Marais 1998, 102): after the conversation between Deborah and Barak (vv. 6–9) the focus is on Barak (v. 10), then on Heber (v. 11), on Sisera (vv. 12–13), on Deborah and Barak (v. 14), on YHWH (v. 15), on Barak (v. 16), on Sisera (v. 17), on the conversation between Jael and Sisera (vv. 18–21), and finally on

Deborah,BarakandJael

153

the conservation between Jael and Barak (v. 22). Until v. 11 the perspectives can be placed next to each other, after v. 11 they are in chronological order. The Kenites were already mentioned in 1:16 in connection with Judah. It was reported there that they went south, to the desert of Judah. Heber apparently went the other way, to the north. The name of Heber’s location is not certain. The translation Zaanannim follows the qere, which is based on Josh. 19:33, where it is also related to a terebinth. It is located on the southern border of Naphtali. LXX (A) translates πρὸς δρῦν ἀναπαυομένων, “by the oak of the resters”, LXX (B): ἕως δρυὸς πλεονεκτούντων, “as far as the oak of the greedy” relating it to ‫בצע‬, “make unjust gain” (cf. Kabiersch 2011, 674; Satterthwaite 2015, 109). The name Heber can be translated as “companion”, which fits very well to what is said about him in v. 17 being an ally of Jabin (cf. Roux 2012, 41, n. 9) 4:12–16 12 13

14

15

16

They told Sisera that Barak, the son of Abinoam, had come up to mountTabor. Siseracalledupallhischariots,ninehundredchariotsofiron,and thepeoplethatwerewithhimfromHaroshetofthenationstowadiKishon. Debora said to Barak: “Arise, because this is the day that YHWH hasgivenSiserainyourhand.DoesnotYHWHgooutbeforeyou?” BarakcamedownfrommountTaborandtenthousandmenbehind him. YHWH brought in confusion Sisera, all the chariots and the whole campbythemouthofthesword,beforeBarak.Siseragotdownfrom thechariotandfledonhisfeet. Barakwaspursuingafterthechariotsandafterthecampasfaras Haroshetofthenations.ThewholecampofSiserafellbythemouth ofthesword.Notonewasleft.

After the presentation of all participants we finally get to the showdown. It starts with another change of perspective as it is told from the perspective of Sisera. For the third and last time we hear of the Israelites coming up (‫)עלה‬. In v. 10 it was told of the ten thousand men of Zebulon and Naphtali. Also Deborah went up. Now it is told to Sisera that Barak has come up. From this moment on the “going up” will be replaced by the “going down” (‫)ירד‬, first of Barak coming down from the mountain (v. 14), then of Sisera descending from his horse, fleeing on his feet (v. 15).

154

Judges4:1–5:31

It is telling that the reaction from the side of the Israelites comes from Deborah first. Again, she has to urge Barak to come into operation. When it comes to YHWH’s assistance, she uses the same emphatic words as in v. 6 in the form of rhetorical question: ‫הלֹא יְ הוָ ה יָ ָצא ְל ָפנֶ יָך‬, ֲ “Does not YHWH go out before you?” In the Targum this is formulated more reluctantly with regard to the role of YHWH: “Does not the angel of the Lord go out before you to make (you) successful?” (cf. Smelik 1995, 386–387, on the rabbinic discussions about the warrior-angel; also LXX adds in v. 8 a reference to an angel going with Barak). Barak remains secondary: also in the battle it is YHWH who takes the initiative and is fully responsible for the victory (cf. Amit 1987, 99: “God is the chief actor”). He brings the army of Sisera in confusion, just like he did with the army of the Canaanites according to Josh. 10:10 (cf. also 1 Sam. 7:10 about YHWH confusing the army of the Philistines by thundering). There it is added that YHWH threw large hailstones upon them from heaven and that more enemies died from the hailstones than the Israelites killed with the sword (Josh. 10:11). It is suggested by a number of scholars (cf. Soggin 1981, 66, and BHS) to delete ‫י־ח ֶרב‬ ֶ ‫ל ִפ‬,ְ “by the mouth of the sword”, because it is not a suitable description of YHWH’s action. It was probably for the same reason that this phrase was placed in some Greek manuscripts after the reference to Barak (cf. BHQ, 53*). The present text, which is supported by most text witnesses, would have been influenced by the same phrase used in v. 16. Instead of assuming a textual corruption, however, it makes more sense to note that the way the battle is described underlines that everything took place without Barak taking part in it. We have to assume that the Canaanites used the swords against themselves, just as the Midianites according to 7:22. Everything is happening ‫ל ְפנֵ י ָב ָרק‬,ִ “before Barak”. He can only watch and then finish the battle by finishing off the fleeing Canaanites. He almost succeeds: “not one is left”, but within the present context this only concerns the camp of Sisera, not Sisera himself. 4:17 

SiserahadfledonhisfeettothetentofJael,thewifeofHeber,the Kenite, because there was peace between Jabin, the king of Hazor andthehouseofHeber,theKenite.

Strictly speaking, the story of the war against the Canaanites could have stopped after v. 16, all enemies being killed (cf. Richter 1963, 44). This could be an indication that the account of Jael was added by the author in line with his interest to subvert masculine power (cf. Wright 2011b, 522–524). Be this as it may, the important role of women in the story is now taken over from

Deborah,BarakandJael

155

Deborah by Jael. They are never portrayed together, but still they form a pair. In this way they can be compared to Ehud and Shamgar with Jael as the non-Israelite next to the regular judge (see the remarks on Shamgar and on the other similarities between the narratives of Debora/Jael and Ehud above). Jael is introduced in the same way as Deborah: as “the wife of”, which is repeated in v. 18. Her husband was already introduced in v. 11. To the information given there it is added that this Heber could be considered as an ally of Sisera. This fits very well to his name, which can be translated as “companion”. Also the name of Jael sounds remarkable within the present context. It can be translated as “mountain goat”, putting her on one line with many other persons in the book of Judges with names of animals. Just as with Deborah there seems to be a pun on her name, because of the special place of the verb ‫ עלה‬in vv. 10 and 12 noted above. More than Barak she is the one who takes initiative and “goes up” to take action. One might even suggest (with Van Wolde 1995, 244) that her name ‫ יעל‬refers to the yiqtol third person singular masculine of the verb ‫( עלה‬be it that this only applies to the consonants; cf. also the criticism of Layton, 1997): she is the woman predicted by Deborah who will go up instead of the man Barak to deliver the decisive blow to Sisera. Some scholars relate Jael to the Greek goddess Amaltheia (Garbini 1978, 27–28; Diebner 1995, 116–117; rejected by Van der Toorn, DDD, 461), who had the shape of a goat and who fed the infant god Zeus with milk. Vainstub (2011, 328) points to a Cretan tradition where this Amaltheia is called the sister of Melissa (the Greek word for “bee”; see the remarks on Deborah above). He refers to Lactantius (ca. 240–320 CE) who wrote about an ancient Cretan king whose name is also based on the noun μέλισσα: Didymus, in the books of his commentary on Pindar, says that Melisseus a king of Crete was the first to sacrifice to the gods, and to introduce novel rites and religious processions. He had two daughters, Amalthaea and Melissa, who nourished the infant Jupiter with goats’ milk and honey (Hence arose the poets’ tale that bees flew up and filled the child’s mouth with honey). Melissa was by her father made the first priestess to the Magna Mater; and from this fact the representatives of the goddess are still termed Melissae (Divine Institutes I, XXII, 18-22).

Vainstub also sees a connection in the fact that Jael serves the milk in a special vessel (5:25) and the horn as symbol of abundance as Amaltheia’s attribute (Vainstub 2009, 329–331). The combination of elements makes this comparison very interesting. It is very well possible – given also the other possible parallels with Greek literature – that in his retelling of an ancient story about the liberation from the Canaanites the author of the book of Judges enriched the basic plot with these elements he took from Greek literature,

156

Judges4:1–5:31

giving special names to the heroines and adding the details about the drink offered to Sisera. The fact that Sisera approached the tent of the wife of Heber and not of Heber himself can be interpreted as a first violation of the rules of hospitality (cf. Matthews 1991, 15–16). Sisera should have gone to Heber and by approaching Jael’s tent directly he in fact dishonours her. In the following events the roles are reversed as Jael invites Sisera to enter her tent without the permission of her husband. Finally, every kind of hospitality is abandoned when Jael kills the man after she had feigned to offer him protection. That is the climax of the continuous process of violating the rules of hospitality started by Sisera. 4:18–21 18

19

20

21

JaelcameouttomeetSiseraandshesaidtohim:“Turnaside,my lord,turnaside.Donotfear”.Heturnedasidetoher,tothetent,and shecoveredhimwiththecurtain. Hesaidtoher:“Givemetodrinkalittlewater,becauseIamthirsty”. Sheopenedaskinbottleofmilkandgavehimtodrink.Shecovered him. Hesaidtoher:“Standattheentranceofthetentandletitbe:ifa mancomesandasksyouandsays:isthereamanhere?Youmustsay: nobody”. Jael,thewifeofHeber,tookatentpegandputahammerinherhand. Shecametohimsecretlyandthrustthepeginhistemple.Itwentinto theearth.Hehadbeenindeepsleep,hewasexhausted.Andhedied.

Like Deborah, Jael takes the initiative in the conversation with the man she is facing. She shows her superiority by playing with his name and by suggesting that he is afraid. Her admonition to “turn aside” using the verb ‫סור‬ is clearly a pun on the name Sisera and clearly not a sign of respect. The wordplay is emphasized by the fact that her words are structured in the form of staircase parallelism (cf. Watson 1983, 510). It is also remarkable that she suggests that he is afraid. In this situation it would have been more likely that the woman was afraid of the soldier approaching her tent. Sisera is not protesting. He does not speak a word and just follows her lead. One could even say that he “plays the fool” (Jackson 2012, 101). Jael gives more that Sisera asks: milk instead of water (see for a possible Greek parallel the remarks on the name of Jael above). Jael hides Sisera by covering him. It is not clear by what. The word ‫ ְשּׂ ִמ ָיכה‬is used only here in the Hebrew Bible and is translated in different ways (cf. BHQ, 53*; Wilkinson 1983, 512, suggests reading bōśemykh and translating “as she overwhelmed

Deborah,BarakandJael

157

him with perfume”). Within the present context the suggestion in HAL, 1246, that it denotes “the curtain that separates the women’s section of the tent” is attractive. This would also explain why it has the article, because it refers to a common element of the tent. Whether there are sexual allusions in Jael’s invitation and in the way she cares for him (cf. Assis 2005, 9–10; according to the Talmud Sisera gets aroused by drinking milk from her breasts [b. Nid. 55b], cf. Sasson 2011, 343), is a matter of dispute (according to Zakovitch [1981] an earlier version was more explicit in this regard). Some scholars compare Jael to the prostitute of Prov. 9:15–16 who calls those who pass by, but a comparison with a mother taking care of her child is probably more to the point. In the song in the next chapter this is made more explicit, among other things by the reference to the mother of Sisera. Two times it is said that Sisera speaks to Jael, asking her a favour indicating his weakness. Jael does not speak to Sisera anymore. She only acts, but in her own way. Asked for water, she gives him milk to drink. Asked for denying his presence, she will call in his pursuer. First she gives more than he asks and treats him with motherly care, which is emphasized by the repeated reference to her covering him. The next action will be the opposite: instead of protecting him she will kill him. The masculine imperative ‫ ֲעמֹד‬in v. 20, where Sisera asks Jael to “stand” at the entrance, is strange (corrected to feminine in the Targum, cf. Smelik 1995, 390), but perhaps also telling in this context from a gender perspective. Just as the name Jael can be read as the masculine verb “he went up” she now has to stand guard as a man protecting her vulnerable ward. One can also imagine that Sisera uses language he is accustomed to as a general commanding his soldiers (cf. 2 Sam. 20:4) (cf. Murray 1979, 183, n. 48: “Sisera now passes from addressing Jael with polite request to commanding her as though she were one of his own troops”). The irony here is that Sisera who asks Jael to deceive a possible visitor is deceived himself by Jael (cf. Roux 2012, 65). In the description of her deadly action in v. 21 Jael is explicitly called “the wife of Heber” again, emphasizing that she is woman, comparable to the way Deborah was presented in vv. 4–5. It is also in line with the way she kills him in as much that it deviates from what is customary in war situations. Her weapons belong to the household sphere. First she takes a tent-peg (‫יְתד‬ ַ ‫)הא ֶֹהל‬, ָ which is used to secure a tent. The second is a hammer, the tool for driving in a peg. The Hebrew word ‫ ַמ ֶקּ ֶבת‬is derived from the verb ‫נקב‬, “to pierce”, so one can also translate “she took the ‘thing-to-pierce-with’ in her hand” (Van Wolde 1995, 244). She approaches Sisera ‫בּ ָלּאט‬, ַ “in secrecy”, like David stealing up on Saul. Unlike David she does not spare the life of her opponent. Like Ehud “thrusting” his sword in Eglon’s belly (3:21), Jael

158

Judges4:1–5:31

“thrusts” the peg into Sisera’s head. It is not entirely clear which part of the head is pierced. The word ‫רקּה‬ ָ is usually rendered as “temple”, but as is noted by Frolov & Frolov “it would require superhuman strength to pierce Sisera through both temples with a single blow” (2015, 56). Taking up a suggestion by Grossfeld (1973), Frolov & Frolov propose to relate the verb to Jael and translate: “and she stuck the tent peg into his temple, and sank / collapsed to the ground” (2015, 59–60). It has also been suggested to translate ‫רקּה‬ ָ with “mouth” or “throat”, relating it not to ‫ רקק‬II, “to be thin”, but to ‫ רקק‬I, “to spit” (cf. Rozelaar 1986, 125; Fewell & Gunn 1990, 393; Van DijkHemmes 1992, 210; Van Wolde 1995, 245). This translation would also make sense in SoS 4:3 and 6:7. One could very well imagine Sisera lying on his back, sleeping with his mouth opened, offering Jael the opportunity of pinning him to the ground. It is also supported by the retelling in Josephus’ Ant.5.208: ἡ δὲ Ἰάλη κοιμωμένου σιδήρεον ἧλον ἐλάσασα σφύρῃ κατὰ τοῦ στόματος καὶ τοῦ χελυνίου διέπειρε τὸ ἔδαφος, “as he slept, Iale brought an iron tent-peg that she wielded like a hammer on his mouth and jaw, driving it into the ground”. Schneider 2018, 563–566, translates “cheeks”, relating it to Akk. raqqatu,denoting a part of the head. A problem remains, however, that the parallel line in 5:26 speaking of “smashing the head” does not fit very well (cf. Frolov & Frolov 2015, 58). Also the derivation from ‫ רקק‬I, “to spit”, is not very convincing. So it seems best to keep to the traditional view. The reason why the author used this uncommon word may have been the wish to add another pun: ‫ ְבּ ַר ָקּתוֹ‬sounds like the name of Barak. The author may also have been inspired again by a scene from Homer’s Iliad describing how Ulysses killed his Trojan opponent Democoon: he “hit him with his spear on the temple, and the bronze tip passed right through and came out the other side” (Iliad 4, 501–502). According to Guillaume (2018, 199) the use of the word ‫ ַמ ֶקּ ֶבת‬instead of ‫ ַה ְלמוּת‬in 5:26 denoting Jael’s weapon “constitutes an almost undisputable Hasmonean reference to the Maccabees” and thus “a prefiguration of the Maccabees, comparing their rebellion to Jael’s feat in anticipation of the renewed monarchic era of the Hasmonean dynasty”. Although the parallel is clear, the dependence is not as likely as suggested. A number of scholars find sexual connotations in this verse. In Hebrew “to come to” can refer to the sexual act and Jael piercing Sisera can be seen as a “reversed rape” (Fewell & Gunn 1990, 394; cf. Niditch 1989; according to Reis 2005, 34–35, there were no less than three sexual encounters of Jael, two with Sisera and one with Barak who “went in to her”; rejected by Chisholm 2010 and 2013; cf. also the midrash mentioned above that Jael and Sisera had intercourse seven times). What might have been expected from a soldier entering a woman’s tent now happened the other way around. Although the aspect of gender is prominent in this story, such a sexual aspect is not

Deborah,BarakandJael

159

very clear. The comparison with a mother-child relation is more to the point (cf. Bal 1988b, 130–131, who states that the story is more about maternity than sex; according to Fewell & Gunn 1990, 392, “this scene is filled with maternal and sexual imagery”). The result of Jael’s action is overly clear. The peg pierces the head completely, because it goes into the earth. Sisera’s demise is described with three verbs: ‫וְ הוּא־נִ ְר ָדּם וַ יָּ ַעף וַ יָּ מֹת‬, from deep sleep to exhaustion to death. It is another example of the author’s preference to emphasize certain elements by using three related expressions (see introduction § 2.4). Apparently this forced him to use uncommon words, which made it difficult for translators to make sense of the text. LXX (A) paraphrases the first two words with καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεσκάρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν γονάτων αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξέψυξεν, “he writhed between her knees and he breathed his last”. LXX (B) translates with καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξεστὼς ἐσκοτώθη, “he was terrified and stupified”. In his book on Greek myth and the Bible, Louden points to a number of parallels with Hecuba, a tragedy written by Euripides (cf. the translation by Vellacott), especially in the way Hecuba kills king Polymestor of Thrace who had murdered her son (Louden 2019, 111–130). The most interesting corresponding elements mentioned by Louden are the following: (1) The discussion between Hecuba and Agamemnon about the possibility that women can murder a man: “Agamemnon: ‘Those women prisoners? Can they overpower a man?’ Hecuba: ‘Number and cunning joined are irresistible.’ Agamemnon: ‘Number, maybe: but women – can’t do anything!’ ” (ll. 883–885). (2) Hecuba persuades Polymester to enter her tent (ll. 1012–1016). (3) Polymester is blinded (not killed) by the unfamiliar weapon of brooches of women (l. 1168). To this can be added an element reminding of the story of Ehud: when Hecuba tells Polymester that she has something to say to him in private, he sends away his servants (ll. 980–983). It is also interesting that Euripides’ play starts with the sacrifice of Hecuba’s daughter Polyxena to appease the dead Achilles. This is reminiscent of the story of Jephthah’s daughter. It is not likely that a direct relation between the story of Jael and Hecuba was intended. It is very well possible, however, that the author of the book of Judges was inspired in his retelling of the old Israelite stories by texts of Euripides. The comparison with the tragedy of Hecuba makes it all the more clear, that we can only speculate about the motives of Jael for killing Sisera (cf. the discussion by Fewell & Gunn 1990, 395–397, and Noble 2011, 324–328, who concludes that “they remain in the narrative’s background”). Did she fear Israelite reprisals when they would find the Canaanite general in her

160

Judges4:1–5:31

tent? Did she want to show allegiance to the victorious Israelites? Did she act out of “zeal of YHWH” (cf. O’Connell 1996, 110)? The latter would put her on one line with Rahab, choosing for Israel and against her compatriots in Jericho (cf. Assis 2004). Margalit (1995, 640) assumes “a deep-seated conflict between husband and wife of a political-ideological nature”. She would have reacted against her husband’s separation from the Kenites (v. 11) by killing the new ally of Heber. 4:22 

Look,BarakpursuingSisera.Jaelcameouttomeethim.Shesaidto him:“GoandIwillshowyouthemanwhomyouareseeking”.Hecame toherand,look:Sisera,fallen,dead,thepeginhistemple.

Jael addresses Barak in the same way as she addressed Sisera, as described in v. 18. She “comes out to meet him” and invites him in. Instead of using the verb ‫ סור‬in v. 18, where it was chosen because of the pun on the name of Sisera, Jael repeats the command of Deborah to Barak in v. 6: “go”. She shows him Sisera, who is described again threefold: “fallen, dead, with a peg in his temple”. The way the death of Sisera is discovered is reminiscent of a similar situation after the assassination of Eglon according to 3:25, also with the repeated ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬, “look”, and with the conclusion: “(he is) dead”. The wordplay with the name of Barak is underlined by the fact that the verse begins with ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה ָב ָרק‬and is concluded with a phrase beginning ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬and ending with ‫בּ ַר ָקּתוֹ‬. ְ 4:23–24 23 24

GodhumbledonthatdayJabin,thekingoftheCanaanites,before thechildrenofIsrael. ThehandofthechildrenofIsraelwentandwenthardagainstJabin, thekingoftheCanaanites,untiltheyhadcutoffJabin,thekingof theCanaanites.

After the puns on the names of Sisera and Barak the chapter ends with a pun on the name of Canaanites being humbled (‫ כנע‬hiphil). These final verses of the chapter mention again Jabin and the Israelites, just as they were presented at the beginning. They were not mentioned in between, which makes the difference of the situation all the more clear. The roles have been reversed. Instead of the Canaanites oppressing the Israelites, the Israelites are now a burden for the Canaanites. The verb ‫כרת‬, “to cut off”, suggests that the victory as recounted in Josh. 11 is repeated. The outcome also resembles the description of the victory in the war against Moab in 3:29–30 (cf. Assis

Deborah,BarakandJael

161

2006, 117). After the conclusion that “no one was left” (v. 16), reminding of 3:29 (“No man escaped”), also the verb ‫כנע‬, “to humble”, is used again (together with ‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא‬as the indication of time) to describe the situation of the enemy: “God humbled on that day Jabin, the king of the Canaanites, before the children of Israel”, just as “Moab was humbled on that day under the hand of Israel” (3:30). This final parallel with the story of Ehud points to a more prominent role of God in the liberation of his people, because he is explicitly mentioned as the one who acted on behalf of the Israelites. 5:1

DeborahandBarak,thesonofAbinoam,sangonthatday:

The first word ‫וַ ָתּ ַשׁר‬, “she sang”, is a feminine singular verb. Also LXX (A) translates singular: καὶ ᾖσεν Δεββωρα καὶ Βαρακ, but then again LXX (B) plural: καὶ ᾖσαν Δεββωρα καὶ Βαρακ. The singular form in the Hebrew does not have to be interpreted as a suggestion that Deborah is the only singer. Hebrew permits a verb to agree with the gender and number of the first subject, even when other subjects follow (Sasson 2014, 283; cf. GK § 146g). Nevertheless, the way the song is introduced clearly gives Deborah the first place. This is underlined by the use of the first person denoting Deborah in v. 7. The first person singular is also used in vv. 3, 9, 13, and 21, but there it could also be interpreted more generally as any singer of the song. This can be compared to the epic “I” voice in Homer’s Iliad (for instance, in Iliad 4.484–495; cf. Smith 2014, 260). Just as in the story as a whole, Barak plays the second violin. In the in-many-ways-related song of Moses the gender perspective is the other way around: first comes Moses and afterwards Miriam joins in (Exod. 15:20–21). ‫בּיּוֹם ַההוּא‬, ַ “on that day”, repeats the indication of time in 4:23, connecting the song to the previous narrative and placing the song right after the discovery of Sisera’s dead body. In the translation and the comments below, the texts of the song is divided into strophes according to the analysis by Fokkelman (1995). 5:2–3 2  3  

Withletting(their)hairhanglooseinIsrael,  withapeoplevolunteering,blessYHWH. Hear,kings;listen,rulers.  I,toYHWHIwillsing.   IwillmakemusicforYHWH,thegodofIsrael.

The meaning of ‫ פרע‬in ‫( ִבּ ְפר ַֹע ְפּ ָרעוֹת‬v. 2a) is uncertain (cf. the discussion in BHQ, 54*). LXX (A) translates ἐν τῷ ἄρξασθαι ἀρχηγοὺς, “when chiefs

162

Judges4:1–5:31

take the lead”, LXX (B): ἀπεκαλύφθη ἀποκάλυμμα, “an unveiling was unveiled”. Modern translations usually choose for “when leaders lead” (NKJ) or “when locks are long” (NRS). The association with hair is found in Lev. 10:6; 13:45; 21:10; Num. 5:18; the association with leadership is based on an Arabic cognate with the meaning “to excel”, which makes the first option more attractive. Within the present context a reference to leadership would fit to the parallel line and also to “the one who decree” in v. 9, with almost the same parallel line. But also a reference to hair hanging loose makes sense. It can be regarded as a reference to a situation of war, as in Deut. 32:42, singing of the blood of the slain, “the head of long-haired enemy” (‫)רֹאשׁ ַפּ ְרעוֹת אוֹיֵב‬. One can think here also of the repeated phrase in Homer’s Iliad about the “long haired” Greek warriors, for instance, at the moment when they are called up for battle: “[Zeus] commands you to arm your long-haired Achaeans, to attack at once, full force-now you can take the broad streets of Troy!” (Iliad 2.28–30). There are also parallels of a special treatment of hair in the context of war in Ugaritic and Mesopotamian texts (cf. Smith 2014, 224; the fact that it is also possible to associate it with Greek texts indicates that they can hardly be used as argument for dating the song, as suggested by Smith). The basic theme of the song is addressed here: who is willing to volunteer (‫ )נדב‬in this situation of war? It is repeated in v. 9 and it will be elaborated in the middle part of the song, indicating which of the tribes shows to be willing. A clear parallel is found in Ps. 110, singing about YHWH crushing the enemy, with the people willing to follow (‫ע ְמָּך נְ ָדבֹת‬, ַ v. 3). In both the first and the second strophe (vv. 4–5) YHWH is mentioned three times, which is typical of the style of the author of the book. It forms an inclusio with the reference to YHWH in the final verse and emphasizes the returning message that YHWH is fully in charge. In the first strophe this is indicated by mentioning YHWH alongside the human authorities, the kings and rulers. The same compilation can be found in Ps. 2:2 where the kings and rulers are described as opponents of YHWH and his anointed. In the present song, the kings (also mentioned in v. 19) and rulers are probably addressed in the same way as the enemy that can expect to be crushed (v. 31, using the same verb ‫ אבד‬as in Ps. 2:12). Between the earthly and heavenly rulers the poet presents herself emphatically by repeating the personal pronoun ‫ אנכי‬in a sequence relating her in both cases to YHWH. In Hebrew the words alliterate clearly in v. 3b with five out of eight words beginning with the letter aleph. It is probably no coincidence that something similar can be observed in the previous line (v. 2) with four out of seven words beginning with the letter beth (cf. Jongeling 2008, 5, who notes many other cases of alliteration and repetition in the song, and Knauf 2012, 251–253, for a statistical analysis).

Deborah,BarakandJael

163

5:4–5 4    5 

YHWH,inyourgoingoutfromSeir,  inyoursteppingoutfromthefieldofEdom theearthquaked,alsotheheavensdripped,  alsothecloudsdrippedwater. MountainsshookbeforeYHWH,  theonefromSinai,beforeYHWH,thegodofIsrael.

This strophe is built up chiastically with a reference to YHWH at the beginning paralleled by a double reference at the end. The final words are almost identical to those of the first strophe. Seir at the beginning and Sinai at the end can be regarded as a parallel pair. They are mentioned together in Deut. 33:2 in a similar setting as the place from where YHWH came to Israel. Another similarity is that this is part of the introduction to a passage describing the tribes of Israel. In Deut. 33:6 Reuben is mentioned first; in the song of Deborah the same tribe gets extra attention by its place in the center of the poem and by the length of the passage devoted to him. Another parallel to this strophe is found in Ps. 68:8–9: O God, when you went out before your people, when you marched through the wilderness, the earth quaked, also the heavens dripped before God, the one from Sinai, before God, the god of Israel.

It is often assumed that Ps. 68 is dependent upon Judg. 5, in line with the broadly held assumption that the song of Deborah is very old. It also possible, however, that it is the other way around: that like in the previous strophe the poet took up elements from existing Psalms and that in this case he combined it with allusions from Deut. 33 and later also with Gen. 49. The basic idea is that the deliverance from the Canaanite army led by Sisera is compared to being brought out of Egypt to the Promised Land by a god who presents himself in traditional images used in the description of the theophany as powerful in heaven and earth. A comparison with Ps. 68 is all the more interesting when one also involves Ps. 68:13–14: The kings of the armies, they flee, they flee!” She who dwells in the house divides the spoil. Although, you stayed among the sheepfolds. The wings of a dove covered with silver, its pinions with green gold.

This is reminiscent of the scene at the end of Judg. 5 describing the women at home talking about the dividing of the spoil. The reference to those “who stayed among the sheepfolds” has a parallel in the description of the tribes not

164

Judges4:1–5:31

participating in the battle. The combination of these parallels indicates that the poet responsible for the song of Deborah in its present form drew inspiration from Ps. 68 (cf. Wright 2011b, 530). He expanded the description of the theophany with the verse line about “the one from Sinai” by supplementing it with the parallel to Seir and its fixed parallel Edom (cf. Gen. 32:4; Num. 24:18; Ezek. 35:15) and he elaborated on the description of the dividing of the spoil. The pointing ‫ נָ זְ לוּ‬relates this word to the verb ‫נזל‬, “flow down”. It is often suggested to read ‫ נׇ זֹלּוּ‬from ‫זלל‬, “shake” (BHQ, 55*). According to Fokkelman (1995, 602) the MT is “a quasi-qal perfect form”, created by the poet because he “decided to explore the qalconjugation systematically in this strophe”. Be this as it may, the translation “shook” is most likely in this context. 5:6–8 6    7   8   

InthedaysofShamgar,thesonofAnat,  inthedaysofJaelthepathsstopped. Whowentonroads?  wentontwistingpaths? VillagersstoppedinIsrael,theystopped,  untilIarose,Deborah;   Iarose,motherinIsrael. Didonechoosenewgods,  thentherewasbattleinthegates. Ifonlyashieldwasseen  andalanceamongfortythousandinIsrael.

The difficult situation of Israel is described as a period in which everything “stopped”, three times (as so often in the book of Judges) using the verb ‫חדל‬. The same verb returns in the fable of Jotham when trees are refusing to stop producing their fruit (9:9, 11, 13). A number of words cause problems for the translators. In v. 6a the word ‫ אֳ ָרחוֹת‬, “paths”, is emended by some scholars into ‫א ְֹרחֹת‬, “caravans”. This would result in a clearer text, but it is also possible to make sense of the MT (cf. Groß 2009, 298). The second part of the verse can be interpreted as its explanation. ‫ ְפ ָרזוֹן‬in v. 7 is a hapax legomenon with a disputed meaning. In later Hebrew the word indicates people from the countryside. This also fits the context here. We also have to assume that in v. 8 the poet used the word ‫ לחם‬in the uncommon meaning of “war” instead of the normal ‫מלחמה‬. Although the wording may cause problems, the overall picture is clear. The stopping of the roads and the people travelling on them point to a standstill of the economy. It can be compared to the situation as described in the next chapter, caused by foreign oppression. Such enemies are not mentioned here and there is no explicit reference to YHWH punishing his people. There

Deborah,BarakandJael

165

is a hint, however, in v. 8 speaking of “choosing new gods” as an indication of idolatry (opposed to the well-considered choice for YHWH according to Josh. 24:15, 24 using the same verb ‫)בחר‬. The following remark about “battle in the gates” can be interpreted as a reference to the usual measure by YHWH sending people from outside to teach Israel a lesson. The last lines of v. 8 then describe Israel’s inability or slackness to respond. So in a poetic way, using uncommon words and evocative images, the returning situation of the conflict between Israel and YHWH is described. Whereas the emphasis was on YHWH in the previous strophe, it is now on Israel, which is mentioned three times. Without YHWH Israel is in big trouble. The introduction of Shamgar and Jael is surprising but also meaningful. What they have in common is that they are non-Israelites and that they came to aid Israel by killing the enemy with uncommon weapons. Shamgar used an ox-goad to kill six hundred Philistines (3:31), Jael used a tent peg tent to kill Sisera. Within the present strophe they form the contrast to the numerous but indolent Israelites mentioned in v. 8b. It will take someone like Deborah, mentioned in the middle of the strophe, to make a change among the Israelites. In contrast to the repeated “they stopped” we read twice ‫קּ ְמ ִתּי‬,ַ “I arose”. The Hebrew verb is the common form of the first person singular perfect. The sudden transition from the third person is remarkable. LXX translates third person and some scholars suggest assuming a second person with an archaic ending (cf. BHQ). There is no compelling reason, however, to smooth down the text. The sudden change was probably intentional, emphasizing the intervention by Deborah. It also fits as introduction to the next strophe describing her positive reaction to the Israelites who do take action. The fact that Deborah is called a mother here comes as a surprise. Why, is she not referred to as judge or prophetess as before? It can be compared to the prophets Elijah and Elisha being called father (2 Kgs 2:12; 13:14). Within the present song it makes Deborah the counterpart of Sisera’s mother. Whereas Deborah takes the initiative, Sisera’s mother has to wait in helpless anxiety for the outcome of the battle. 5:9–11 9  10   11   

MyhearttothoseofIsraelwhodecree,  whovolunteeramongthepeople.BlessYHWH. Ridersoftawnyshe-asses,  thosewhositoncloths,   thosewhowalkontheway,sing! Becauseofthesoundofthosewhodistribute(water)betweenthedrinking pipes,  theretheyrecounttherighteousactsofYHWH, therighteousactsofhisvillagersinIsrael.  ThenthepeopleofYHWHgodowntothegates.

166

Judges4:1–5:31

This strophe takes up the first one by repeating v. 2b with a little variation in v. 9b. Just as in v. 2 and in contrast to the previous strophe, Israel is now mentioned again next to YHWH. It is underlined by inclusion, because the last line (v. 11b) speaks of Israel as the people of YHWH. Together with YHWH and inspired by the stories of his “righteous acts” there are also those who dare to take action. They are described in the style characteristic of this song; that is, poetically with uncommon words and images. The given translation follows the MT. Sometimes the ancient translations leave room for the suggestion that it was based on a different Hebrew text, but it is more likely that they testify of the wrestling with the uncommon Hebrew words and sometimes even left out part of the text. Note, for instance, the much shorter v. 10 in LXX (A): “Mounted upon draft animals, sitting on covered chariots”. LXX (B) stays much closer to the MT: “Mounted upon a female donkey at midday, sitting on tribunal and going towards the ways of councils, on the way”. The mysterious “riders of tawny she-asses” can be associated with the description of the judges Jair and Abdon and their sons and grandsons riding on donkeys (10:4; 12:14). ‫ל־מ ִדּין‬ ִ ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ַע‬, “those who sit on cloths”, is interpreted as further description of the riders. The uncommon word ‫ ִמ ִדּין‬is related to the word ‫ ַמד‬used in 3:16 to describe the garment under which Ehud hid his sword. The fact that people are riding and walking again shows that the stopping of v. 6–7 is over now. They are now also commanded to sing. The syntax of the Hebrew at the end of this verse and the beginning of the second is not clear. Many proposals have been made to make it more understandable and acceptable, but it is possible to keep to the MT (cf. Sasson 2014, 293) and assume that the poet deliberately put emphasis on the final word of v. 10, precisely at the middle of the strophe. The sound of the distributing of water and the sight of people going through the gates (v. 11) are indications of economic activity and can be interpreted like the movement mentioned in v. 10 as contrast to the “stopping” in vv. 6–7. This is related to the fact that “the righteous acts of YHWH” now go together with “the righteous acts of the villagers in Israel”. This is precisely what was missing before: living without YHWH brought life in Israel to a standstill. 5:12–13 12    13 

Comeon,comeon,Deborah,  comeon,comeon,speakasong. Arise,Barak,  andcaptureyourcaptives,sonofAbinoam. Thentheremnantgoesdowntothepowerful,  thepeopleofYHWHgodownformeamongthemighty.

Deborah,BarakandJael

167

This strophe clearly describes the division of roles in the story: Deborah is the spokeswoman, Barak the man who takes action and YHWH is the one who is really in charge. The repeated ‫עוּרי‬ ִ ‫עוּרי‬, ִ “come on, come on”, is reminiscent of the repeated “until I arose, Deborah; I arose, mother in Israel” in v. 7. It has a clear parallel with Isa. 51:9, which repeats the same imperative ‫עוּרי‬ ִ as addressed to the “arm of YHWH”. Deborah can be seen as YHWH’s tool as well (cf. Levin 2013, 137). Also the actions of Barak are formulated by repetition: ‫שׁ ֵבה ֶשׁ ְביְ ָך‬, ֲ “capture your captives”. It shows confidence in the outcome of the battle by assuming that enemies will be taken captive. In between we find wordplay with the name Deborah: ‫י־שׁיר‬ ִ ‫דּ ְבּ ִר‬,ַ “speak a song” (Garsiel 1991, 43–44). The pun is clearly intended because the common expression is with the verb ‫ שׁיר‬as in Exod. 15:1. The change from the first person in vv. 7 and 9 to the third person in v. 12 is remarkable, but not unique in ancient Near Eastern poetry (cf. De Moor 1993, 485). Within the present context it relates this intermezzo to the superscription in v. 1, where Deborah and Barak were also mentioned together as the singers of this song. The first words of v. 13 partly repeat the last line of v. 11, also introduced by ‫אז‬, “then”, and also referring to “the people” and to “YHWH”. Also the verbs seem related: ‫( יָ ְרדוּ‬v. 11) and ‫( יְ ַרד‬2× in v. 13). Unfortunately, in both cases the text is not clear. As so often in this chapter the Greek translations show that we are not the first to wrestle with this text (cf. Tov 1978, 230– 232; LaMontagne 2016, 54). LXX (A) translates: “When was his strength increased? Lord, humble for me those who are stronger than me”. LXX (B) stays more close to the MT: “Then a remnant went down for the strong ones; the people of the Lord went down for him among the powerful”. Many scholars assume that the text is corrupt and needs to be emended to make sense (cf. the survey by Lindars 1995, 250–251). A very interesting, but inevitably hypothetical suggestion was made by De Moor (1993, 486–487). He proposes to read in v. 13: ᾿zyrd(w)śr(y)y(w)d(h)l᾿dyrym//῾myhwhyrd lw(y)bgbwrym and translates “Then the princes of Yôdah descended to the dignitaries, // with YHWH descended Levi with heroes”. This would bring the number of tribes mentioned in this song to the usual twelve instead of the ten tribes mentioned in the MT. Most attempts to make sense of the MT are hardly more convincing, as is illustrated by Sasson (2014, 295). In order to stay with the vocalization and punctuation of the MT he has to take the phrase ‫ ַא ִדּ ִירים ָעם‬as a superlative: “the mightiest people”, assuming that the poet felt free not only to use uncommon words but also uncommon syntax. The verb as it is vocalized in the MT is the imperfectum piel of ‫רדה‬, “to rule”. It is interesting that this verb is also used in the related Ps. 68. In v. 28 it is used of Benjamin being

168

Judges4:1–5:31

called “their ruler” next to the leaders of Judah, Zebulon and Naphtali. Sasson translates: “Then a survivor triumphs over the mightiest people. The Lord triumphs for me, over the warriors” (2014, 278). Within the present context it seems plausible to read v. 13 in line with v. 11b and assume with a number of scholars (cf. BHQ, 59*) that ‫ יְ ַרד‬in v. 13 also derives from ‫ירד‬, “to go down” (perhaps with assuming a different vocalization; cf. Groß 2009, 299). The same verb returns in the next verse. Also the words ‫ עם‬and ‫ יהוה‬are found in both v. 11 and v. 13. If one deviates from the MT and moves the atnach one word backwards, one would also have the reference to “the people of YHWH” in v. 13. Read in this way the text makes sense as an introduction to the following enumeration of tribes participating in the group of people who want to go with YHWH against the mighty enemy. As is indicated by speaking of the “remnant” not all tribes will go. The original text could have been changed on theological grounds, giving a more prominent place to YHWH. The ancient discussion about the right interpretation left its traces in the different translations of the LXX and especially in the Targum, which paraphrases: “Then one of the armies of Israel descended and shattered the strength of the champions of the nations. Lo! This occurred not by [their] might, but the Lord, before his people, shattered the power of the champions of their haters” (cf. Smelik 1995, 451–453). 5:14–15a 14    15  

FromEphraim,theirrootinAmalek,  –behindyou,Benjamin,withyourkinsmen!– fromMachirthosewhodecreegodown  andfromZebulonthosewhocarrythewriter’sstaff. CommandersinIssacharwithDeborah  andIssacharlikeBarak   sentoutinthevalley,inhisfootsteps.

After the hopeful introduction describing the change that will come through the intervention of Deborah and the Israelites becoming active again, we now hear of those who actually participate. In the narrative in chapter 4 only Zebulon and Naphtali were mentioned. Now at least eight more tribes pass in review. The start with Ephraim does not come as a surprise, because according to 4:5 Deborah lived in the territory of that tribe. The Ephraimites will also play a prominent part in the rest of the book. They feel excluded by both Gideon and Jephthah (8:1; 12:1), which leads to conflicts with these leaders. “Their root in Amalek” sounds very negative, because of the fact that the Amalekites act as enemy in 3:13; 6:3; and 7:12. It is remarkable that also Hos. 9:16 speaks of the root of Ephraim, in a negative context: “Ephraim

Deborah,BarakandJael

169

is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit”. We also have to take into account the geographic reference in 12:15 speaking of “the land of Ephraim on the mountain of the Amalekite”. If one does not give in to the temptation to emend the text (pace Lindars, 1995, 252: “emendation is inevitable”) or just skip it (cf. Knauf 1983), one might find the clue in the context assuming that “their root” syntactically is on the same level as “those who decree” and “those who carry the writer’s staff” as subject of the verb “they go down” (cf. Barthélemy 1982, 85–86): from Ephraim the people of whom the root is in Amalek went down to battle together with the members of the other tribes. We have to assume some ambiguity here: despite the fact that Ephraim is associated with Israel’s arch-enemy, they join the fight. This negative association can also be related to the negative role played by Ephraim as opponent of Gideon (8:1–3) and Jephthah (12:1–6). The next line about Benjamin also has a parallel in the book of Hosea, where Benjamin is mentioned next to Ephraim as well: “Behind you, Benjamin! Ephraim shall be desolate in the day of rebuke” (Hos. 5:8–9). In Hos. 5 “behind you!” is a battle cry. In the context of Judg. 5:14 it could have the same meaning. This line then has the same function as v. 12, calling up Deborah and Barak. Benjamin would have been warned here because of Amalek as foreshadowing the conflict between the Benjaminite king Saul and the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15). This association is also found in the way this verse is paraphrased in the Targum: “Out of the House of Ephraim arose Joshua, son of Nun. He was the first to wage war with those of the House of Amalek. After him arose king Saul out of the House of Benjamin, killing those of the House of Amalek. And he [also] waged war with the rest of the nations” (cf. Smelik 1995, 453–456). The choice for the added phrase ‫בּ ֲע ָמ ֶמיָך‬, ַ “with your kinsmen”, may have been influenced by the author’s inclination to rhyming, because it not only has the same ending as ‫א ֲח ֶריָך‬, ַ “behind you”, but also the same beginning as ‫בּ ֲע ָמ ֵלק‬. ַ Machir represents the tribe of Manasseh. In Gen. 50:23 Machir is mentioned as the son of Manasseh, next to Ephraim. The tribe of Machir had settled in Gilead (Num. 32:39–40). So in the first three lines of this strophe the offspring of Jacob and Rachel is represented: Joseph (in his son Manasseh and his grandson Machir) and Benjamin. “Those who decree” repeats the verb used in v. 9. Together with the parallel “those who carry the writer’s staff” it can be interpreted as a reference to leadership. After the offspring of Rachel follow with Zebulon, Issachar and Reuben children of Jacob and Leah. Their sons Simeon, Levi and Judah are not mentioned. The meaning of v. 15, relating Issachar to both Deborah and Barak, remains unclear. ‫ ָשׂ ַרי‬is not translated literally here as “my rulers”, but as a plural in statusconstructus (cf. GK §87g). It seems to be a pun on the name of Issachar. We have to assume that what is said here of Issachar’s

170

Judges4:1–5:31

commanders applies to the leaders of the other four tribes as well: they go with Deborah, following in Barak’s footsteps, as previously described of the men of Zebulon and Naphtali in 4:10. 5:15b–16   16   

InthedivisionsofReuben  (were)greatresolvesoftheheart. Whydidyousitbetweenthesheepfolds  tolistentowhistlingforflocks? TothedivisionsofReuben  (were)greatsearchingsoftheheart.

Of all tribes the one of Reuben gets most text in this song. This fits well to what is said about this tribe: because of the many deliberations it fails to become active. The beginning and the end of this strophe are almost the same. There is a small variation at the beginning, the preposition ‫ ְל‬instead of ‫ב‬, ְ and also one at the end: ‫י־לב‬ ֵ ‫ ִח ְק ֵר‬instead of ‫י־לב‬ ֵ ‫ח ְק ֵק‬. ִ The transition from ‫חקק‬, “resolve, prescription” to ‫חקר‬, “(object of) searching” points to Reuben becoming more and more uncertain. The description of Reuben staying “seated between the two saddle-bags” seems to be inspired by the words spoken to Issachar by Jacob according to Gen. 49:14, albeit that Reuben is spared here the comparison with a donkey. The members of the tribe are now pictured as inactive sheep. 5:17–18 17    18 

Gilead,itdwellsacrosstheJordan  andDan,whydoesitstayasforeigneronships? Ashersitsbytheshoreofthesea,  byhislandingplaceshedwells. Zebulon(is)apeopleriskingitslifetodeath  andNaphtali(is)ontheheightsofthefield.

Like Reuben the tribes of Gilead, Dan and Asher are blamed for staying at home and not joining the battle. They are opposed to Zebulon and Naphtali. So the enumeration of the tribes ends with the two tribes which were mentioned as the only tribes fighting against the Canaanite army according to the narrative in chapter 4. This may explain why Zebulon is mentioned for the second time in the song (after v. 14): within the present context the references to the tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali form an inclusion. The reference to Gilead is surprising, because this is not a tribe, but a region east of the river Jordan. Within the book of Judges this name returns

Deborah,BarakandJael

171

in the story of Jephthah, both as the name of his father (11:1) and of the region (11:29). Gilead is also known as a son of Machir (Num. 26:29). In Jacob’s blessing according to Gen. 49, a text which shows many similarities to this part of the song, there is a sequence of Zebulon, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher and Naphtali (Gen. 49:13–21; cf. also Deut. 33:18–25). Compared to this list one would expect a reference to Gad instead of Gilead, as is found in the Peshitta and some Greek manuscripts. From 1 Sam. 13:7, speaking of “the land of Gad and Gilead”, we can deduce that the names of Gad and Gilead were interchangeable. The association of Dan with ships is also surprising (cf. the survey of the many interpretations by Bartusch 2003, 125–136), because neither geographically nor economically does there seem to be a connection between this tribe and shipping, unlike Asher which is correctly described as “sitting by the seashore”. The reference to Dan “abiding with the ships” has a parallel in what one repeatedly reads in the Iliad about Achilles staying with his ships, refusing to join the Greeks in battle (for instance, 1.488-492). It is also interesting to note that in the Iliad the Greek warriors before Troy are called Danaans. In a number of texts they are mentioned together with their ships on which they came to Troy (cf. 1.89-90). There is a remarkable parallel with the way Zebulon is described in Gen. 49:13, because here we have the same problem of a tribe living far from the sea but nevertheless associated with ships. We already came across some kind of mixing-up-of the sayings, when we noted the correspondence between what is said about Issachar in Gen. 49:14 and Reuben in Judg. 5:16. Was the poet of the song of Deborah and Barak quoting parts of Gen. 49 from memory? Did he not have the right picture of the traditional location of the tribes? It would fit the theory that he was living many centuries after the period in which his stories took place and also the theory that he had not just quoted an ancient poem, but for a big part was responsible for the final text himself. 5:19    

Kingscome,wagebattle.  Thentheywagebattle,thekingsofCanaan. AtTaanachbythewatersofMegiddo.  Profitofsilvertheydonottake.

The description of the battle starts with a chiastic structure, emphasizing the role of the kings of Canaan, after the list of the tribes of Israel. In the narrative in chapter 4 only Jabin was mentioned as the one king of Canaan. Now Jabin is not mentioned at all and instead we here of a number of kings.

172

Judges4:1–5:31

This is more in line with the confrontation as described in Josh. 11, where Jabin is the leader of a coalition with many kings following him. There is also a correspondence with Josh. 11:5 speaking of “kings” who “come” to “wage battle”. Even the location of the battle at the waters of Merom looks the same. Apparently the author of this verse had the story of Josh. 11 in mind (cf. Levin 2003, 138). Taanach and Megiddo were already mentioned in 1:27 as places not taken by the tribe of Manasseh. The precise location of the battle indicated here remains unclear. Taanach lies 8 km south-east from Megiddo. With the “waters of Megiddo” the poet clearly has the river Kishon in mind, which runs few kilometres east of Megiddo and Taanach. According to some scholars we have to differentiate between two traditions about originally different battles, one near Megiddo and one in the area of Mount Tabor. The narrative in chapter 4 would have been related to the latter (cf. Finkelstein 2017c, 38). It is clear, however, that in the present context the author describes only one battle, at one place, because in 4:7 also the Kishon was mentioned as the place where the two armies would meet. The reported fact that they did not succeed in getting any plunder (“profit of silver”) is a poetic way of indicating that they lost the battle and prepares for the description of the Canaanite women anticipating rich spoils in v. 30. 5:20–22 20   21   22 

Fromtheheavenstheywagebattle,  thestarsfromtheirroads,   theywagebattleagainstSisera. Wadi-Kishonsweepsthemaway,  theancientwadi,wadi-Kishon.   Goforth,mysoul,withpower. Thenthehorse’shoovespound,  fromthegalloping,thegallopingofhismighty.

The previous verse reported about the Canaanites and the present strophe describes the heavenly forces. What is missing is a description of all those tribes mentioned before and their contribution to the battle. Instead, all attention goes to the extraordinary help given to the Israelites. What is missing also, is a direct reference to YHWH. It is clear that he is the initiator, but apparently the poet is reluctant in describing YHWH in action himself. In 4:15 it was told that YHWH confused Sisera and his army. The retelling of this event in 5:20–22 elaborates on the way this was done. As was remarked in

Deborah,BarakandJael

173

the comments on v. 19 above, this seems to have been done with Josh. 10 in mind. There we hear of YHWH fighting from heaven (Josh. 10:11) and of the miracle of sun and moon standing still (Josh. 10:12–13), here the stars get an active role fighting from heaven. Just as in v. 19 the verb ‫ לחם‬niphal is used twice in v. 20 to present the ones waging battle. The kings of Canaan, represented here by Sisera, are confronted with the stars coming down from heaven. Divine intervention in battles is a well-known theme in the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts (cf. Weinfeld 1983), just as the veneration of stars as divine beings. Fighting stars, however, are attested only here in the Hebrew Bible and there are no clear extra-biblical parallels (Groß 2009, 328). Block (1999, 237; taking up the suggestion by Weinfeld 1983, 125) sees a parallel with an Egyptian text from the 15th century BCE of Thutmose III about a star flashing against his opponents, but this is refuted by Sasson (2014, 501) as something that Thutmose says about himself. Sasson finds a better parallel in an Akkadian text about Sargon from the end of the 3rd millennium BCE about nature turning against him: “The sun dimmed, the stars sallied forth against the enemy” (2014, 304). A parallel closer to the probable time of the author of the book of Judges, may be found, again, in Homer’s Iliad, describing how gods join the battle coming from the stars of heaven with their horses, for instance, about Athena: She darted down from the summits of Olympus as though the crooked-minded Kronos had sent a shooting star as a sign to sailors or to a great army, and a fiery train of light follows in its wake. Down she flashed, to alight amid the troops. The Trojans and Achaeans were struck with awe as they beheld, and one would turn to his neighbour, saying: ‘Either we shall again have war and terrible combat, or Zeus the lord of battle will now make peace between us’ (Iliad 4, 74–84; also mentioned by Weinfeld 1983, 127).

Wadi-Kishon gets the role of the waters that wash away the enemy like the waters of the Reed Sea in Exod. 14–15. The exclamation following it, “Go forth, my soul, with power”, is another indication that the poet was inspired by Jacob’s blessing, because it can be compared to the unexpected intermezzo “I wait for your deliverance, YHWH” (Gen. 49:18). It is an aside, which fits to the previous text in the first person, in v. 7. Deborah is encouraged by the positive outcome of the battle. The chaos of the battle is described in v. 22 with the picture of unstoppable horses running around. The horses are no longer the symbol of Canaanite power. The scene is reminiscent of the description of the fall of Niniveh in Nah. 3:2, which refers also to ‫סוּס דּ ֵֹהר‬, “a horse galloping”, with the same word as the repeated ‫דּ ֲהרוֹת‬.ַ “His mighty” probably refers to the once mighty warriors of Sisera.

174

Judges4:1–5:31

5:23    

CurseMeroz,saysthemessengerofYHWH,  curse,yes,curseherinhabitants, becausetheydonotcometohelpYHWH,  tohelpYHWHamongthemighty.

The threefold cursing of Meroz contrasts with the twofold blessing of Jael in the next verse. The threefold curse is accompanied in this strophe with a threefold reference to YHWH. It points to a significant opposition, announced by the messenger of YHWH. The messenger of YHWH was mentioned before in 2:1 and 4. Whereas the call for blessing seems to come from Deborah in 5:2 and 9, the cursing is done by the messenger of YHWH. It is in line with his judgment over Israel in 2:3. Theologically, it is remarkable that human beings can be called to come and help YHWH. It is usually the other way around. Again, it should be read against the background of what was said at the beginning of chapter 2, where the messenger points out that the covenant with YHWH also implies activity from Israel as YHWH’s partner. Apparently Meroz did the opposite of Jael. Whereas Jael killed the fleeing Sisera, Meroz must have stayed inactive in pursuing the fleeing Canaanites. The inhabitants of Meroz would have acted then like the people of Sukkot and Penuel who refused to help Gideon in his pursuit of the Midianites (8:4– 17). Because of the reference to inhabitants we have to assume that Meroz is a city. The name occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. Various unsuccessful attempts have been made to offer a plausible location (cf. Neef 1995; Gaß 2005, 258–262; Knauf 2012), although nowadays most scholars agree that we are dealing with some unknown Israelite town. It could be a nickname, because it can be related to ‫רזִ י‬,ָ “vanishing”, which is used in Isa. 24:16 of someone who committed treason and declares that as a punishment he now is finished (cf. Gaster 1969, 419, 530). Meroz could refer then to any Israelite who did not act like the foreign woman Jael. If this is true, we can read this as a way the author involves the reader. It raises questions: who is this Meroz? How would I have responded to the call? 5:24-25 24   25 

MaybeblessedabovethewomenJael,  thewifeofHebertheKenite,   abovethewomeninthetentmayshebeblessed. Waterheasks,milkshegives.  Inabowlofthepowerfulshebringsnearcream.

Deborah,BarakandJael

175

Jael is introduced in the same way as the Canaanite kings in v. 19: in beautifully arranged chiastic lines. They begin and end with the call to bless her above the women. After the curse of Meroz it is clear that she is the one who does help YHWH. The relation between YHWH and Jael in this song is also underlined by the fact that it said both of YHWH and Jael that they are blessed (vv. 2, 9, 24). She is presented as the wife of a Kenite, emphasizing that she is non-Israelite. The fact that she is also reckoned as one of the “women in the tent” makes her also different from the people who had already settled in the land. From 4:11 we learned that her husband Heber had not joined the Kenites who went with Judah to the desert of Judah (1:16). He had kept to the old custom of living in tents. It could have reminded the Israelites of the good days of old under Moses, who is also mentioned in 4:11. In the present context v. 25 only makes sense when the reader is familiar with the story as narrated in 4:15–17 about Sisera reaching Jael’s tent on his flight from the battle field. Whereas parts of the story are not repeated – Sisera also does not speak a word – some other elements are added. The first is that the milk is offered to Sisera in “a bowl of the powerful”. It is reminiscent of the way the enemy was referred to in v. 13 and enhances the contrast with what follows. At this moment she seems to pay him due respect and to act according to the law of hospitality. She serves him better all the time, from water it goes to milk and from milk to ‫חמ ָאה‬, ְ “cream”, to a product of milk (Prov. 30:33), something that is symbolic for prosperity (cf. Isa. 7:22). 5:26–27 26     27    

Herhandshestretchesouttothepeg,  herrighthandtothehammeroftheworkmen. ShebeatsSisera,  smasheshishead,   sheshattersandpierceshistemple. Betweenherfeethecollapses,  falls,islaying, betweenherfeethecollapses,  falls,wherehecollapses   therehefalls,destroyed.

The killing of Sisera gets extra attention in the song. Very detailed the poet describes Jael’s hands going to the peg and the hammer and then finding the right spot in the head to pierce him. A growing number of verbs is used, slowing down the action. In the first two lines only one verb is used. ‫תּ ְשׁ ַל ְחנָ ה‬, ִ “she stretches out”, is an unusual form, which can be interpreted as an

176

Judges4:1–5:31

energicus (cf. Groß 2009, 301). It attracts the attention of the reader and emphasizes the sudden turn of events. After this, another four verbs follow shortly after, describing the violent act against Sisera. The object of the violence is narrowed down from Sisera, via his head, to his temple. See on the translation of ‫ ַר ָקּה‬the remarks on 4:21. As was expounded there, this word may have been chosen because of the pun on the name of Barak. This is not present here, which can be seen as another indication (next to the failing introduction to this scene) that the poem is dependent on the narrative. According to Schneider vv. 25–27 do not describe Sisera’s death as in 4:21, but his humiliation by being stigmatized like prisoners according to Assyrian practices. He translates: “She struck Sisera, mutilating his head, as she hit and went (with the peg) through his cheek” (2018, 567). The philological evidence, however, based on new interpretations of the uncommon Hebrew words, is limited. Moreover, he not only has to assume an important difference in this regards between the prose and poetic version of the story, also the continuation in v. 27 suggests that Jael’s action was lethal. The remarkable use of verbs is continued in v. 27, with the threefold mentioning of Sisera collapsing and falling, with as conclusion that he is destroyed (see on the asyndetic construction of the verbs JM § 177a). This emphasis on Sisera falling down (cf. Vermeulen 2017, 809–811) gives the impression that Sisera was standing when he was struck by Jael. This differs from the picture drawn in 4:21 that Sisera was lying asleep. It is often assumed, especially in recent commentaries, that Sisera’s collapsing “between her feet” indicates something of a sexual act. If one wants to make a comparison, it makes more sense, however, to relate it to a woman giving birth. This is more in line with Jael’s caring for Sisera like a mother and with the next scene introducing Sisera’s mother. The reason behind the difference with 4:21 may be that the poet wished to picture a more dramatic demise of Sisera, not only in Jael’s action but also in Sisera’s death. 5:28    

Throughthewindowshelooksdownandlaments,  themotherofSisera,throughthelattice. “Whyishischariotdelayedtocome,  whydothebeatsofhischariotsholdback?”

The poem adds a scene picturing Sisera’s mother waiting in vain for her son. This fits to the dramatization of the events as they were described in the previous verses: an “extremely effective contrast” (Gerleman 1951, 173). It also fits to the story in chapters 4–5 as a story dominated by women. It is a scene

Deborah,BarakandJael

177

about women talking about a man taking women as spoil, not realizing that this man’s life was taken by a woman. It is a fitting final act of a story in which a woman predicted to a man that he had to leave the honour of the victory to a woman. The picture of a woman looking through the window has a parallel in Jezebel looking through the window at Jehu approaching (2 Kgs 9:30). It indicates that she was living in a big building, appropriate for rulers (cf. Jer. 22:14). An ivory plate found in Samaria, dating from the period of the kings of Israel, represents this picture of wealth very well. Apparently, she senses that something is wrong with her son, because she is lamenting. The verb ‫ יבב‬used here is, again, a hapaxlegomenon. In later Hebrew it has the meaning “to sound like the shophar”. Sasson (2014, 309) guesses that she is “fretting”, assuming that she not worried, but angry because of the delay. 5:29–30 29  30    

Thewiseofherladiesanswerher,  alsosheherselfreturnsherwordstoher: “Aretheynotfinding,dividingbooty,  alaportwolapsforeachman, bootyofdyedclothsforSisera,  bootyofembroidereddyedcloths,   embroidereddyedclothfornecksofbooty?”

The comfort Sisera’s mother receives from the court ladies says much about their “wisdom”, shared by the mother herself: soldiers take their time for dividing the booty. The men will take women for themselves. The women ַ “a lap, two laps”, which is slang for vaginas. are indicated with ‫רחם ַר ֲח ָמ ַתיִם‬, The women of the beaten enemy are reduced to no more than sex objects. According to Hendel & Joosten 2018, 102, “this scene represents a Canaanite dialect”, because of the uncommon use of dual forms, which is in their opinion more at home in earlier North-west Semitic, However, the parallel, also noted by Hendel & Joosten, in 15:16, with Samson also using a dual in his wordplay ‫ ֲחמוֹר ֲחמ ָֹר ָתיִם‬, makes it more likely that the women are imitating soldierly bragging. To this Sisera’s mother and her ladies add the threefold reference to booty in the form of costly fabric. It is clear that this is what they are hoping for to receive for themselves. It is interesting to note that the Greek translators have no problem in taking over the description of the greed of the women, but give a more positive picture of Sisera. LXX (A): “Will they not find him dividing the spoil,

178

Judges4:1–5:31

showing friendship to friends towards a mighty man’s head?” LXX (B): “Will they not find him dividing the spoil? Being compassionate he will show compassion towards a man’s head”. The translators interpreted ‫רחם‬ as the verb “to have compassion”. The Syriac translator mixed the consonants to ‫ חמור‬and translated “mule”. This final scene has an interesting parallel in the play “The Persians” by Aeschylus (5th century BCE), where Atossa, the mother of Xerxes, is waiting anxiously for her son, but is also hoping for rich spoils when the Persian army returns from the war against the Greek. She recounts a dream about her son being pulled from his chariot by an aggressive woman (ll. 180–200): Two women appeared in my dream. Both dressed in gorgeous clothes, one in Persian, the other, in Greek. Their splendid beauty and stature was like none we see among us these days. In the dream, both were from the same race but Fate allotted Greece to be the fatherland of one of them and for the other, she was given the land of barbarians. And it appeared to me that these two women were fighting with each other about something, when, suddenly, my son appears and tries to bring peace between them. Finally, in his attempt to do so, he places their heads through the yoke of his chariot, the one next to the other, with the yoke straps over their necks. The first seemed to enjoy this and held the straps in her mouth obediently. The other woman, though, struggled hard with the straps and tore them to shreds and then destroyed the yoke itself with her own hands. My son, Xerxes fell off the chariot. Darius, his father was standing next to him giving him courage and feeling sorry for him. But then Xerxes turns towards Darius and, at the sight of his father, tears his own clothes in a frenzy. (Translation by G. Theodoridis)

As was noted in the remarks on the comparison between vv. 4–5 and Ps. 68:8–9 there is also a remarkable parallel between this scene about women talking about the division of the booty and Ps. 68:13 combining a reference to kings fleeing and a woman with the spoil. It is not farfetched to note a returning pattern here: the poet of the song of Deborah seems to have elaborated on a story as narrated in chapter 4. In dramatizing this story he added a number of elements which were taken from or inspired by texts from the Hebrew Bible, especially Ps. 68, and Greek literature. 5:31   

Soperishallyourenemies,YHWH.  Andthosewholovehim(are)likethegoingoutofthesuninhismight. Thelandhadrestforfortyyears.

The conclusion speaks of YHWH in the second and in the third person, just as was done in the beginning (cf. vv. 4–5). The might (‫בוּרה‬ ָ ִ‫ )גּ‬of the sun is reminiscent of the mighty mentioned in vv. 13 and 23 who opposed the Israelites and were beaten. The comparison with the going out of the sun fits to what

Deborah,BarakandJael

179

was previously said about YHWH going out from Seir (v. 4) and about the stars fighting from heaven (v. 20). Those who join YHWH will also participate in his might. The period of rest for forty years is not surprising. The same number is found with Othniel (3:11) and Gideon (8:28).

JUDGES 6:1–8:32

GIDEON

TRANSLATION 6:1 2

3 4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12 13

ThechildrenofIsraeldidwhatwasevilintheeyesofYHWH.YHWHgave themintothehandofMidian,sevenyears. ThehandofMidianwasstrongoverIsrael.BeforeMidianthechildren ofIsraelmadeuseforthemselvesoftheholesthatwereinthemountains, thecavesandthestrongholds. Itwouldbe,whenIsraelhadsowed,thatMidiancameupandAmalek andthechildrenoftheEastcameupagainsthim. Theyencampedagainstthemandruinedtheproduceofthelandas faraswhereyoucometoGaza.TheydidnotleavefoodinIsraeland sheepandoxanddonkey, because they and their cattle came up and their tents and came asnumerousaslocusts.Forthemandtheircamelswasnonumber. Theycameintothelandtoruinit. IsraelwasbroughtlowverymuchbeforeMidianandthechildrenof IsraelcriedouttoYHWH. IthappenedwhenthechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWHonaccount ofMidian, thatYHWHsentaman,aprophettothechildrenofIsrael.Hesaidto them:“ThussaysYHWH,thegodofIsrael:itismewhohasbrought youupfromEgyptandmadeyougooutofthehouseofslaves. IhavedeliveredyoufromthehandofEgyptandfromthehandof allyouroppressors.IdrovethemoutfrombeforeyouandIgaveyou theirland. Ihavesaidtoyou:IamYHWH,yourgod.Youshallnotfearthegods oftheAmoritesinwhoselandyouaresettlingandyouhavenotlistened tomyvoice”. AmessengerofYHWHcameandsatundertheterebinththatisin Ophrah,that(belonged)toJoash,theAbiezrite.Gideon,hisson,was beatingwheatinthewinepresstobringitintosafetyfrombeforeMidian. The messenger of YHWH showed himself to him and said to him: “YHWHiswithyou,mightyhero”. Gideonsaidtohim:“Ah,mylord,ifYHWHiswithus,whyhasall thisvisitedus?Whereareallthewonderswhichourfathersrecounted

Gideon

14 15

16 17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24 25

26

27

181

tous,saying:‘WasitnotfromEgyptthatYHWHbroughtusup?’And now YHWH has forsaken us and he has given us into the grasp of Midian”. YHWH turned to him and said: “Go in this strength of yours and deliverIsraelfromthegraspofMidian.HaveInotsentyou?” Hesaidtohim:“Ah,Lord,withwhatshallIdeliverIsrael?Look,my clan(is)theweakestinManassehandI(am)thesmallestinthehouse ofmyfather”. YHWHsaidtohim:“Indeed,Iwillbewithyouandyoushallstrike downMidianasoneman”. Hesaidtohim:“IfIhavefoundfavourinyoureyes,makeformea signthatitisyouwhoisspeakingwithme. DonotdepartfromhereuntilIhavecome(back)toyouandbrought outtoyoumygiftandplaceditbeforeyourface”.Hesaid:“Iwillstay untilyourreturn”. Gideonwentandpreparedagoat’skidandmatzosofanephah offlour.Themeatheputinabasketandthebrothheputinapot. Hebrought(it)outtohim,undertheterebinthandhebrought(it) near. ThemessengerofGodsaidtohim:“Takethemeatandthematzos andput(them)onthisboulderandpouroutthebroth”.Hedidso. ThemessengerofYHWHstretchedoutthetipofthestaffthatwasin hishand.Hestruckthemeatandthematzos.Thefirewentupfrom therock.ItatethefleshandthematzosandthemessengerofYHWH hadgonefromhiseyes. GideonsawthathewasthemessengerofYHWH.Gideonsaid:“Alas, myLordYHWH,becauseIhaveseenamessengerofYHWH,faceto face!” YHWHsaidtohim:“Peaceforyou.Fearnot.Youwillnotdie”. GideonbuiltthereanaltarforYHWH.Hecalledit:YHWH(is)peace. UntilthisdayitisstillinOphrahoftheAbiezrites. IthappenedinthatnightthatYHWHsaidtohim:“Takeanox-bull thatbelongstoyourfather:thesecondbull,sevenyearsoldandtear downthealtarofBaalthatbelongstoyourfatherandtheAsherah thatisuponityouhavetocutdown. YoumustbuildanaltarforYHWHyourgodonthetopofthisstrongholdintheusualwayandyoumusttakethesecondbullandmakeit goupasanofferingwiththewoodoftheAsherahthatyoushallcut down”. GideontooktenmenfromhisservantsandhedidasYHWHhadspoken tohim.Ithappened,becausehewasafraidofthehouseofhisfather andthemenofthecitytodoitbyday,thathediditbynight.

182 28

29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36 37

38 39

40

7:1

2

Judges6:1–8:32 Themenofthecityroseearlyinthemorningand,look,thealtarof Baal had been demolished and the Asherah, that was upon it, had beencutdownandthesecondbullhadbeenofferedupuponthealtar thathadbeenbuilt. Theysaid,amantohisfellow:“Whohasdonethisthing?”Theyinquired andsearchedandsaid:“Gideon,thesonofJoashhasdonethisthing”. ThemenofthecitysaidtoJoash:“Bringoutyoursonandheshall die,becausehedemolishedthealtarofBaalandbecausehecutdown theAsherahuponit”. Joash said to all that were standing before him: “Is it you who willconductalawsuitforBaalorisityouwhowilldeliverhim? Whoconductsalawsuitforhimwillbekilledbydaybreak.Ifheisa god,letheconductthelawsuitforhimself,becausehehasdemolished hisaltar”. HecalledhimonthatdayJerubbaal,saying:“MayBaalconducta lawsuitagainsthim,becausehehasdemolishedhisaltar”. All Midian and Amalek and the children of the East had gathered together.TheycrossedoverandcampedinthevalleyofJezreel. ThespiritofYHWHhadclothedGideon.Heblewtheram’shornand Abiezerwascalledupbehindhim. MessengershehadsentinallManassehanditalsowasassembled after him. And messengers he had sent in Asher, in Zebulon and in Naphtali.Theywentuptomeethim. Gideon said to God: “If it is you who delivers Israel by my hand, asyouhavespoken, look,Iamplacingawoollen-fleeceonthethreshingfloor;ifthereis dewonthefleecebutonallthelanddryness,thenIwillknowthat youwilldeliverIsraelbymyhand,asyouhavespoken”. Ithappenedso.Heroseupearlythefollowingday,hewrungoutthe fleeceanddraineddewoutofthefleece,abowlfullofwater. GideonsaidtoGod:“Donotletyourangerflareupagainstmewhen Ispeakjustonemoretime.Letmemakeatestonemoretimewiththe fleece:theremaybedrynessonthefleecealoneandonallthelanddew”. Goddidsointhatnight.Therewasdrynessonthefleecealoneand onalltheearththerewasdew. Jerubbaal–thatisGideon–roseearlyandallthepeoplewithhim. They camped by the spring of Harod and the camp of Midian was northofit,fromthehillofMoreh,inthevalley. YHWHsaidtoGideon:“Toomanyisthepeoplethatiswithyoufor metogiveMidianintotheirhand,lestIsraelwouldglorifyitselfover me,saying:myhandhasdeliveredme.

Gideon 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

12

13

14

15

183

Now,callouttotheearsofthepeople,saying:‘Whoisfearfuland trembling? Let him turn around and depart from mount Gilead’”. Fromthepeopletwenty-twothousandturnedaroundandtenthousand remained. YHWH said to Gideon: “Still the people are too many. Let them descendtothewaterandIwillrefineitforyouthere.Itwillbeabout whomIsaytoyou:thisoneshallgowithyou,heshallgowithyouand allofwhomIshallsay:thisonewillnotgowithyou,heshallnotgo”. Heletthepeopledescendtothewater.YHWHsaidtoGideon:“Everyonewholickswithhistonguefromthewater,asadoglicks,youmust sethimbyhimselfapartfromeveryonewhobendshiskneestodrink”. Thenumberofthoselickingwiththeirhandtotheirmouth(was)three hundred men. All the rest of the people bended their knees to drink water. YHWHsaidtoGideon:“Withthethreehundredmenwhowerelicking IwilldeliveryouandIwillgiveMidianinyourhandandallthepeople willgo,amantohisplace”. Theytooktheprovisionsofthepeopleintheirhandandtheirram’s horns.EverymanofIsraelhehadsentaway,amantohistentsand hetookholdofthethreehundredmen. It happened in that night that YHWH said to him: “Arise, go down intothecamp,becauseIhavegivenitintoyourhand. Andifyouareafraidtogodown,godownyouandPura,yourboy, tothecamp. And you must listen to what they are saying and, afterwards, your handsshallbestrengthenedandyouwillgodownintothecamp”. Hewentdown,heandPura,hisboy,totheedgeofthegroupsoffifty inthecamp. Midian,AmalekandallthechildrenoftheEastweresettledinthevalley,numerouslikelocustsandtheircamelshadnonumber,numerous likesandthatisontheshoreofthesea. Gideoncameand,look,amanrecountingtohisfellowadream.Hesaid: “Look,adreamIhavedreamt:look,aloafofbarleybreadwasrolling intothecampofMidian,itcameuntilthetentandstruckitanditfell. Itrolleditupsidedownandthetentfell”. Hisfellowansweredandsaid:“Thisisnoneotherthantheswordof Gideon,thesonofJoash,themanofIsrael.GodhasgivenMidianin hishandandthewholecamp”. Ithappened,whenGideonheardtherecountingofthedreamandits interpretation,thatheboweddownandreturnedtothecampofIsrael. Hesaid:“Arise,becauseYHWHhasgiventhecampofMidianinyour hand”.

184 16 17

18

19

20

21 22

23 24

25

8:1

2 3

4

Judges6:1–8:32 Hedividedthethreehundredmeninthreecompanies.Hegaveram’s hornsinthehandofallandemptyjugsandtorchesinsidethejugs. He said to them: “To me you must look and thus you must do. Look,Iamgoingtotheedgeofthecamp.Itshallbe:asIdo,thus youdo. I will blow the ram’s horn, I and all who are with me, you too shall blowyourram’shornsaroundthewholecampandyoushallsay:‘For YHWHandforGideon’”. Gideoncameandthehundredmenwhowerewithhimtotheedgeof thecamp,atthebeginningofthemiddlewatch.Theyhadjustinstalled thewatcherswhentheyblewtheram’shornsandshatteredwerethe jugsintheirhand. Thethreecompaniesblewtheram’shorns,brokethejugs,seizedwith theirlefthandthetorchesandintheirrighthandtheram’shornsto blowon.Theycalledout:“AswordforYHWHandforGideon!” Theystood(still),amaninhisplacearoundthecamp.Allthecamp startedtorun,shoutedandfled. The three hundred ram’s horns were blown and YHWH put to the sword,amanagainsthisfellowandthewholecamp.Thecampfled untilBeth-Hashitta,toZezerah,totheborderofAbel-Mehola,above Tabat. The men of Israel were summoned from Naphtali, from Asher and fromallManasseh.TheypursuedMidian. GideonhadsentmessengersonallmountEphraim,saying:“Godown tomeetMidianandtakeforthemthewatersuntilBeth-Barahandthe Jordan”.AllmenofEphraimweresummoned,andtheytookthewater untilBeth-BarahandtheJordan. TheytookthetwocommandersofMidian,OrebandZeeb.Theykilled OrebattheRockofOrebandZeebtheykilledattheWinepressofZeeb. They pursued Midian. The head of Oreb and Zeeb they brought to GideonacrosstheJordan. ThemenofEphraimsaidtohim:“Whatisthisthingyouhavedoneto us,notcallinguswhenyouwenttobattlewithMidian?”Theystrove withhimwithstrength. Hesaid:“WhathaveIdonenowcomparedtoyou?Arenotthegleanings ofEphraimbetterthanthevintageofAbiezer? InyourhandGodhasgiventhecommandersofMidian,OrebandZeeb. WhatcouldIhavedonecomparedtoyou?”Thentheirspiritagainst himsubsidedwiththiswordhespoke. GideoncametotheJordan,crossingover,heandthreehundredmen whowerewithhim,wearyofthepursuit.

Gideon 5

6 7

8 9 10

11 12

13 14

15

16 17 18

19 20 21

185

HesaidtothemenofSuccoth:“Giveloavesofbreadtothepeople who(followat)myfootsteps,becausetheyareweary.Iampursuing ZebahandZalmunna,thekingsofMidian”. ThecommandersofSuccothsaid:“IsthegraspofZebahandZalmunna nowinyourhand,thatweshouldgiveyourarmybread?” Gideonsaid:“Therefore,whenYHWHgivesZebahandZalmunnain myhand,Iwilltreadoveryourfleshwiththethornsofthewilderness andwiththenettles”. HewentupfromtheretoPenuel.Hespoketothemlikethis.Themen ofPenuelansweredhimasthemenofSuccothhadanswered. HesaidtothemenofPenuelaswell,saying:“Uponmyreturninpeace Iwilldemolishthistower”. ZebahandZalmunna(were)inKarkor,theirarmywiththem,about fifteenthousand,allleftoverfromthewholearmyofthechildrenof theEast.Thefallen(were)hundredtwentythousandsword-wielding men. Gideonwentupalongtheroadofthetentdwellers,eastofNobahand Jogbahah.Hestruckthearmy.Thearmyhadbeencarefree. ZebahandZalmunnafled.Hepursuedafterthemandcapturedthe twokingsofMidian,ZebahandZalmunna.Thewholearmyhemade tremble. Gideon,thesonofJoash,returnedfromthebattle,frompassHeres. HecapturedaboyfromthemenofSuccothandhequestionedhim. He wrote down for him the commanders of Succoth and its elders, seventy-sevenmen. HecametothemenofSuccothandsaid:“Look,ZebahandZalmunna, withwhomyoumockedme,saying:‘IsthegraspofZebahandZalmunna nowinyourhand,thatweshouldgiveyourwearymenbread?’” Hetooktheeldersofthecityandthethornsofthewildernessandthe nettlesandhadthemenofSuccothknowthem. ThetowerofPenuelhedemolished,andhekilledthemenofthecity. HesaidtoZebahandZalmunna:“Wherearethemenwhomyoukilled inTabor?”Theysaid:“Likeyoutheywere,oneliketheappearance ofthesonsoftheking”. Hesaid:“Mybrothers(theywere),sonsofmymother.Bythelifeof YHWH,ifyouhadletthemlive,Iwouldnothavekilledyou”. HesaidtoJether,hisfirstborn:“Arise,killthem!”,buttheboydidnot drawhissword,becausehewasafraid,becausehewasstillaboy. Zebah and Zalmunna said: “Arise, you (yourself), and attack us, becauseasisthemansoishismight”.GideonaroseandkilledZebah andZalmunna.Hetookthecrescent(ornaments)thatwereonthenecks oftheircamels.

186 22

23 24

25 26

27

28

29 30 31 32

Judges6:1–8:32 ThemenofIsraelsaidtoGideon:“Ruleoverus,alsoyou,alsoyour son,alsothesonofyourson,becauseyouhavedeliveredusfromthe handofMidian”. Gideonsaidtothem:“Iwillnotruleoveryouandmysonwillnot ruleoveryou.YHWHwillruleoveryou”. Gideonsaidtothem:“Iurgentlyaskyou:giveme,(every)man,aring of his booty”, because golden rings they had, because they were Ishmaelites. Theysaid:“Wewillcertainlygive(them)”.Theyspreadoutthemantle andthrewthere,(every)manaringofhisbooty. Theweightofthegoldenringsthatheaskedwasseventeenhundred (weightsof)gold,asidefromthecrescent(ornaments),theearrings, andthepurplegarmentsthatwereonthekingsofMidianandaside fromthecollarsthatwerearoundthenecksoftheircamels. Gideonmadeitintoanephod.Heplaceditinhiscity,inOphrah. AllIsraelwentwhoringafteritthere.ItwasforGideonandforhis houseasnare. MidianwashumbledbeforethechildrenofIsrael.Theydidnotcontinue tolift-uptheirhead.Thelandwasquietforfortyyearsinthedaysof Gideon. Jerubbaal,thesonofJoash,wentandsettledinhishouse. Gideonhadseventysons,comingforthfromhisloins,becausehehad manywives. Hisconcubine,whowasinShechem,shetooborehimason.Henamed himwiththenameAbimelech. Gideon,thesonofJoash,diedingoodoldage.Hewasburiedinthe graveofJoash,hisfather,inOphrahoftheAbiezrites.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Y. Amit, “Dual Causality”, in: Y. Amit, In Praise of Editing the Hebrew Bible: CollectedEssaysinRetrospect, Sheffield 2012, 105–121; S. Anthonioz etal., “Gideon”, EBR10, Berlin/Boston 2015, 227–234; E. Assis, Self-InterestorCommunalInterest:AnIdeologyofLeadershipintheGideon,Abimelech,andJephthahNarratives (Judg 6–12) (SVT 106), Leiden 2005; D.R. Ap-Thomas, “The Ephah of Meal in Judges VI.19”, JThS41 (1940), 175–177; A.G. Auld, “Gideon Hacking at the Heart of the Old Testament”, VT 39 (1989), 257–267; H. Ausloos, “Literary Criticism and Textual Criticism in Judg 6:1–14 in Light of 4QJudga”, OTE 27 (2014), 358–376; R. Baker, “ ‘A Dream Carries Much Implication’: The Midianite’s Dream (Judges VII), Its Role and Meanings”, VT68 (2018), 349–377; J. Berman, “The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–9, Judges 6:25–31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–25, 2 Kings 4:1– 7, Jeremiah 34:12–17, Nehemiah 5:1–12)”, JBL 134 (2015), 105–125; W. Beyerlin, “Geschichte und Heilsgeschichtliche Traditionsbildung im Alten Testament: Ein

Gideon

187

Beitrag zur Traditionsgeschichte von Richter VI–VIII”, VT 13 (1963), 1–25; D.I. Block, “Will the Real Gideon Please Stand Up? Narrative Style and Intention in Judges 6-9”, JETS 40 (1997), 353-66; W. Bluedorn, JahwehversusBaalism:ATheologicalReadingoftheGideon-AbimelechNarrative (JSOTSup 329), Sheffield 2001; F.M.Th. (de Liagre) Böhl, “Wortspiele im Alten Testament”, JPOS6 (1926), 196–212 (reprinted in OperaMinora, Groningen 1953, 11–25); I. de Castelbajac, “Le cycle de Gédéon ou la condemnation du refus de la royauté”, VT 57 (2007), 145–161; L.J.M. Claassens, “The Character of God in Judges 6–8: the Gideon Narrative as Theological and Moral Response”, HBT 23 (2001), 51–71; F. Crüsemann, DerWiderstandgegendas Königtum.DieantiköniglichenTextedesAltenTestamentesundderKampfumden frühenisraelitischenStaat(WMANT 49), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978;A. van der Deijl, Richters,dichtersenvredestichters:Oudtestamentischeoorlogsverhalengelezenals literatuur, Baarn 1993;G.H. Davies, “Judges VIII 22–23”, VT 13 (1963), 151–157; J. Derby, “Gideon and the Ephraimites”, JBQ 30 (2002), 118–120; idem, “Gideon or Jerubaal”, JBQ 31 (2003), 181–185; L.A. Dietch, AuthorityandViolencein theGideonandAbimelechNarratives:ASociologicalandLiteraryExplorationof Judges 6–9 (HBM 75), Sheffield 2015; M. Dijkstra, “KTU 1.6 (= CTA 6).III.1ff. and the So-called Zeichenbeweis (Proof by a Token)”, VT 35 (1980), 105–109; H. Donner, “Ophra in Manasse”, in: E. Blum etal. (eds), DieHebräischeBibelund ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (Fs Rendtoff), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 193–206; M. Ederer, “ ‘Ich, ich habe euch heraufgeführt aus Ägypten’ (Ri 6,8). Exodus-Rezeption in Ri 6,7–10”, in: M. Ederer, B. Schmitz (eds), Exodus:InterpretationdurchRezeption (SBS 74), Stuttgart 2017, 53–76; J.A. Emerton, “A Consideration of Some Alleged Meanings of ydʽ in Hebrew”, JSS15 (1970), 145–180; idem, “The ‘Second Bull’ in Judges 6:25–28”, ErIs14 (1974), 52*–55*; idem, “Gideon and Jerubbaal”, JThS 27 (1976), 289–312; idem, “A Further Consideration of D.W. Thomas’s Theories about YĀDAʽ”, VT 41 (1991), 145–163; V. Endris, “Yahweh versus Baal: A NarrativeCritical Reading of the Gideon/Abimelech Narrative”, JSOT 33 (2008), 173–195; Z. Faber, “Jerubaal, Jacob and the Battle for Shechem: A Tradition History”, JHS13 (2013), article 12; L.H. Feldman, “On Professor Mark Roncace’s Portraits of Deborah and Gideon in Josephus”, JSJ32 (2001), 193–220 (reprinted in JudaismandHellenism Reconsidered[SJS Sup 107]), Leiden 2006, 607–636); F.C. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat”, PEQ109 (1977), 113–115; I. Finkelstein, O. Lipschits, “Geographical and Historical Observations on the old North Israelite Gideon Tale in Judges”, ZAW 129 (2017), 1–18; J.P. Fokkelman, “Gideon: tellen en vertellen”, in: L. Salomons etal. (eds), Uitgever tussen oost en west (Fs Bakkes), Assen 1995, 11–15; M. Garsiel, “Homiletic Name-Derivations as a Literary Device in the Gideon Narrative: Judges VI– VIII”, VT 43 (1993), 302–317; E. Gaß, “Die Midianiter – Feinde und Freunde Israels”, in: W. Groß, E. Gaß, Studien zum Richterbuch und seinen Völkernamen (SBAB 54), Stuttgart 2012, 287–322; P. Gibert, Véritéhistoriqueetesprithistorien. L’historienbibliquedeGédéonfaceàHérodote, Paris 1990; D. Goodman, “Do Angels Eat?”, JSS 37 (1986), 160–175; W. Groß, “Wer rettet Israel? Die Vorstellung von der doppelten Kausalität, untersucht im Richterbuch und besonders in der Erzählung von Gideon”, in: M. Bauks etal. (eds), WasistderMensch,dassduseinergedenkst? (Psalm8,5)(Fs Janowski), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008, 105–113; A. Guillaume, “A Note on ‫”ה ָפּר ַה ֵשּׁנִ י‬, ַ JThS 50 (1949), 52–53; D.M. Gunn, “Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel”, VT24 (1974), 286–317; H. Haag, “Gideon-JerubbaalAbimelek”, ZAW 79 (1967), 305–14; B. Halpern, “The Rise of Abimelek BenJerubbaal”, HAR 2 (1978), 79–100; J.E. Hartley, TheSemanticsofAncientHebrew

188

Judges6:1–8:32

ColourLexemes, Louvain 2010; K.M. Heffelfinger, “ ‘My Father is King’: Chiefly Politics and the Rise and Fall of Abimelech”, JSOT33 (2009), 277–292; I. Himbaza, “Retour sur Juges 7,5–6”, RB 108 (2001), 26–36; A. Hornkohl, “Resolving the Crux in Judges 7:5b–7”, Hebrew Studies 50 (2009), 67–84; J.H. Hull, “Finding the Center: The Abimelech Account and the Gideon/Midianite Cycle as the Turning Point in Judges”, in: T.D. Finlay, W. Yarchin (eds), TheGenreofBiblicalCommentary (Fs Hartley), Eugene 2015, 145–158; J.M. Hutton, “Mahanaim, Penuel, and Transhumance Routes: Observations on Genesis 32–33 and Judges 8”, JNES 65 (2006), 161–178; M. Korpel, “lapīd cresset, torch”, http://www.otw-site.eu/KLY; S. Légasse, “Exégèse juive ancienne et exégèse patristique. Le cycle biblique de Gédéon”, LA 50 (2000), 181–262; S. Lesemann, „UndGideonstarbineinemguten Greisenalter“:UntersuchungenzudenhebräischenundgriechischenTexttraditioneninRi6–8unterEinbeziehungdesjüdisch-hellenistischenundfrühenrabbinischenSchrifttums(De Septuaginta Investigationes 6), Göttingen 2016; B. Lindars, “Gideon and Kingship”, JThS 16 (1965), 315–326; S.E. Loewenstamm, “The Lord Shall Rule Over You (Judges 8:23)”, in: idem, AlterOrientundAltesTestament:ComparativeStudiesinBiblicalandAncientOrientalLiteratures, Neukirchen 1980, 440–442; B. Maarsingh, “Gideon reformator: exegetische en theologische overwegingen betreffende Richteren 6:25-32”, KerkenTheologie 28 (1977), 123–136; B. Margalit, “The Episode of the Fleece (Judges 6:36–40) in Light of the Ugaritic”, Shnaton V–VI (1981–2), 55–62; L.R. Martin, “The Intrusive Prophet: The Narrative Function of the Nameless Prophet in Judges 6”, JSem 16 (2007), 113–140; Y. Mathieu, “Narrational Texture and Narratology: Judges 6:25–32 as a Text Case”, Theoforum 46 (2015), 53–67; P. van Midden, Broederschap en koningschap.EenonderzoeknaardebetekenisvanGideonenAbimelekinhetboek Richteren, Maastricht 1998; idem, “Gideon”, in: J.W. Dyk etal. (eds), TheRediscoveryoftheHebrewBible (ACEBTSup 1). Maastricht 1999, 51–67; R. Müller, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik, Tübingen 2004; R. Müller et al., Evidence of Editing: Growth and ChangeofTextsintheHebrewBible, Atlanta 2014; K.J. Murphy, MappingGideon: AnExplorationofJudges6-8 (diss Emory University), 2011; idem, “ ‘A Sword for Yhwh and for Gideon!’: The Representation of War in Judges 7:16–22”, in: B. Kelle etal. (eds), Warfare,ritual,andsymbolinbiblicalandmoderncontexts (SBL Ancient Israel and its Literature 18), Atlanta 2014, 65–82; idem, “Laying Out the Fleece: Reading Gideon’s Requests with Reception History”, W&W37 (2017), 241–251; idem, Rewriting Masculinity: Gideon, Men, and Might, Oxford 2019; L. Niesiolowski-Spanò, “Where Should One Look for Gideon’s Ophra?”, Bib 86 (2005), 478–493; D.T. Olson, “Buber, Kingship, and the Book of Judges: A Study of Judges 6-9 and 17-21”, in: B.F. Batto, K. Roberts (eds), DavidandZion (Fs Roberts), Winona Lake 2004, 199–218; R. Péter, “‫ פר‬et ‫ שׁור‬Note de lexicographie hébraïque”, VT 25 (1975), 486–496; A. de Pury, “Le raid de Gédéon (Juges 6, 25–32) et 1’histoire de 1’exclusivisme yahwiste”, in: T. Römer (ed.), Lectiodifficiliorprobabilior? (Fs Smyth-Florentin; BDBAT 12), Heidelberg 1991, 173–205 (reprinted in: idem, DiePatriarchenunddiePriesterschrift:GesammelteStudien [AThANT 99], Zürich 2010, 251–282); R. Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics”, JHS 13 (2013), art. 2; A. Rofé, “Studying the Biblical Text in the Light of Historico-Literary Criticism: The Reproach of the Prophet in Judg 6:7–10 and 4QJudga”, in: A. Lange etal. (eds), TheDeadSeaScrollsinContext:IntegratingtheDeadSeaScrolls intheStudyofAncientTexts,Languages,andCultures.VolumeOne (SVT 140/1),

Gideon

189

Leiden 2011, 111–133; M. Roncace, “Josephus’s (Real) Portraits of Deborah and Gideon: A Reading of Antiquities 5.198–232”, JSJ 31 (2000), 247–274; D. Rudman, “The Second Bull in Judges 6:25-28”, JNSL 26 (2000), 97–103; A. Scherer, “Gideon – Ein Anti-Held? Ein Beitrag zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sog. ‘Flawed-Hero Approach’ am Beispiel von Jdc. VI 36–40”, VT 55 (2005), 269–273; P.C. Schmitz, “Deity and Royalty in Dedicatory Formulae: The Ekron Store-Jar Inscription Viewed in the Light of Judges 7:18, 20 and the Inscribed Gold Medallion from the Douïmès Necropolis at Carthage (KAI 73)”, Maarav 15 (2008), 165–173; S. Schulz, M. Schäfer, “Die Kelter als Dreschort in Jdc 6,11”, ZAW 129 (2017), 427–430; idem, “Gideons Sieg über Midian: Zur Komposition von Ri 7”, BN178 (2018), 3–20; O. Sergi, “Jacob and the Aramaean Identity of Ancient Israel between the Judges and the Prophets”, in: M.G. Brett, J. Wöhrle (eds), ThePoliticsoftheAncestors:Exegetical andHistoricalPerspectivesonGenesis12–36, Tübingen 2018, 283–305; H. ShalomGuy, “Textual Analogies and Their Ramifications for a Diachronic Analysis of 1 Samuel 13:1–14:46 and Judges 6:1–8:35”, JHS 16 (2016), article 10; K.A.D. Smelik, “Gideon, held of antiheld: Karakterisering van een personage in het boek Richteren”, ACEBT 19, Maastricht 2001, 97–110; M.S. Smith, “ ‘Midrash’ in the Book of Judges: The Cases of Judges 3:31 and 6:7–10”, CBQ 78 (2016), 256– 271; J.P. Tanner, TextualPatterninginBiblicalHebrewNarrative.ACaseStudy inJudges6–8(PhD University of Texas), Austin 1990; idem, “The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges”, BS 149 (1992), 146–161; S. Tolkowsky, “Gideon’s Fleece”, JPOS 3 (1923), 196–199; idem, “ ‘Gideon’s 300.’ (Judges vii and viii)”, JPOS5 (1925), 69–74; E. Ulrich, TheDeadSeaScrollsandtheDevelopmentalCompositionoftheBible (SVT 169), Leiden 2015; N.M. Waldman, “The Imagery of Clothing, Covering, and Overpowering”, JANES19 (1989), 161–170; I.D. Wilson, Kingship andMemoryinAncientJudah, New York 2017; G.T.K. Wong, “Gideon. A New Moses?” in: R. Rezetko etal. (eds), ReflectionandRefraction (Fs Auld; SVT 113), Leiden 2007, 529–545; J.L. Wright, “The Evolution of the Gideon Narrative”, in: S.M. Olyan, J.L. Wright (eds), SupplementationandtheStudyoftheHebrewBible, Providence 2018,105–122 .

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES In many respects the story of Gideon takes a central place in the book of Judges. It is not only the middle part of the book, it is also the longest of the stories about the judges and saviours and here all elements that can be found in the other stories are brought together: the question of good leadership in relation to YHWH as leader, the serving of other gods; the liberation from the enemy; the participation of the tribes; prophecy; and meeting the messenger of YHWH. All this is not new, but in the chapters about Gideon it is presented more elaborately. One may also note a remarkable omission compared to other stories: there is no reference to women. Within the book of Judges that can be interpreted as an indication that Gideon did well, because in most cases men compare unfavourably to women, are misguided by them, or fail to protect them. Only at the very end of the story we hear of a concubine as the mother of his son Abimelech. Precisely there we also note a negative

190

Judges6:1–8:32

aspect which the story of Gideon shares with the following stories about the saviours and judges, namely the tendency not only of the people but also of their saviours and judges to go in the wrong direction. The first thing in which this becomes apparent is the relation to YHWH. What distinguishes Gideon positively in the first part of the story is his close relation to YHWH. In the book of Judges no one speaks so much with and so directly to YHWH. Gideon is presented in the beginning as fearful, but he also shows the right modesty in his relation to YHWH. It is interesting to note how Gideon grows in his role, showing that YHWH’s patience is paying off. Gideon overcomes his fear, as he gradually learns to trust in YHWH. At the peak of his success, when he has defeated the enemy and is asked to establish a dynasty, he gives all credit to YHWH. At the same time, however, one can note a negative development: coinciding with Gideon’s growing self-confidence he still talks about YHWH but is not listening to him anymore. This is where it goes wrong with the golden ephod made by Gideon. In itself an ephod was a normal cultic device which could be used in seeking contact with YHWH. By acting on his own, without waiting for divine instructions, and placing the ephod at his birth town Gideon makes himself too important, giving in to the temptation of his popularity. In the end the judgment about Gideon remains positive, but his heritage contains the ingredients for a dark future. This ambivalence is represented in the fact that Gideon first rejects the offer of hereditary kingship but then names one of his many sons Abimelech. Like many other names in the book it has a special meaning, because it can be translated as “my father is king”. In the history of interpretation (cf. the surveys by Légasse 2000; Gunn 2005, 94–120; Anthonioz 2015; Murphy 2017 and 2019) Gideon is one of the characters in the book of Judges who had received most – usually very positive – attention. Already in manuscripts of the Septuagint a tendency can be noted to avoid possible negative associations (cf. Lesemann 2016, 377; he even speaks of “Glorifizierungsbestrebungen” [386]). For instance, in some Greek manuscripts Gideon’s request for a sign in 6:17 was omitted, probably because this could be seen as tempting the Lord. According to other Greek manuscripts Gideon is not just suggesting in 6:36 that the Lord might deliver Israel, but stating it as a fact. The same phenomenon can be observed more clearly in the retellings by Josephus (cf. Feldman 1998, 163–176), although there is difference of opinion about how much Josephus deviates from the biblical text (cf. Roncace 2000 and the response by Feldman 2001). In his Antiquitates Josephus leaves the part about the signs requested by Gideon according to 6:17–40 out. According to Josephus Gideon reacts with modesty but he does not hesitate to accept his calling. In the description of the discussion with the Ephraimites Josephus calls Gideon “a man of moderation and pre-eminent in every virtue” (5.230), whereas the Ephraimites are

Gideon

191

accused of arrogance, for which they shall be punished “at the proper time” (5.231; referring to Judg. 12:1–6). The stories about the pursuit of the Midianite kings, the punishment of Succoth and Penuel, and the ephod are put aside by Josephus, thus forestalling possible negative judgments concerning Gideon’s behaviour. Pseudo-Philo stays closer to the biblical text and even goes one step further when he explicitly blames Gideon for making an idol of the twelve talents (!) of gold collected from the Israelites. Only because God decided that he could not punish Gideon during his lifetime, in order not to give the idea that Baal took revenge over the demolishing of his altar, Gideon could die in old age (L.A.B. 36.3–4). In early rabbinic literature the picture of Gideon is usually positive, especially because of his modesty according to 8:23 declaring that YHWH is Israel’s ruler, but a text from t.RoshHash. 2.1 (also in Eccles.Rab. 1:4; cf. Lagasse 2000, 218–219; Gunn 2005, 95) also shows some ambiguity. It states that three persons of lesser importance are placed next to three persons of high importance: Gideon (the text uses his second name Jerubbaal) next to Moses, Jephthah to Samuel, and Samson to Aaron. It shows that even the lowliest person can be appointed to leader of the community. In the commentaries by Rashi and Qimchi the making of an ephod is interpreted as a positive action. The idolatry with the ephod took place after his death. Gersonides is more critical, blaming Gideon for placing the ephod in Ophrah and not in Shiloh. Abarbanel attributes wrong motives to Gideon for making the ephod as promoting his own standing. In early and medieval Christian interpretation Gideon is regarded in many ways as a prefiguration of Christ. Already the fact that Gideon was called “beating out wheat under an oak” was, for Ambrose, a sign that “he was chosen for grace (…) being appointed under the shadow of the holy cross” (DeSpiritoSancto1.1). Much attention is paid to the sign with the fleece (6:36– 40; cf. Légasse 2000, 235–242; Gunn 2005, 96; Murphy 2017, 246–248). Gideon is not blamed for asking a sign. It merely shows his spiritual prudence. The dew symbolizes the divine word. First this was given to Israel, whereas the rest of the earth remained “dry”. When it was rejected by Israel, leaving the fleece dry, it was given to the rest of the world. More specifically this interpretation was applied to Mary receiving the Holy Spirit like the fleece collected the dew. It is a well-known picture in the Orthodox tradition. We also find this interpretation in the BibliaPauperum, where the picture of the annunciation is accompanied by a panel picturing Eve and the serpent (Gen. 3:14–16) on the left and Gideon kneeling next to the fleece on the right (cf. Henry 1987, 48, 50). With Luther this traditional interpretation of the story of the fleece can still be found. Gradually the focus would become more on Gideon’s motivation and also on his flaws. Calvin’s remark that “in every saint there is always

192

Judges6:1–8:32

to be found something reprehensible” (from his commentary on Hebrews, 1549, on ch. 11; quoted by Gunn 2005, 99) is characteristic of the way his story is applied in the later centuries.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS The scholarly discussion about the story of Gideon is dominated by two issues: (1) the formation of the text as indicated by the clear traces of redactional activity, (2) the point of view on kingship in ancient Israel in general and the evaluation of Gideon’s leadership in particular. These issues are related, because according to many scholars the fact that Gideon is pictured both positively and negatively can be attributed to the combination of originally different sources. This is a matter of methodology as is well illustrated by the remark by Scherer with regard to the fact that at the end of the story Gideon is made responsible for Israel relapsing into idolatry: Alles, was der Zyklus vorher von Gideon zu erzählen weiß, erscheint aus der Perspektive von Jdc 8,27aβ.b mit einem Mal under dem Verdikt eines düsteren Vorzeichens. Die “holistische” Exegese hat Jdc 8,27aβ.b in jüngerer Zeit zum Dreh- und Angelpunkt ihres gesamten Auslegung der Kap 6-8 bzw. 6-9 gemacht und dabei gründlich verkannt, daß die Passage nicht nur dem Tenor der alten Gideonüberlieferung, sondern auch den primärdtr. Aussagen ihres Kontexts eklatant widerspricht (Scherer 2005, 413).

From a different perspective it can be maintained against this that this diachronic approach runs the risk of taking away a character development intended by the author (cf. Assis 2005, 126–127). At least one should leave open the possibility that in its present form the text is the result of a combination of originally different texts, but that the editor responsible for this was well aware of the different profiles of Gideon and had good reasons for bringing them together. As has long been recognized in scholarly research, there are many indications of a formation process in which older traditions were combined and edited (cf. Kuenen 1890, 12: “Cap. VI–VIII, ist in ihrer gegenwärtigen Gestalt das Product eines sehr complicirten literarischen Processes”). The first traces are found in the way the stories of Gideon in chapters 6–8 have been related to the story of Abimelech in the next chapter. Abimelech is consistently presented as the son of Jerubbaal, which is the second name of Gideon. In chapters 6–8 the name Jerubbaal is used for the first time in 6:32, to explain the meaning of the name and to explain why it was given to Gideon. In 7:1 it is mentioned to remind the reader of the use of this double name, and in 8:29 and 35, in relating the stories of Gideon and Abimelech. This inconsistent use of the name of Jerubbaal points to a tension in the text that

Gideon

193

may have been caused by the combination of different sources (Lindars 1965, 315). Next to this issue Richter lists the following indications in the text pleading against its unity: • double stories of the origin of an altar for YHWH in 6:11–24 and 6:25–32; • double stories about miracles performed before Gideon in 6:17–21 and 6:36–40; • double stories about Gideon calling up to go to war in 6:33–35 and 7:23– 24; • similar reports about a battle against the Midianites in 7:1–25 and 8:4–21; • there is no connection made in 8:24–27a between the ephod in Ophrah and the altar erected in the same place according to 6:11–24; • according to 7:7–22 Gideon’s army consisted of three hundred men, according to 7:23 the men of three tribes are called up to chase after the defeated army of the Midianites, but in 8:4 we hear again of an army of three hundred men in pursuit of the enemy; • the protest of the Ephraimites that they were not called up by Gideon makes little sense in view of the small group of three hundred soldiers listed by Gideon; • the story in 7:2–8 of the selection of three hundred soldiers does not fit in very well in the present context; there is a tension between 7:8 and 7:16, whereas the way the reference of the location of 7:1b is taken up in 7:8b may point to redactional activity inserting vv. 2–8a (Richter 1963, 114–120. Groß points to the fact in the story of Gideon many things are told twice and assumes that for a big part this is the result of manifold editions of the text: • the guilt of Israel (6:7–10; 8:33–35), • the reaction of YHWH to the cry of the people (sending a prophet in 6:8, sending Gideon in 6:14), • the reference to the exodus and the giving of the land (6:8–9; 6:13–14), Gideon raising objections against his calling (6: 13, 15), • Gideon asking and receiving a sign (6:17–21; 6:36–40), • veneration of Baal (6:25–30; 8:33), • Gideon initiates a cultic activity (6:2–27; 8:27), • Gideon calling up four tribes (6:35; 7:23–24), • reduction of the army (7:3, 4–7), • attack on the encampment of the Midianites (7:15–22; 8:10–11), • blowing of the ram’s horns (7:20a, 22a), • capture and killing of two leaders of the Midianite army (7:24–25; 8:12, 25), • a city refusing to help Gideon and being punished for that (8:5–9, 15–17) (Groß 2009, 366–367).

194

Judges6:1–8:32

These indications of possible traces of editorial work behind the present text of Judg. 6–8 have inspired many scholars to attempt to reconstruct the process of the transformation of the text. Very influential was the study by Richter (see introduction § 3.2), who assumes that part of the stories of Gideon belonged to the 9th century “Retterbuch” which in his opinion forms the kernel of the present book of Judges. According to Richter original traditions are preserved in 6:11a, 18–19, 21–24; 6:27b–31*; 7:11b, 13–21; 8:5–9, 14–2l*; 8:21*, 24–27a; 8:30, 32 (Richter 1963, 242). A first author (according to Richter he is more than just an editor) would have added 6:2b– 5, 11b–17, 25–27a, 31b, 32–34; 7:1, 9–11a, 22–8:4, 10–13, 22–23, 29, 31 (Richter 1963, 239). In this edition the originally separate persons Gideon and Jerubbaal are identified as one and the same person (6:32; 7:1; 8:29, 31). It is characterized by its interest in the “war of YHWH” and in Israel as a people. Before its insertion into the Deuteronomistic History this “Book of Saviours” two editorial notes would have been added (6:1–2a; 8:28; the numbers would have been added in a later stage) (Richter 1964, 113). Becker does not agree with Richter’s idea of an early “Book of Saviours” and sticks to Noth’s hypothesis about an exilic editor/writer taking up old traditions into a Deuteronomistic History. On the other hand Becker agrees in his critical analysis of Judg. 6–9 on many points with the one by Richter. The basic difference concerns the dating of the different layers. With regard to the history of Gideon and Abimelech the author/editor used a number of separate local stories about the role of Gideon in the struggle against the Midianites (6:11–24*; 7:11–15*, 16–22*; 8:5–21*) and about the rise and fall of Abimelech (9:25–41, 46–54), combining them by renaming Gideon into Jerubbaal and thus turning Gideon into the father of Abimelech (6:25– 32). He used these stories to express his critical message about kingship, making his point clear by adding the story of kingship offered to Gideon (8:22–23) and the fable of Jotham in chapter 9. Becker finds later editorial activity in 8:24–27, 33–35 by a moralistic (“nomistic”) editor, and in 6:33– 40 and 7:1–7 by an editor focusing on the relation between divine and human acts of saving (Becker 1990, 206–208). Also, Guillaume agrees on many points with Richter, stating that his theory of the “Retterbuch” is “a valid starting point” (Guillaume 2004, 255), but like Becker he is of a different opinion when it comes to the dating. Guillaume suggests that a first collection of stories about judges has to be dated in 720 BCE and he distinguishes other editorial layers. With regard to the story of Gideon he reckons 6:1–3a, 4b–6, 33–34; 7:1–3, 9, 16–21; 8:22–23, 28 to the original text, which also included the whole next chapter about Abimelech. A redaction dated one century later, in the period of Josiah, would have added the references to Amalek in 6:3b, 4a, 33b, the stories about the prophet and the calling in 6:7–32, the calling of Manasseh in 6:35, the story

Gideon

195

about the sign of the fleece in 6:36–40, the soldiers as licking dogs in 7:4– 8, the dream in 7:10–15, the reference to Transjordan in 7:22; 8:1–21, the ephod in 8:24–27, and the reference to Abimelech in 8:29–35. Most telling of this redaction would have been the central place of the prophet in 6:7–10, emphasizing the message that “YHWH would only deliver those who came to him without Assyrian religious lore” (Guillaume 2004, 258). Scherer describes his relation to the work of Richter as follows: “Grundsätzlich stimme ich Richer darin überein, die literarische Komposition des Gideonkomplexes vordtr. Anzusetzen. Der Verfasser hat m.E. aber eher eine Sammlung van JHWH-Kriegserzählungen und JHWH-Kriegszyklen als ein regelrechtes ‘Retterbuch’ geschaffen” (Scherer 2005, 362, n. 928). This cycle of war stories would have been compiled in a situation like the period of the Israelite king Jehu with much military conflict. According to Scherer it would have consisted of the stories in 6:2b–5, 11–24*, 25–31*, 33–35; 7:1–8*, 9–15*, 16–22; 8:4–9*, 10–12, 13–17*, 18–21, 24–27aα*, 29*–30, 32. He notes a correspondence between the beginning and the end in the depiction of affliction in 6:2b–5* with its counterpart in the depiction of wellbeing in 8:29–32 and in the two stories about installing a cult (6:11–24* and 8:24– 27aα*). An important well-considered break in the original composition would have been indicated by the crossing of the river Jordan (8:4), with emphasis on the war of YHWH before the crossing and on Gideon as the dominant personality after the crossing (Scherer 2005, 362–363). In a next phase these stories would have been combined with the stories about Abimelech. According to Scherer this “Abimelechredaktion” would have added 6:32; 8:31, 35, “this is Jerubbaal” in 7:1, and replaced the name of Gideon by Jerubbaal in 8:29. In this combination Abimelech functions as a contrast figure, who makes Gideon look more positive (Scherer 2005, 367). In a next redaction, adding 6:1–2a, 3b*, 4aβ, 6, 33*; 7:12*; 8:22–23, 28, 33–44, these stories were put in the Deuteronomistic framework and again a later stage the story of the prophet in 6:7–10 and the negative report about the ephod in 8:27aβ+b were added. Next to these early and late Deuteronomistic additions Scherer interprets “die erbauliche Anekdote” in 6:36–40 and “die konstruierte Erzählung zu kriegerischen Eigenlob” in 7:23–8:3 as later extensions (Scherer 2005, 369). As was noted above, Scherer notes the importance of the attribution of 8:27aβ+b to a late redaction for the interpretation of the story as a whole. Another but completely different example of reconstructing two contrasting portraits of Gideon is found with De Castelbajac: “Le rédacteur de Juges vi-viii présente en effet, comme celui de Juges ix, deux portraits antithétiques de Gédéon, reposant sur des ensembles distincts de traditions, qu’il recompose afin d’illustrer ses convictions monarchistes: au Gédéon, roitelet d’Israël, s’opposerait un Gédéon, chef cananéen” (De Castelbajac 2007, 146).

196

Judges6:1–8:32

Gideon is characterized as a royal figure with military qualities in 6:2b–5, 33–35; 7:16–25, and 8:4–21, which De Castelbajac dates very early, somewhere between the 13th and 10th century BCE. Also 8:1–3, describing Gideon as a wise mediator between rival tribes, stems from this period before the kings. To this was added the other positive element of Gideon as founder of a cult in 6:25–31, which reflects the situation of the struggle between Yahwism and Baalism in the 9th and 8th century BCE. All this is opposed by the picture of Gideon as a Canaanite leader refusing to become king in the name of YHWH and responsible for idolatry, in 6:11–24, 36–40; 7:9–15. These texts, also dated before the united-kingdom, “caractérisent un héros local par son obstination à méconnaître les signes divins” (De Castelbajac 2007, 158). In 8:24–25 De Castelbajac finds a tradition from the 9th century BCE relating Gideon to a non-Yahwistic cult, portraying him again as a Canaanite leader. In the Deuteronomistic redaction, adding 6:1, 2a, 6, 7–10, 32; 7:1–8; 8:22–23, this was turned into a refusal to become king, which should be interpreted not only as a rejection of the offer of the people but also as another rejection of YHWH: “Le refus de Gédéon d’accepter non seulement les signes de sa vocation royale, mais aussi ses victoires militaires comme le signe de ses fonctions royales serait donc présenté comme un rejet de la volonté de Yahwé” (De Castelbajac 2007, 160). As could be expected, also Groß strongly chooses a strict diachronic approach, because of “deutliche, nicht wegretuschierte Wachstumszeichen” (Groß 2009, 367). He distinguishes five layers: • ancient stories in 6:11*, 17b, 18–24 (building of the altar); 7:9–11*, 13–15 (oldest version of the story of the dream); 7:16–22 (attack of the camp of the Midianites); 8:5–7*, 7*–9, 12*, 13–17, 18–21 (story of the blood feud); • a pre-Deuteronomistic story in: 6:2b–3*, 4–6a, 11c, 12, 14c-17*, 33–35; 7:1*, 2–8, 9–11, 13–15, 16–22; 8:4, 7b, 10–12, 22, 23, 30, 32; • a Deuteronomistic framework in 6:1, 2a, 6b; 8:28; • additions to be placed somewhere after the pre-Deuteronomistic story in 6:3c*, 33a*; 7:12a*; 6:36–40; 7:12; 7:23–8:3; • additions to the Deuteronomistic framework in 6:7–10, 13, 14ab, 25–32; 7:1a*; 8:24*, 25–27; 24*, 29, 31, 33–35 (Groß 2009, 367–389). Finkelstein & Lipschits (2017) renewed Richter’s theory of the “Retterbuch”. They find the remnants of an old North Israelite tale in 6:2aα, 11aβb, 34aβb–35a; 7:1, 5a, 6, 8aβb, 11b, 13–14a, 15aα, 16a–bα, 17–18bα, 19, 21a, 22aα, 22b; 8:4, 5bβ, 10aα, 11a–bα, 12aα, 12bα, 18a, 19–20, 21bα, 28aα. The author of the “Book of Saviours” would have added 6:2b, 6a; 7:14b, 15aβ, 28a; 8:5–9, 13–17. The Deuteronomistic layer would consist of 6:1, 6b, 11aα, 12, 14aβ–bα, 15–19aα, 19b, 20a–bα, 21–24, 33, 34aα, 35b; 7:2–4, 5b, 7–8aα,

Gideon

197

9–11a, 14aβ–b, 15b, 61bβ, 18b, 20, 21b, 22aβ; 8:5–9, 13–17, 28aβ-b, 32–34. Post-Deuteronomistic additions are in their opinion: 6:3–5, 7–10, 13–14aα, 14bβ, 19aβ, 20bβ, 25–32, 36–40; 7:2–8a, 12, 23–25; 8:1–3, 10aβ–b, 11bβ, 12aβ, 12bβ, 18b, 21a, 21bβ, 22–27, 29–31, 35. Recently Wright made a new attempt to determine all parts of the text that can be regarded as supplements, leaving what “would correspond, more or less, to the original text” (Wright 2018, 106): 6:1–2a, 6b, 12, 14, 34; 7:1, 15, 17b, 18, 21, 22a; 8:5–7, 14–16. According to Wright this earliest legend pictured Gideon as a professional fighter with his own army. Deuteronomistic scribes responsible for the supplements turned him into someone full of fear and his army from professional warriors to citizen soldiers (Wright 2018, 117–118). An interesting alternative and more simple diachronic reconstruction was recently presented by Milstein (2016, 195–228). She finds in Judg. 6–9 another indication for her theory that, as a rule, revision of a text was performed by adding an introduction. She assumes that in both chapters 8 and 9 the oldest material is now found at the end, in 8:4–21 and 9:26–54 respectively. When these originally local stories of Gideon and Abimelech were combined, Abimelech was presented as the son of Gideon/Jerubbaal in a new introduction (9:1–25). In a following stage, the story of Gideon and Abimelech would have been turned into a story about Israel and YHWH by adding the introduction now found in 7:1–22. Judg. 6 would then represent the latest material, with a Deuteronomistic introduction in vv. 1–6 and a still later modification in vv. 7–10. An argument supporting this theory, but not mentioned by Milstein, is that a similar way of editing through introduction can also be found in the story of Samson. Chapter 13 is interpreted by many scholars as a kind of Yahwistic prologue to the following heroic epic. Just like the introduction to the story of Gideon in chapter 6, it is characterized by the central role for YHWH, who is much less prominent in the rest of the story. The survey of attempts to reconstruct the formation of chapters 6–8 shows that much is possible, but that most theories inevitably remain hypothetical (cf. Emerton 1976; Sasson 2014, 341) and that a consensus is not in sight. The same holds true for the synchronic approach which has resulted in a wide array of pictures of Gideon, both positive and negative. Groß presents a bewildering overview, in support of his very negative judgment: “Synchron lesende, holistisch auslegende Autoren neigen dazu, Textsignale nur in Auswahl wahrzunehmen, dem Text eine in sich konsequente Charakterstudie Gideons zu entnehmen, Leerstellen durch psychologische Spekulationen zu füllen und ebenso unhistorisch wie heftig theologisch wie moralisch zu werten” (2007, 469–470). Something similar, however, can be said of diachronic reconstructions which run the risk of taking away intended opposition or bias

198

Judges6:1–8:32

in a text by attributing it to different layers. Within the book of Judges there is a clear contrast between Gideon and Abimelech, but there are also good reasons to assume a change of attitude of Gideon himself, coinciding with a change of appreciation by the author. To this can be added that editorial activities, which left their traces in the text, do not exclude the possibility that the present text proves to be a literary coherent and well-structured unity, as the work of a final editor. Building on the insights gained by the close reading of the scholars summarized above, while returning to the problems noted by Richter mentioned at the beginning of this overview, a new reconstruction of the formation of Judg. 6–9 may be tentatively suggested. It is based on the observation that the double name of Gideon/Jerubbaal does not fit in very well into the story of Gideon as a whole and that within this story as a whole a number of passages appear to be of a different character. The first is 6:7–10 about an anonymous prophet reminding Israel of its sins. It can be left out (as is in 4Qjudga) without disturbing the flow of the story. It has a close parallel in the introduction to Saul being appointed as king in 1 Sam. 10:18 with Samuel in the role of the prophet. These verses may have been added to the story of Gideon to underline that it must be read as an introduction to the following stories about the kings of Israel. The story of the fleece (6:36–40) attracts attention for two reasons: it interrupts the story and it describes the relation between Gideon and his god differently. Instead of using the name YHWH it uses “God” and whereas in the previous story about the conversations between Gideon and YHWH or the messenger of YHWH we never find the expression “Gideon said to (the messenger of) YHWH”, we now read two times: “Gideon said to God”. A third part of the story that stands out is 7:23–8:23 about the pursuit of the Midianites, the killing of two Midianite leaders, and a conflict between Ephraim and Gideon. It does not mention the same tribes as in 6:35, ignores the fact that in 8:4 Gideon’s army still consists of three hundred men and that Gideon still had to cross the Jordan. Just like 8:4–21, which repeats the elements of the killing of two Midianite leaders and an inner-Israelite conflict, it does not fit in very well in the story as a whole. Both 7:23–8:3 and 8:4-21 can be left out without disturbing the flow of the story. In 8:18 reference is made to another story not known to the reader and in v. 20, to a son of Gideon who is only mentioned here. It is also remarkable that it is the only part of the story of Gideon in which YHWH plays no role at all. In this respect it closely resembles the second part of the story of Abimelech (9:26–54). It does not seem far-fetched to assume, with Milstein and others, that the stories in 8:4–21 and 9:26–54 represent old traditions used by the author of

Gideon

199

the book of Judges as building blocks in his story of pre-monarchic Israel. Within the book of Judges they are now part of a diptych at the heart of the book presenting Gideon/Jerubbaal and Abimelech as two contrasting figures. It may be assumed that the author supplemented the story of Abimelech with an introduction which presents him as a power-mad person who kills his brothers and is possessed by an evil spirit. The story of Gideon/Jerubbaal is supplemented by presenting him as Abimelech’s opposite: as called by YHWH, driven by the spirit of YHWH, and liberating his people. For this, the author could use other already existing stories and traditions, such as the fable of Jotham in chapter 9 and different stories about Gideon/Jerubbaal in chapters 6–8. By inserting the story about the conflict between Gideon and Ephraim the author related Gideon’s positive action to Jephthah’s failure to keep the peace with Ephraim (12:1–6). The hand of the author is also visible in places where there are clear parallels to other parts of the book of Judges, especially in the references to the returning cycle of events of apostasy, punishment by YHWH, crying out to YHWH and liberation by means of a saviour sent by YHWH. By making variations to the fixed scheme, the author brings special elements of his message to the attention of the reader. Also, with the returning theme of the messenger of YHWH (6:11–24; cf. 2:1–5 and 13:1–23) the author has put his mark on the story. The most likely solution to the problem of the seemingly forced way in which Jerubbaal is presented as the second name of Gideon is that this combination of the names is an invention of the author. With 6:25–32 he added the story, after the reference to the altar built for YHWH by Gideon, about Gideon destroying the altar for Baal and receiving a new name: Jerubbaal. It explains that contrary to what one would expect the name Jerubbaal does not indicate veneration of Baal but opposition against this idol! The reference to Jerubbaal in 1 Sam. 12:11, indicates that at least some of the stories connected with this name were known to the author of the books of Samuel and it is not unlikely that he used an older tradition (cf. De Pury 2010, 279, who assumes that the original story stems from the 9th century BCE). In his retelling he then added the name of Gideon. This name, which only appears in these chapters, could indicate that the author had different traditions about wars against the Midianites at his disposal. Another possible explanation is the attractive suggestion by Auld that this name was made up for the occasion and chosen because of the association with the verb ‫גדע‬, “to hack”, used in Deut. 7:5; 12:3 in the command to destroy the altars of the idols (Auld 1989, 264). This would fit in very well with the many other examples in the book of Judges of puns on names. Within this framework it is interesting to note that in the Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 11:21 Abimelech is called “the son of Jerubbeshet”, a name replacing the name of the god Baal with the derogative ‫בּשׁת‬, ֶ “shame”, possibly here pointed with the vowels of

200

Judges6:1–8:32

‫שׁ ֶקר‬, ֶ “lie”. In the Septuagint and the Peshitta, however, the name Jerubbaal is retained. Apparently, there were different views about the permissibility of the element “Baal”. The introduction of the name of Gideon taking precedence over the traditional Jerubbaal could be seen as a way of making the original name acceptable. A precise dating of the different parts of these chapters must remain hypothetical. The story about the war against the Midianites in 8:4–21 seems to be the oldest part and it is likely that this is based on events that took place in the eleventh or 10th century BCE (Groß 2009, 473–474; cf. Finkelstein & Lipschits 2017, 17) and may also originally stem from this period. Some of the traditions about Abimelech, son of Jerubbaal, also appear to be relatively old, because they were known to the writer of the books of Samuel. Whether this also pertains to Jerubbaal/Gideon as described in chapters 6–8 remains uncertain. Parts of the text, like 6:36–40, may also be relatively old, but it is not unlikely that most of the legendary material, or at least the way it was presented, was added by the final redactor or author of the book. The element of the small army of three hundred might be an indication of this late date, because it has a clear parallel in Greek literature. With regard to the structure, these three chapters as a whole do not seem to be built-up as artfully as some of the previous parts of the book. Gooding sees a symmetrical pattern of four parts, with 6:1–32 corresponding with 8:22–32 as Gideon’s stand against idolatry versus Gideon’s lapse into idolatry and with 6:33–7:25 corresponding with 8:1–21 as Gideon’s fight against the enemy versus his fight against his own people (Gooding 1982, 74; cf. also Baker 2018, 354–357). Tanner agrees with Gooding’s ideas about the overall structure of the book of Judges (see introduction § 2.3), but he finds a different symmetrical pattern: 6:1–10 // 8:22–32; 6:11–32 // 7:19–8:21, surrounding 6:33–7:18 as its focal point, which also represents the turning point from the better judges to the weaker ones (Tanner 1990, 188–199, and Tanner 1992, 152–153). However, their analyses are not based on clear formal arguments such as word repetition. They rest primarily on more general thematic parallels and, therefore, have found little consent among other scholars. More convincing examples of concentric patterns can be found, though, on a smaller level. A reason for this relatively less coherent structure of the story of Gideon may have been that the author was restricted by his source material. On a smaller level, however, we do find the typical style of the author, using chiastic structures, playing with words and with the number three (see the remarks on 6:1–6, 13, 23, 31; 7:13, 16; 8:23). Many scholars point to the crossing of the Jordan by Gideon in 8:4 as a real “watershed” in the story, with a positive picture of Gideon before and a more negative picture of Gideon after this transition (Webb 1987, 146; 2012, 220; Smelik 2001, 101; Scherer 2005, 362).

Gideon

201

Amit (1999, 232) distinguishes two blocks; the first with the emphasis on the active power of YHWH (6:11–7:23), the second on the problems of human leadership (7:24–8:27a). In this first block one of the many concentric structures of the book of Judges in its present form can be noted, showing again that the author may have used material from different sources but also arranged them into a well-considered coherent whole (see also the remarks on 6:1–6). The heart of the structure is formed by Gideon’s twofold request for a sign by YHWH (6:36–40), mirrored by YHWH’s double test of Gideon (7:1–8) (cf. Bluedorn 2001, 113–115). In the texts, before and after, one may note also a number of corresponding elements: 6:11–32 – A messenger of YHWH promises that YHWH shall deliver Israel from Midian through Gideon; followed by a successful action of Gideon and his men against the altar of Baal. 6:33 – Midian and its allies come to Israel 6:34–35 – Gideon assembles a big army 6:36–40 – Gideon asks two signs from YHWH 7:1–7 – YHWH tests Gideon two times 7:8 – Gideon’s army is reduced to three hundred men 7:12 – Midian and its allies have come with a big army 7:13–23 – The dream of a Midianite confirms that YHWH will deliver Israel through Gideon; followed by a successful action of Gideon and his men against the Midianites.

Van Midden (1999, 53) demonstrates, upon the basis of a syntactic analysis, that in 8:4 an important shift takes place concerning the main participants in the textual hierarchy: from this moment on, the main participant is Gideon, whereas in chapter 6 and 7 this primarily was YHWH. When we look at who is speaking in Judg. 6–9 (cf. Smelik 2001, 106), however, the crossing of the Jordan does not seem to be decisive. Chapter 6 is dominated by the dialogue between (the messenger of) YHWH and Gideon (6:8–24) and ends with a double request by Gideon to God, which is granted by God (6:36–40). Chapter 7 starts with commands by YHWH to Gideon, who obeys (7:2–11). Afterwards Gideon becomes more dominant, giving the orders to his soldiers. This continues in chapter 8 with no more words spoken by YHWH. The change in the relation between YHWH and Gideon appears to take place when, finally, Gideon takes action. As soon as he is really acting as a leader he does not need YHWH anymore. This negative development is underlined by the corresponding references to a cultic installation in his hometown. Whereas Gideon erected an altar for YHWH in Ophrah according to 6:24, he placed there an ephod causing the people to go astray according to 8:27. One may also note a similar pattern in the story of Jephthah and in the book of Judges as a whole: YHWH is gradually falling silent, that is, the people stop listening to their god.

202

Judges6:1–8:32 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS

6:1–6 1 2

3 4

5

6

ThechildrenofIsraeldidwhatwasevilintheeyesofYHWH.YHWHgave themintothehandofMidian,sevenyears. ThehandofMidianwasstrongoverIsrael.BeforeMidianthechildren ofIsraelmadeuseforthemselvesoftheholesthatwereinthemountains, thecavesandthestrongholds. Itwouldbe,whenIsraelhadsowed,thatMidiancameupandAmalek andthechildrenoftheEastcameupagainsthim. Theyencampedagainstthemandruinedtheproduceofthelandas faraswhereyoucometoGaza.TheydidnotleavefoodinIsraeland sheepandoxanddonkey, becausetheyandtheircattlecameupandtheirtentsandcameas numerous as locusts. For them and their camels was no number. Theycameintothelandtoruinit. IsraelwasbroughtlowverymuchbeforeMidianandthechildrenof IsraelcriedouttoYHWH.

The first six verses of this chapter describe in a mix of customary phrases and new elements the dire straits in which Israel finds itself after being punished again by YHWH for not obeying him. The pericope, as it is also indicated by the petucha after v. 6, is built up well in a chiastic style, characteristic of the author of the book of Judges. It starts and ends with the name of YHWH, twice in the first verse and once as the final word in v. 6. In the first two verses the name of YHWH is combined with the names of Israel and Midian, both named three times. In the last verse the names of Israel and Midian are mentioned again together with the name of YHWH. It starts with Israel acting against YHWH and ends with Israel crying out to YHWH. The difference is caused by Midian sent by YHWH. The phrase “the hand of Midian was strong over Israel” (v. 2a) is taken up in the conclusion: “Israel was impoverished very much before Midian” (v. 6a). Over against Israel looking for shelter in three hiding places mentioned in v. 2 stand the three enemies coming up against them in v. 3. In the next two verses it is specified how these enemies ruin the land (repeating the words ‫ שׁחת‬and ‫ארץ‬ of v. 4a in 5b) with the “sheep, ox and donkey” of Israel on the one hand and the camels of the enemy on the other. After the similar report in 2:11; 3:7, 12; and 4:1 of the Israelites doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH, this repetition of Israel’s sinning will come as no surprise. It is remarkable, however, that unlike 3:12 and 4:1 (and later in 10:6 and 13:1) it is not described as a repetition using the verb ‫יסף‬, “to continue”. This underlines that, in more than one respect, the following story

Gideon

203

about Gideon takes a central place in the book of Judges. This is more than just the continuing story, just as Gideon will prove to be more than just one of the saviours or judges of Israel. As yet this does not seem to be the case with regard to the way Israel is punished by YHWH. The new enemy called up by YHWH is Midian. From Num. 22 and 25 we know that it is not the first time that Israel had to fight against this people living east of the Jordan. In these stories we also learn that Midian often joined forces with Moab, the enemy in the previous period of Ehud (3:12). There is clear assonance in the phrase ‫ד־מ ְדיָ ן‬ ִ ַ‫י‬, “the hand of Midian”. This is no coincidence, because it is repeated at the beginning of the next verse (cf. also 7:2, 7, 14, 15; 8:3, 22; and 9:17; according to Nelson 2017, 123, the references to “hand” provide “a sort of leitmotif for the Gideon chapters”; cf. also Amit 1999, 264–265; Groß 2009, 434–435). Because of the coalition mentioned in v. 3 also this enemy will prove to be more than a normal opponent. The period of oppression, lasting seven years, is below average, compared to the eight years in 3:8, eighteen years in 3:14, and twenty years in 4:3. Also here, however, the next verses will indicate that the burden is extremely heavy. The verb ‫עזז‬, “to be strong”, in v. 2 was also used in 3:10. There it described Othniel dominating Cushan Rishataim. The combination with the preposition ‫ על‬in 6:2 emphasizes that Midian is superior to Israel. The names of both peoples are mentioned three times in the first two verses of this chapter. In v. 1 Israel was mentioned first, in v. 2 the places are reversed. Midian is dominant and Israel is creeping away. In the characteristic style of the author this is indicated in three ways: the reference to the “holes in ַ ‫ת־ה ְמּ ָערוֹת וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬, the mountains” is repeated in the alliterating phrase ‫ת־ה ְמּ ָצדוֹת‬ “the caves and the strongholds”. In v. 3 also the enemies are described in threefold (cf. also 7:12; in 8:10 there is another reference to “the children of the East”). Israel’s arch-enemy Amalek was mentioned already in 3:13 in another coalition: together with the Moabites and Ammonites. The combination with the more general “the children of the East” (cf. also Gen. 29:1; Isa. 11:14; Jer. 49:28; Ezek. 25:4, 10) denotes that Israel is now threatened by all possible enemies that could come from that side of the river Jordan and that things are getting worse and worse for Israel (cf. Neef 2016, 116: “Der Deuteronomist hat hier bewusst überzeichnet, um die Rettung durch die jeweiligen Richter und schließlich durch Jahwe selbst umso strahlender erscheinen zu lassen”). The details about the raids of Midian and its allies will make this extra clear. The final words of v. 3, ‫וְ ָעלוּ ָע ָליו‬, “and they came up against him”, are missing in 4QJudga, but they are represented in the versions (except the Vulgate). BHK and BHS suggest that these words are an addition, but BHQ, 65*, proposes to retain them. It is possible that 4QJudga represents the oldest version and that the extra words are like verses 7–10 part of an elaborated retelling.

204

Judges6:1–8:32

The reference to Gaza in v. 4 fits to the description of gravity of the situation. The attacks by the enemies from the east reach until Gaza at the west coast. Again, the distress is described in alliteration and in threefold, as affecting even the animals: ‫וְ ֶשׂה וָ שׁוֹר וַ ֲחמוֹר‬, “and sheep and ox and donkey”. In v. 5 Israel and its animals are put against the enemies and their beasts; later specified as their camels. Also, the metaphor remains in the sphere of animals, as they are compared to countless locusts. The second verb of v. 5 is translated here according to the qere: ‫וּבאוּ‬, ָ “they came as numerous”. The ketiv has ‫( יָ בֹאוּ‬hiphil), “they brought (their tents)”, which is supported by LXX (A). 4QJudga seems to have a shorter text, again, omitting the reference to the camels (‫)לגמליהם‬, although it has also been suggested that it may have a different word order with ‫ לגמליהם‬being included before ‫( יבאו‬cf. Trebolle Barrera 1989–90, 236; 1995, 163). The result of Midian “being strong over Israel” (v. 2a) is clear: “Israel was brought low very much before Midian” (v. 6a). The same expression is used in Ps. 142:7. This prayer starts with the same verb ‫זעק‬, “crying out” to YHWH (Ps. 142:2). Within the book of Judges it repeats 3:9 and 15; it is used later in 10:10. 6:7–10 7 8

9

10

IthappenedwhenthechildrenofIsraelcriedouttoYHWHonaccount ofMidian, thatYHWHsentaman,aprophettothechildrenofIsrael.Hesaidto them:“ThussaysYHWH,thegodofIsrael:itismewhohasbrought youupfromEgyptandmadeyougooutofthehouseofslaves. IhavedeliveredyoufromthehandofEgyptandfromthehandof allyouroppressors.IdrovethemoutfrombeforeyouandIgaveyou theirland. Ihavesaidtoyou:IamYHWH,yourgod.Youshallnotfearthegods oftheAmoritesinwhoselandyouaresettlingandyouhavenotlistened tomyvoice”.

This pericope, marked by two Masoretic petuchot, disturbs the flow of the story. Unlike 3:9 and 15 YHWH does not directly react to Israel’s crying out to him by raising a deliverer. In 6:7 the scene is connected to the previous one by verbally repeating the phrase about Israel’s crying to YHWH. This is a rhetorical technique not used in any other part of the book of Judges. It may have been the reason why this repeated phrase in 6:7a is left out in several medieval Hebrew manuscripts, LXX (B), the Peshitta, and the Vulgate.

Gideon

205

The content of 6:7–10 is not surprising. The appearance of “a man, a prophet” reminds us of Deborah, “a woman, a prophetess”, introduced in 4:4 after Israel’s cry for help to YHWH. His words reminding Israel of YHWH’s mighty deeds in favour of Israel – in contrast to Israel’s unfaithfulness, may be compared to those of the messenger of YHWH in Bochim (2:1–2) and to the words that shall be spoken by YHWH himself according to 10:11–12. Compared to these texts, however, one misses (after 6:10) a reaction of the people to the words of the prophet, as in 2:4 and 10:15. Instead, 6:11 seems to continue where the story in 6:6 ended; with the messenger of YHWH making a beginning with raising a saviour as reaction to Israel’s cry for help. All this can be explained by assuming that 6:7–10 is a later addition inserted by repeating the last words of the passage to which it is connected, an editorial technique known as “Wiederaufnahme”. This interpretation has a long history in scholarly literature. Already Studer remarked about the beginning of chapter 6: “Die einleitenden Worte nebst der Strafrede des Propheten v.7–10, welche letztere so lose eingefügt ist, dass sie ohne die geringste Störung des Zusammenhangs weggelassen werden könnte, sind unstreitig ein Eigenthum desjenigen, der die ihm schriftlich oder mündlich überlieferte Masse historischer Relationen nach den im 2ten Kapitel aufgestellten theokratischen Gesichtspunkten in ein Ganzes zu verarbeiten gesucht hat” (Studer 1835, 174; cf. also Moore 1895, 181; Lagrange 1903, 119). Usually vv. 1–6 are attributed to a Deuteronomistic compiler and vv. 7–10 to a later redactor. The discovery of the remnants of the very early (dated 50–25 BCE) manuscript 4QJudga which leaves out precisely these four verses (Trebolle Barrera 1989–1990; 1995, 161–164) was welcomed as one of the very few cases in which the reconstruction of the formation of the text of the Hebrew Bible is confirmed by hard evidence (cf. Tov 2012b, 313–314; Müller etal. 2014, 59–68; Ulrich 2015, 67–70). However, not everyone agrees (cf. the excellent survey and evaluation of the discussion by Rezetko 2013 and also the remarks by Sasson 2014, 329–330). It has to be taken into account that we are dealing with no more than a fragment of a scroll (containing only parts of Judg. 6:2–6 and 11–13), of which we do not know the size or the function. We already came across some other deviations from the MT in which the text from Qumran is shorter. It cannot be excluded that 4QJudga is an imperfect or shortened copy of the text preserved in the MT. Nevertheless, it is likely that it represents a different and probably also earlier literary form of the book of Judges. An important element in the discussions about the place of vv. 7–10 within its present context is the question of how it is related to the following verses: why is there no reaction to the words of the prophet? How are these words related to Gideon’s question why all this misery has come over Israel if YHWH is with Israel (v. 13)? The fact that no clear answer is given by the messenger of YHWH to Gideon’s question may have been experienced as

206

Judges6:1–8:32

theologically problematic and could have motivated the addition. According to Smith (2016, 270) “6:7–10 seems to represent a literary creation responding to a perceived exegetical problem raised by the story of Gideon’s call”. In his view this “midrashic addition” postdates the Deuteronomistic material. It might even have been written “in the Greco-Roman context” (Smith 2016, 271). Also, Rofé interprets 6:7–10 as “an addition (…) aiming to reply to Gideon’s complaint”, but according to him the clear parallels with other texts show that it is “a segment of a pre-Deuteronomistic literary layer” (Rofé 2011, 121). A relatively early date is also defended, but on different grounds, by Guillaume, who assumes an edition of the “Book ofSaviours” during the reign of Josiah (640–609 BCE) in which 6:7–10 was added together with 2:1–5, 11–19; 10:1–3; 12:9–15; and 17–18 (Guillaume 2004, 258). It appears also to be possible to explain the relation between 6:7–10 and 6:13 within a synchronic approach. Martin (2007, 114–115) states that Gideon asks the wrong question and that precisely the point that there is no reaction to the words of the prophets is telling: “this prophet intrudes into the expectations of the oppressed Israelites, who desire not correction but salvation and whose desire is not for a word but for a ‘wonder’ (Judges 6:13). The intruding prophet, therefore, is considered by his audience to be irrelevant to their perceived context; consequently, when he has finished speaking to them the word of Yahweh they ignore him completely”. Also Assis (2009, 26) states that it is the intention of the narrator to show the “complete apathy” of the people. Moreover, there would have been no need for adding an answer to Gideon’s questions in v. 13, because the following command by YHWH to deliver Israel shows that YHWH did not abandon his people at all. It is hard to deny the literary and text-critical evidence pointing to 6:7–10 as a later addition, but this does not necessarily imply a big distance from the original text. As is indicated already many times in the present commentary, there are good reasons to assume that in its present form the whole book of Judges is a late construct. In fact, the manuscript found in Qumran shows that as late as the 1st century BCE there still may have been different versions next to each other. 4QJudga could very well have represented a version of the book which had not reached canonical status. Precisely the emphasis on the prophetical character of the books describing this part of the history of Israel would have attributed to its authority: “One factor in the eventual reclassification of Joshua-Kings from being seen simply as national historical literature to being recognized as ‘Scripture’ may have been the increasing focus on prophets, helped by insertions such as the one in the MT highlighted by 4QJudga” (Ulrich 2015, 70). This insertion may not have been an incident, but part of the still on-going editing and writing process (cf. Spronk 2011, 188–189).

Gideon

207

As has been noted by many scholars, vv. 8–10 are filled with formulas and phrases, which are usually called Deuteronomistic (cf. Groß 2009, 370). The closest parallel to the words of the prophet is found in Joshua’s farewell speech in Josh. 24 (Smith 2016, 268; cf. also Ederer 2017, who emphasizes, next to Josh. 24:2–15, the reminiscences to Exod. 3:8–10 and 6:6–8). This is especially clear in the unexpected reference to “the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are settling”. This phrase is only used in Judg. 6:10 and Josh. 24:15. Just as in 2:2 we are reminded of Israel failing to keep its promise to listen to the voice of YHWH (Josh. 24:24). Together with the way the report about Joshua’s death in Josh. 24:28–31 is taken up in Judg. 2:6–9 this makes clear that the final chapter of the book of Joshua functioned as a source of inspiration for the author/editor of the book of Judges. The motive for adding 6:7–10 may have been to emphasize that also the story of Gideon as the central story of the book should be read against the background of Joshua’s warnings. This is more likely than the often made suggestion that the addition was meant to give a proper orthodox answer in advance to Gideon’s bold objection in v. 13. It is not clear why this was placed then before and not after the words it reacts to. Moreover, the answer given by YHWH in v. 14 and also the fact that YHWH gives the answer himself are sufficient. 6:11 

A messenger of YHWH came and sat under the terebinth that is in Ophrah,that(belonged)toJoash,theAbiezrite.Gideon,hisson,was beatingwheatinthewinepresstobringitintosafetyfrombeforeMidian.

This is the second time the messenger of YHWH is mentioned (see on the translation the remarks to 2:1; cf. also JM § 139a, n.1). Just as in chapter 2 he appears on a special place: “the terebinth that is in Ophrah”. The article in ‫ ָה ֵא ָלה‬indicates that it is not just a tree. We have to think of a well-known place, probably a holy place like the palm of Deborah (4:5). There may also be a link with the terebinth near Shechem (Gen. 35:4; cf. also Gen. 12:6–7 using the related word ‫)אלוֹן‬ ֵ which was also mentioned in Josh. 24:26, in the story to which so many references are made in the book of Judges. It is the place where Joshua erected the stone as symbol for the covenant with YHWH and also the place where Abimelech shall be proclaimed king (9:6 using the word ‫)אלוֹן‬. ֵ The location of a town called Ophrah is unknown, leaving room for much speculation (cf. Gaß 2005, 270–278; Niesiolowski-Spanò 2005). To this it can be added the suggestion that the name is a pun, relating the village called ‫ ָע ְפ ָרה‬to ‫ע ָפר‬, ָ “dust”, indicating that it is very insignificant with only houses of clay (cf. Job 4:19). It would not be the only name in this verse

208

Judges6:1–8:32

of which its meaning has a function in the story. This certainly holds true for Joash being called “the Abiezrite”. In the MT it is written down as two words ‫א ִ ֣בי ָ ֽה ֶע ִזרי‬, ֲ indicating that the meaning of the name “my father is a helper” is of importance. The father of Gideon will play an important role in the rest of the story. This is foreshadowed in the fact that he is named before the introduction of his son. This distinguishes Joash from the fathers of Ehud (3:15) and Baraq (4:6) and it is one of the many parallels with the story of Samson, in which also the father figures prominently in the first part. Finally, also the name Gideon appears to be meaningful. It can be related to the verb ‫גדע‬, “to hack”, to which is attached the element ‫ וֹן‬as in other names like Samson (Auld 1989, 264–265; Sasson 2014, 346; Jerome explained it very differently as circuiens in utero, “circling in the womb”, or tentatio iniquitatiseorum, “temptation of their sins”, taking it as a combination of ‫גד‬ and ‫ ;און‬Philo translates πειρατήριον, “band of pirates”, relating it to ‫גדוד‬, “troop”; cf. Légasse 2000, 226–228). This seems to point forward to the command in 6:25 to cut down the Asherah. There the verb ‫ כרת‬is used, but the traditional texts with the same command use the verb ‫( גדע‬cf. Deut. 7:5; 12:3). It may even be assumed that the name of Gideon, who is mentioned nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, was invented for the occasion. This would be in line with the function of many other names in this book, like Cushan Rishataim (3:8; see also the remarks on the names of Deborah and Samson). What Gideon is doing here “before Midian” (‫;מ ְפּנֵ י ִמ ְדיָן‬ ִ cf. 6:2, 6) illustrates what was told in more general terms in v. 2: he is hiding the crop from the plundering Midianites. Apparently, the wheat had just been harvested, sometime in spring. He is now using the winepress, which is not used in that period, to thresh it. This is not very convenient, because a winepress is located at a low place to let the grape juice flow down. Threshing floors are located on higher place to catch the wind. The only advantage of the location is that it is a good hiding place. Schulz & Schäfer fail to make a reasonable case for the idea that a rock cut cellar is “ausgesprochen gut zum Dreschen geeignet” (2018, 429). Gideon lies low in a place where the Midianites will probably not look for wheat. 6:12–13 12 13

The messenger of YHWH showed himself to him and said to him: “YHWHiswithyou,mightyhero”. Gideonsaidtohim:“Ah,mylord,ifYHWHiswithus,whyhasall thisvisitedus?Whereareallthewonderswhichourfathersrecounted tous,saying:‘WasitnotfromEgyptthatYHWHbroughtusup?’And nowYHWHhasforsakenusandhehasgivenusintothegraspof Midian”.

Gideon

209

After the description of Gideon in a very uncomfortable situation the appearance of the messenger of YHWH and the way he greets Gideon comes as a surprise. The messenger caught him hiding and being called “mighty hero” can very well be interpreted as ironic. In 5:13 and 23 the word ‫גִּ בּוֹר‬, “hero”, referred to fighting men. In 5:23 these men are blamed for not cooperating with YHWH in the war against the Canaanites. A similar accusation could be made to Gideon. One could also, however, interpret this greeting positive, as an encouragement: together with YHWH Gideon is a potential saviour. From Gideon’s answer it can be deduced that he did hear an accusation in the words of the messenger which he now returns by questioning YHWH’s assistance. He does not react to his being called a mighty hero. Instead, he focusses on the first words: is YHWH really with us? His three questions (another indication of the writer’s liking for this number) all begin with the conjunction ְ‫ו‬: ‫“( וְ יֵ שׁ‬and is YHWH with us?”), ‫“( וְ ָל ָמּה‬and why has all this visited us?”), ‫“( וְ ַאיֵּ ה‬and where are all the wonders which our fathers recounted us?”). According to Jouön & Muraoka, the middle one is a “waw of emotion” (JM § 177m), but this seems also to apply to the other two. The questions are introduced with ‫בּי ֲאד ֹנִ י‬, ִ “ah, my lord”. This has a parallel in Exod. 4:10, 13, where Moses is also voicing reservations to his calling by YHWH. Note that he switched to the first person plural: “if YHWH is with us”. Also in this way he seems to want to take away the attention from himself. In rabbinic commentaries, however, Gideon is praised for this shifting the conversation to a national orientation as evidence of good leadership (Tanhuma Shofetim 4; cf. Légasse 2000, 199; Anthonioz etal. 2015, 228). Gideon puts the blame on YHWH. Usually the verb ‫נטשׁ‬, “to forsake”, is used for the people forsaking YHWH (Deut. 32:15) or for YHWH not forsaking his people (1 Sam. 12:22; 1 Kgs 8:57; Ps. 27:9; 94:14). So, the accusation is very harsh. There is no indication that Gideon was familiar with or accepted the idea that the Midianites were sent by YHWH as a punishment. In the final line and also in YHWH’s answer in v. 14 we read ‫ף־מ ְדיָ ן‬ ִ ‫בּ ַכ‬, ְ “in the grasp of Midian”, instead of the customary “in the hand (‫ )יד‬of Midian”. This probably denotes that Gideon describes the situation as even worse than it was done in the beginning of the chapter (cf. 1 Sam. 4:3; Prov. 6:3). 6:14–16 14 15

16

YHWH turned to him and said: “Go in this strength of yours and deliverIsraelfromthegraspofMidian.HaveInotsentyou?” Hesaidtohim:“Ah,Lord,withwhatshallIdeliverIsrael?Look,my clan(is)theweakestinManassehandI(am)thesmallestinthehouse ofmyfather”. YHWHsaidtohim:“Indeed,Iwillbewithyouandyoushallstrike downMidianasoneman”.

210

Judges6:1–8:32

YHWH’s answer puts the focus back on Gideon again. He commands him to take action as a deliverer of his people. There is a remarkable change here from the messenger of YHWH to YHWH himself (this is lost in the LXX harmonizing the text by reading here again a reference to the messenger of YHWH). It is as if YHWH was provoked by Gideon questioning his loyalty and now does not want to hide behind his messenger anymore. He “turned” (‫ )פנה‬to him. This verb often marks the change from YHWH punishing his people to bringing salvation (cf. Lev. 26:9; 2 Kgs 13:22–23). Here it can be better compared with texts about YHWH turning to a prayer (cf. 1 Kgs 8:28; Ps. 102:18), albeit that it is more an accusation. As was remarked in the discussion about the place of vv. 7–10, some scholars state that Gideon’s questions remained unanswered which would have motivated a later writer to add a reaction in vv. 8–10 sketching a more positive picture of YHWH. YHWH’s answer in v. 14 can be regarded, however, as a fitting reaction, given that it does not go along with Gideon’s questions. YHWH does not defend himself, but by sending Gideon he shows that he takes action. More important is that his answer puts the emphasis again on Gideon. He may have had his doubts about him being called “mighty warrior”, but by commanding him to “go in this strength of yours” YHWH makes clear that Gideon should have more confidence in his abilities as someone sent by YHWH. Gideon gets the message and in his reaction he now also speaks in the first person singular (v. 15), but he remains reluctant. This time his words are introduced with ‫ ִבּי ֲאד ֹנָ י‬with a slightly different vocalization than in v. 13, indicating that he is now aware of the fact that he is talking to YHWH himself. It does not keep him from looking for another excuse, this time focusing on his own status, making himself very small. Within the tribe of Manasseh his clan is weak and within his own family he himself is the youngest. The word translated here as “clan” is also the word for the number thousand. It is translated in this way in the LXX: ἡ χιλιάς μου, “my thousand” (cf. Harlé 1999, 66–69, about the consistent use of this word in the LXX), suggesting that it is a kind of army. The meaning “clan” is also attested in 1 Sam. 10:19. For tactical reasons he may have surpassed a qualification of the house of his father. From vv. 25–32 we can deduce that it was not unimportant within its surroundings. It held a cultic installation and Gideon’s father appears to have the authority to calm an angry crowd. Such a status does not fit Gideon’s attempt to show himself unworthy. Then, for the third time (a common element in the book of Judges), YHWH declares that he is with Gideon and is sending no one else other than him. He is becoming more and more specific. It started with qualifying Gideon as a mighty hero (v. 12), then it is said that Gideon will deliver Israel from Midian (v. 14), and finally that he will “strike down Midian as one

Gideon

211

man” (v. 16). The final words ‫כּ ִאישׁ ֶא ָחד‬, ְ “as one man”, are also used in 20:1, 8, and 11 to indicate that the Israelites were united in their war against the Benjaminites. Here it probably denotes that Gideon will be victorious over all Midianites. Within the present context one can also see it as the counterpart of the focus on Gideon alone. The victory will not be won by superiority in numbers, but only by YHWH helping Gideon. The story of YHWH calling Gideon and Gideon trying to escape it, has clear parallels in the stories of the calling of Moses (Exod. 3:9–14), Saul (1 Sam. 9:17-21), and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:4-10). There is much discussion about the relative dating (cf. the survey by Groß 2009, 403–405). This much is clear that Gideon is the one who does the most to convince YHWH that he is unworthy. In the following, it will become clear that from his part also YHWH has to give more signs than he did to Moses and others in order to assure Gideon that he can do the job. 6:17–24 17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24

Hesaidtohim:“IfIhavefoundfavourinyoureyes,makeformea signthatitisyouwhoisspeakingwithme. DonotdepartfromhereuntilIhavecome(back)toyouandbrought outtoyoumygiftandplaceditbeforeyourface”.Hesaid:“Iwillstay untilyourreturn”. Gideonwentandpreparedagoat’skidandmatzosofanephah offlour.Themeatheputinabasketandthebrothheputinapot. He brought (it) out to him, under the terebinth and he brought (it) near. ThemessengerofGodsaidtohim:“Takethemeatandthematzos andput(them)onthisboulderandpouroutthebroth”.Hedidso. ThemessengerofYHWHstretchedoutthetipofthestaffthatwasin hishand.Hestruckthemeatandthematzos.Thefirewentupfrom therock.ItatethefleshandthematzosandthemessengerofYHWH hadgonefromhiseyes. GideonsawthathewasthemessengerofYHWH.Gideonsaid:“Alas, myLordYHWH,becauseIhaveseenamessengerofYHWH,faceto face!” YHWHsaidtohim:“Peaceforyou.Fearnot.Youwillnotdie”. GideonbuiltthereanaltarforYHWH.Hecalledit:YHWH(is)peace. UntilthisdayitisstillinOphrahoftheAbiezrites.

Just as in the story of Moses’ calling, YHWH adds to the promise of his assistance a “sign” (‫)אוֹת‬. In Exod. 3:12 it is the promise that Moses and the people will serve God at Mount Horeb. So here the sign is postponed to the

212

Judges6:1–8:32

future. In Exod. 4:1–8, a number of signs directly given are added: Moses’ staff turned into a snake and then into a staff again, and his hand becoming leprous and also returned to its normal state. The sign for Gideon is of a different nature. It gives what Gideon asks for: the proof that the one he is speaking to is of divine nature. Within the book of Judges, it has a close parallel in the story of the encounter between the messenger of YHWH and Manoah and his wife (13:15–20). Both stories are built up in the same way (cf. the overview by Sasson 2014, 332–333). A striking difference with both the stories in Exod. 3-4 and Judg. 13 is that only Gideon explicitly asks for this sign. It is characteristic of his longing for reassurance, which is a returning element in chapters 6–7. Also, in 6:36–40 Gideon asks for a sign, but there he clearly formulates what he wants to see. In 6:17 he seems to leave the character of the sign to YHWH. In fact, Gideon is surprised by the sign he eventually receives and even fears to die (v. 22). At this stage of his encounter with YHWH Gideon is still reluctant in addressing YHWH. He does not dare to ask him too much. Instead of specifying his request he just asks him to stay a little longer. He offers him a gift (‫)מנְ ָחה‬, ִ just as Ehud had done to Eglon (3:15, 17–18). The answer of (the messenger of) YHWH is short but meaningful: ‫ָאנ ִֹכי‬ ‫שׁוּבָך‬ ֶ ‫א ֵשׁב ַעד‬, ֵ “I, I will stay until you return” (v. 18). There is alliteration between the two verbs and a contrast between the two personal pronouns. The emphasis is on the first person because of the use of the independent personal pronoun, which is fitting in the context of a reply (cf. JM § 146a 3). The verb “to stay” repeats the action of the messenger of YHWH in v. 11. Adding “until you return” underlines the promise made in v. 16: “I am with you”. A first indication that the offering of a gift is more than the normal secular token of respect can be found in the amount of flour used by Gideon. The precise measure of the “ephah” mentioned in v. 19 is a matter of dispute, but even when one keeps to the low estimate of twelve litres (it could also have been thirty-five), this is far more than what one would need to feed a single guest. According to Exod. 16:36 one ephah is the same as ten gomer, whereas one gomer of manna is sufficient to feed one man for one day. Gideon’s action should perhaps be compared to Abraham taking three measures of fine meal to make cakes for his guests (Gen. 18:6; cf. O’Connell 1996, 149). It has also been suggested to read ‫אפה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬instead of ‫יפת‬ ַ ‫וְ ֵא‬, assuming an imperfectum consecutivum of the verb ‫אפה‬, “to bake”: “and he baked from flour matzos” (Ap-Thomas 1940, 177). This has parallels in Exod. 12:39 and 1 Sam. 28:24. It also seems to be supported by the rendering in the Targum: “And Gideon came and prepared a male kid-goat and baked a measure of flour, unleavened”, although it is also possible to interpret ‫ אפא‬in the Aramaic text as a second translation of ‫ וַ יַּ ַעשׂ‬in the Hebrew text (Smelik 1995, 490). The MT

Gideon

213

is supported by the ancient versions, but it cannot be excluded that in an early stage in the transmission of the text the uncommon form of the verb was mistaken for a word denoting the measure. Be this as it may, the real difference between a normal act of hospitality and the requested token is made by the receiver of the gift. First, the messenger of YHWH does not treat it as a meal but as a sacrifice, which is put on a rock with the broth poured out over it. This pouring out is an uncommon practice with no parallels in the cultic texts. Its primary function here seems to be to indicate that what is going to follow is not eating together. It looks more like the story of Elijah preparing a sacrifice for YHWH on mount Karmel and pouring out lots of water over it (1 Kgs 18:34). Just as with Elijah, the decisive moment is when in a miraculous way the offering is consumed by fire. In the story of Elijah, the fire comes from above, here it comes up from the rock after the messenger had pointed with his staff to the meat and the matzos. Then everything comes together when the messenger disappears from Gideon’s sight. Although it is not explicitly described, as in the similar situation in 13:19–20 (the use of the perfectum ‫ה ַלְך‬, ָ “he had gone”, refers to the result of the action and not to the action itself), we must assume that this coincides with the fire-miracle. Finally, it has become clear that all this is the sign Gideon asked for, proving that he is receiving divine support. The story is built up nicely towards this climax, from an ordinary offering to this remarkable theophany. In the MT, the special character of the final scene is indicated by the placement of setumot before v. 20 and after v. 21b. It can also be noted that after the reference to YHWH himself the narrator returns to speaking of a messenger, first “messenger of God” (v. 20; in the LXX harmonized to ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου, followed by Vulgate, Peshitta and Targum) and then “messenger of YHWH” (v. 21). It is not clear why the text speaks of “the” fire (cf. Van Midden 1998, 26, n. 81, who compares Exod. 3:2 and suggests translating it with “a fire”, as in 2 Kgs 1:10, 12). In rabbinic discussions about the question whether angels eat, this text plays a prominent part next to the story of the angel in chapter 13 (cf. Moore 1895, 320–321; Goodman 1986). In Gideon’s reactions there is a climax. In v. 13 he introduced his answer with ‫בּי ֲאד ֹנִ י‬, ִ “Ah, my lord”, in v. 15 he was a little bit more pious: ‫בּי ֲאד ֹנָ י‬, ִ “Ah, Lord”. Now he addresses YHWH directly: ‫א ָההּ ֲאד ֹנָ י יהוה‬, ֲ “Alas, my Lord YHWH”. The same cry of despair ‫אההּ‬ ָ will be used by Jephthah when he is confronted with his daughter (11:35). The same fear for the consequence of seeing God is found with Manoah (13:22). It is based on what YHWH said to Moses: “no man shall see me and live” (Exod. 33:20). Within the context of the story, taking the perspective of Gideon, it is best to translate ‫ַמ ְל ַאְך יהוה‬ here as “a messenger of YHWH” and not as “the messenger of YHWH” (cf. JM § 139a, n. 1).

214

Judges6:1–8:32

Just as in v. 14 YHWH himself reacts to Gideon’s outcry to take away his fear. This is done by three consecutive reassuring remarks: “Peace for you. Fear not. You will not die”. This answer in triplicate is characteristic of the style of the narrator. For his part Gideon now builds an altar, naming it after the first words spoken by YHWH. It can be compared to Moses building an altar after the victory over Amalek, calling it “YHWH is my banner” (Exod. 17:15; cf. also Gen. 26:25; 33:20). The reference to its location “in Ophrah of the Abiezrites” repeats v. 11, but without mentioning the terebinth. It indicates that a traditional holy place has received a more specific, Yahwistic character. It can be compared to what is told in Gen. 12:6–7, where Abram builds an altar at the terebinth of Moreh, near Shechem. 6:25–26 25

26

IthappenedinthatnightthatYHWHsaidtohim:“Takeanox-bull thatbelongstoyourfather:thesecondbull,sevenyearsoldandtear downthealtarofBaalthatbelongstoyourfatherandtheAsherah thatisuponityouhavetocutdown. YoumustbuildanaltarforYHWHyourgodonthetopofthisstrongholdintheusualwayandyoumusttakethesecondbullandmakeit goupasanofferingwiththewoodoftheAsherahthatyoushallcut down”.

The first thing Gideon has to do, by order of YHWH, is to tackle the problem of idolatry. He should take up what was mentioned by the messenger of YHWH in 2:2 as something neglected by the Israelites and tear down the altars of the idols. Within the book of Judges this is something special. Of none of the other saviours and judges such a command, let alone action, is reported. After the elaborate conversation with YHWH this is another indication of the prominent place of Gideon as a model leader of Israel, acting according to the commandment given in Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3, before entering the Promised Land to tear down the altars of the Canaanites and to cut down their Asherot (cf. Berman 2017, 113–116). Whereas the other saviours and judges are only called upon to fight the suppression by the enemies; a consequence of Israel’s sin, Gideon is asked to take away the cause of the problem which lies in Israel’s idolatry. The command to cut down the Asherah uses the verb ‫כרת‬, just as in Exod. 34:13. In Deut. 7:5 the verb ‫גדע‬ is used (in Deut. 12:3 this verb is related to the cutting down of the images of the gods). It is not likely that the author who appears to be so keen on wordplay missed this obvious chance to make a pun on the name of Gideon. It probably has to do with the fact that in this part of the story the emphasis will be on the meaning of the second name of Gideon: Jerubbaal.

Gideon

215

It is remarkable that Gideon receives his assignment and then executes it at night. The fact that Gideon acts during the night is explained in v. 27 by the fact that he fears his family and the people of the city. YHWH addressing Gideon at night has a parallel in YHWH calling Samuel (1 Sam. 3:3–4) and Nathan (2 Sam. 7:4) and in YHWH appearing to Isaak (Gen. 26:24). In the story of Gideon, it may indicate that YHWH wants to act quickly (cf. Soggin 1981, 123). It is also remarkable that despite his Yahwistic name, which can be translated as “YHWH has given”, Joash appears to own an altar for Baal and an “Asherah”, which is the name of a Canaanite goddess (cf. 3:7 plural) and also denotes a cultic object devoted to her veneration. Joash may be compared, in this respect, to king Ahab (1 Kgs 16:32–33). Gideon is ordered to demolish these cultic objects and use the material to make a new altar of YHWH. It will be a clear symbol of the religious change and it will also show that Gideon is more obedient to YHWH than to his father. The reference to a “second bull” is problematic, because in the rest of the story only one bull figures (for an overview of the discussion cf. Barthélemy 1982, 91–94; Bluedorn 2001, 90–96; BHQ, 67* and Groß 2009, 362-364). With most scholars it can be assumed that the conjunction in ‫וּפר‬ ַ has to be interpreted as a wawexplicativum.This leaves the problem why this one bull is also called the “second bull” in the next verses.LXX (A) suggests that here the Hebrew word does not denote a numeral. It translates: λαβὲ τὸν μόσχον τὸν σιτευτὸν τοῦ πατρός σου μόσχον τὸν ἑπταετη, “Take your father’s fattened calf, the seven-year-old calf”. This might point to a different Hebrew text with a form of ‫דשׁן‬, “be fat”, although it could also be an attempt to make sense of the difficult text. LXX (B) seems to have corrected LXX (A) on the basis of MT and translates: λαβὲ τὸν μόσχον τὸν ταῦρον ὅς ἐστιν τῷ πατρί σου καὶ μόσχον δεύτερον ἑπταετη, “Take the calf, the bull that belongs to your father, and a second, seven-year-old calf” (cf. Harlé 1999, 142). Many scholars follow the suggestion by Guillaume (1949) to read ‫ ַה ָשּׁנִ י‬instead of ‫ ַה ֵשּׁנִ י‬and relate it to an Arabic word denoting “fully grown” (cf. also HAL, 1481–1482). Others follow the suggestion by Emerton (1974) to derive it from a root ‫שׁנה‬, “to be exalted, of high rank” (cf. Block 1999, 266; Groß 2009, 363). The command to sacrifice a seven-year-old bull is unique within the Hebrew Bible, but it may not be a coincidence that the period of seven years is the same as the period mentioned in 6:1 of the Midianite oppression. In v. 25 also the numeral is given without the customary connection with ‫בן‬. To this can be added that the offering of a bull (‫)פּר‬ ַ is found in many commandments (cf. Lev. 4:3; 8:2; 16:3; Num. 7:15 etc.), but that the reference to an “ox-bull” (combining it with ‫)השּׁוֹר‬ ַ is unique (cf. Péter 1975, 490, who suggests that the latter might refer to Baal; in BHKit is suggested to

216

Judges6:1–8:32

replace ‫ר־השּׁוֹר ֲא ֶשׁר ְל ָא ִביָך‬ ַ ‫ת־פּ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬by ‫ ֲע ָשׂ ָרה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ֵמ ֲע ָב ֶדיָך‬relating it to Gideon’s action according to v. 27; Rudolph 1947, 202, suggests to read ‫ִא ְתָּך‬ ‫אנְ ֵשׁי ִמ ְס ָפּר‬, ַ “[nimm] mit dir eine Anzahl Leute”). It is hardly a coincidence that the only other occurrence of ‫ שׁור‬is also found in the present context, in 6:4, describing how the Midianites took all the livestock from the Israelites. This raises the question how Joash had been able during all these years to keep his bull out of the hands of the Midianites. According to the MT he had even managed to save two bulls. Combined with the fact that Joash possessed cultic devices for Baal and Asherah, one could suspect Joash of collaboration with the enemy. This still does not explain why Gideon has to take the second bull. Some relate it to Exod. 13:2, 15 stating that every first born should be consecrated to YHWH (cf. Barthélemy 1982, 94; Van Midden 1998, 27–28; Nelson 2017, 121), others assume a parallel with the story of the confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal with two bulls, one for each party (1 Kgs 18:23). The first bull would have been given then to priests of Baal to be offered on the shrine of Baal, whereas Gideon would have to take the second bull (cf. Soggin 1981, 124; Becker 1990, 154–155, attributes this to a later redaction intended to relate these stories). In rabbinic exegesis the choice for the second animal is explained as an indication of quality: the second being better than the first born (cf. Barthélemy 1982, 93–94). All in all, the association with Elijah’s duel with the prophets of Baal may be the most attractive interpretation. It would fit to the parallel noted above between the offerings consumed by fire. More important is that the special way in which the bull is described seems to be another indication of the dubious role of the father of Gideon. It is not clear what is meant precisely with ‫על רֹאשׁ ַה ָמּעוֹז ַהזֶּ ה ַבּ ַמּ ֲע ָר ָכה‬, ַ translated here as “on the top of this stronghold in the usual way”. In the LXX ‫ ַה ָמּעוֹז‬is interpreted as a place name: Maoz (A) or Maouek (B). The words may have been chosen because of the association with strength and order. ‫ ַה ָמּעוֹז‬is related to the verb ‫עזז‬, “to be strong”, which is used in 3:10 to denote the victory over Cushan Rishataim. ‫מע ָר ָכה‬ ֲ can also denote the line of battle (cf. 1 Sam. 4:2). In the present context they contrast with the ruins of the Canaanite cultic objects. 6:27–32 27

28

GideontooktenmenfromhisservantsandhedidasYHWHhadspoken tohim.Ithappened,becausehewasafraidofthehouseofhisfather andthemenofthecitytodoitbyday,thathediditbynight. Themenofthecityroseearlyinthemorningand,look,thealtarof Baal had been demolished and the Asherah, that was upon it, had beencutdownandthesecondbullhadbeenofferedupuponthealtar thathadbeenbuilt.

Gideon 29 30

31

32

217

Theysaid,amantohisfellow:“Whohasdonethisthing?”Theyinquired andsearchedandsaid:“Gideon,thesonofJoashhasdonethisthing”. ThemenofthecitysaidtoJoash:“Bringoutyoursonandheshall die,becausehedemolishedthealtarofBaalandbecausehecutdown theAsherahuponit”. Joash said to all that were standing before him: “Is it you who willconductalawsuitforBaalorisityouwhowilldeliverhim? Whoconductsalawsuitforhimwillbekilledbydaybreak.Ifheisa god,letheconductthelawsuitforhimself,becausehehasdemolished hisaltar”. HecalledhimonthatdayJerubbaal,saying:“MayBaalconducta lawsuitagainsthim,becausehehasdemolishedhisaltar”.

Again, Gideon does not act as a brave hero. He obeys YHWH’s command, but he takes ten men with him (LXX [A] has thirteen men; in LXX [B] this is corrected again to ten). In rabbinic tradition this is positively referred to as a minyan and compared to the ten righteous Abraham hoped to be living in Sodom (Gen. 18:32). In the present story it denotes in the first place that Gideon does not dare to act alone. To this is added that out of fear of being caught by family members or citizens of Ophrah, he acts by night. Nevertheless, he is almost immediately designated by the men of the city as the one who is responsible for the destruction of the altar and the Asherah. Apparently, he cannot hide behind the ten men who had accompanied him. From the reaction of the men of the city it can be deduced that Gideon and his men did a good job. They had done everything YHWH had demanded. There is, however, no mention of the altar he should have built for YHWH. It can be assumed that for the men of the city the sacrilege concerning Baal took precedence. It is also important to note that from the people Gideon feared according to v. 27 only the men of the city are now accusing him and asking for the death penalty. “The house of his father” is not acting against him and the men of the city need to press his father to take their side. The role of Joash as a central figure in this part of the story was made evident in his being mentioned before his son in v. 11. He can be compared to other fathers in the book of Judges playing an important role: Jephthah in chapter 11, Manoah in chapter 13, the father of the concubine in 19:1–10, and especially the old man in 19:23–24, who feels forced to offer his daughter to the men of Gibeah. Unlike this old man and unlike Jephthah, Joash wants to save the life of his child. He defends his son with a remarkable theological argument. Baal should prove himself as the one who deserves to be venerated as a god. This is reminiscent, again, of the dispute between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kgs 18 about who really deserves to be called “god” (cf. Groß 2009, 423–425). The condition as formulated by Joash: ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ם־א‬ ֱ ‫ִא‬

218

Judges6:1–8:32

‫ הוּא‬has a clear parallel in Elijah voicing his doubts about Baal: ‫ֹלהים הוּא‬ ִ ‫י־א‬ ֱ ‫ִכּ‬ in 1 Kgs 18:27 and in the conclusion by the spectators in 1 Kgs 18:39: ‫יהוה‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫הוּא ָה ֱא‬. Whereas in the story of Elijah the true god should reveal himself by sending fire to consume the sacrifice, here Baal should conduct his own lawsuit. It is not specified how this should be done. One could think of fire coming from heaven or the earth opening and swallowing the guilty. Against this background, it is relevant to note that YHWH had already proven himself in the previous scene by the fire coming from the rock to consume Gideon’s offering. YHWH is not mentioned at all by Joash. In the previous verses the appearances were against him as owner of an altar for Baal, an Asherah, and two bulls. Whether he himself repented, and now acts more according to his Yahwistic name, is left aside. In the discussion with the men of the city, Joash could also have had his tactical reasons to mention only Baal. He provokes Baal in a way that is reminiscent of Gideon’s first reaction to his calling, questioning YHWH’s assistance of Israel (6:13). It will also be no coincidence that Joash uses the verb ‫ ישׁע‬niphal, “to deliver”, indicating that a true god does not have to be saved by his human worshippers. In 6:14 the same verb was used in Gideon’s assignment to deliver his people (cf. Nelson 2017, 134). In his reaction to the men of the city, Joash (v. 31) uses three times the verb ‫ריב‬, “to strive, to conduct a lawsuit”. It marks the transition from conducting a lawsuit for Baal, to killing who will do this and then back to Baal conducting the lawsuit himself. In this way it introduces the explanation in the next verse of the name Jerubbaal, which is now given to Gideon as “may Baal conduct a lawsuit against him”. It characterizes Gideon as someone who will be constantly challenging Baal. It is very unlikely that this is the original meaning of Jerubbaal, because usually a theophoric name is a way of invoking a god to honour him/her or to ask his/her protection. Parents would have given this name in the hope that Baal would act in favour of and not against their child. Further, a Greek translator of LXX (A) seems to have realized this and made the text more plausible by assuming that the name was given to a place: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Δικαστήριον τοῦ Βααλ ὅτι κατέσκαψεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ, “And in that day he called it Baal’s Court of Justice, because he pulled down his altar”. In LXX (B) this is brought more in line with the MT, but also here the name is not related to Gideon: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Ιαρβααλ λέγων δικασάσθω ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ Βααλ ὅτι καθῃρέθη τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ, “And in that day he called it Iarbaal, saying, ‘Let Baal seek justice on it’, for his altar was pulled down” (cf. Trebolle Barrera 2005, 405). The uncommon, if not forced way to give the name of Jerubbaal, which probably should be connected with the verb ‫רבה‬: “may Baal prove himself to be great” (cf. HAL, 414), an antiBaal meaning can be seen as another indication that the author took up and

Gideon

219

adapted stories from different sources. The most likely hypothesis, as indicated already in the introduction, is that originally separate stories of Gideon and Abimelech were connected to each other by turning Abimelech into the son of Gideon. Apparently, it was easier to give Gideon a second name than to change the fact that Abimelech was traditionally known as the son of Jerubbaal (cf. also Mobley 2005, 122–124). 6:33–35 33 34 35

All Midian and Amalek and the children of the East had gathered together.TheycrossedoverandcampedinthevalleyofJezreel. ThespiritofYHWHhadclothedGideon.Heblewtheram’shornand Abiezerwascalledupbehindhim. MessengershehadsentinallManassehanditalsowasassembled after him. And messengers he had sent in Asher, in Zebulon and in Naphtali.Theywentuptomeethim.

In v. 33 the story returns to the situation as described in v. 3 about the three enemies coming from the east to terrorize Israel. The unusual word order with the subject before the predicate emphasizes this reintroduction of the enemies (cf. Assis 2005, 50). In v. 4 it was told that they went until Gaza at the coast of the sea. Now they camp in the valley of Jezreel, which is close to the scene of the battle in chapters 4 and 5. The valley of Jezreel was known as the granary of Israel. So, it was a suitable place for the Midianites and their allies to take the produce of the land (v. 4). The name Jezreel (‫)יִ זְ ְר ֶעאל‬ can be translated as “God sows”, relating it to the verb ‫זרע‬, “to sow”, also used for the Israelites in v. 3. Whereas the situation with regard to the suppressors is unaltered, there is a big change with Gideon facing them. He is no longer hiding and makes a big noise instead, blowing the horn like Ehud (3:27) to assemble his family (instead of ‫ וַ יִּ זָּ ֵעק‬niphal, “he is called up”, one would expect an active form, just as in LXX [A]: ἐβόησεν. LXX [B] again supports the MT: ἐφοβήθη). The difference is made by the spirit of YHWH, which “clothed” him. The way it is formulated here is remarkable. In 3:10 and 11:29 it is more simply said that the spirit of YHWH “was upon” Othniel and Jephthah. With regard to Samson the gift of the spirit is emphasized, first by stating that the spirit “began to stir him” (13:25), and then that the spirit of YHWH “became strong over him” (14:6, 9; 15:14). 6:34 seems to take a middle position, when we read: ‫רוּח יהוה ָל ְב ָשׁה ֶאת־גִּ ְדעוֹן‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬. Following the normal use of the verb ‫לבשׁ‬ qal, the object is the garment. Strictly speaking this would mean that Gideon must be seen to be the covering of the spirit or that the spirit is wearing Gideon (cf. Groß 2009, 364: “Der Geist JHWHs hatte Gideon angezogen”). LXX (A) stays close to the MT and translates ἐνέδυσεν, LXX (B) translates

220

Judges6:1–8:32

ἐνεδυνάμωσεν, “a spirit of the Lord empowered Gideon”. The Targum can be regarded as a combination of these two renderings: “the spirit of strength from the Lord clothed Gideon” (cf. Smelik 1995, 498). The expression used in the MT is not unique and is also used in a similar situation in 1 Chron. 12:19 and 2 Chron. 24:20. This correspondence with the books of Chronicles can be used as an argument supporting the theory, as outlined above, that this part of the story of Gideon belongs to a later stage in the development of the text, introducing older traditions preserved especially in chapter 8. According to Waldman 1989, 165, the way the giving of the spirit is expressed here reflects the Mesopotamian imagery of being overwhelmed by divine forces. An even better parallel, also noted by Waldman, is that the verb ‫ לבשׁ‬is used in the Talmud in the sense of “to be overwhelmed”, for instance, when someone is overwhelmed by uncontrollable sexual passion (b.Ketub. 51b) or by vengeance (Pesiq.Rab. 76b; cf. Waldman 1989, 167). The spirit gives Gideon the courage to stand up against enemies, but it does not change his character as someone who acts cautiously. Something similar may be observed with Jephthah and also with Samson. The spirit does not change their personality. Of Jephthah it is told that after he received the spirit of YHWH he starts negotiating with YHWH just as he did before with the king of the Ammonites (cf. Exum 1990, 417–418, noting the correspondence between Gideon and Jephthah: “What they have in common is their position in the narrative, following upon possession by Yhwh’s spirit. What is the connection, if any, between animation by the spirit and the subsequent revelation of the judge’s weakness of character?”). In the stories of Samson, the spirit of YHWH repeatedly introduces his violent actions. In this respect Gideon seems to do better than these two successors. Gideon gathers his army in three steps, in three ever wider circles (cf. Assis 2005, 52). After calling up his family he seeks and finds support first of one and then of three northern tribes. He had sent messengers first to “all Manasseh” (v. 35). This is balanced with “all Midian” mentioned in v. 33. The other three tribes, Asher, Zebulon and Naphtali, can be seen to be balancing the two allies of Midian: Amalek and the children of the East. Their positive response and the fact that they now outnumber the enemies could have given Gideon confidence in a successful outcome of his undertaking. 6:36–40 36 37

Gideon said to God: “If it is you who delivers Israel by my hand, asyouhavespoken, look,Iamplacingawoollenfleeceonthethreshing-floor;ifthereis dewonthefleecebutonallthelanddryness,thenIwillknowthat youwilldeliverIsraelbymyhand,asyouhavespoken”.

Gideon 38 39

40

221

Ithappenedso.Heroseupearlythefollowingday,hewrungoutthe fleeceanddraineddewoutofthefleece,abowlfullofwater. Gideon said to God: “Do not let your anger flare up against me whenIspeakjustonemoretime.Letmemakeatestonemoretime withthefleece:theremaybedrynessonthefleecealoneandonall thelanddew”. Goddidsointhatnight.Therewasdrynessonthefleecealoneand onalltheearththerewasdew.

Before he sparks off the war against the Midianites and their allies, Gideon wants to receive another proof that YHWH is on his side. His request is more specific than before when he asked more generally for a token (v. 17). It indicates that Gideon dares to go one step further in tempting YHWH. It is a token of his nagging doubts, indicating his weakness as a leader. On the other hand, one may note as a positive element in this repeated turning to YHWH, that it shows Gideon is well aware that, without his god he will not succeed. In this regard it can be compared to the renewal of the covenant in Josh. 5 before the entering of the promised land. Also, the way in which Gideon addresses YHWH deserves attention. The deliverance of Israel is attributed in the first place to YHWH: “If it is you who delivers Israel by my hand”, using the expression ‫מוֹשׁ ַיע‬, ִ “deliverer”, which was used in 3:9 to describe Othniel and in 3:15 of Ehud. Gideon rightly acknowledges that YHWH is the actual deliverer (cf. 1 Sam. 7:8). It can be compared to what he will declare at the peak of his career, namely that YHWH is the one who rules Israel (8:23) and to Jephthah speaking of YHWH as judge (11:27). The sign Gideon is asking for has nothing to do with warfare, but all the more with the battle between YHWH and Baal. Gideon asks YHWH to manipulate the dew (‫)טל‬, ַ which according to Canaanite religion is the domain of Baal. In Ugaritic texts the different forms of dew are presented as daughters of Baal, one of them being called Tallay (cf. Healey, DDD, 249–250). This means that just as in the story of Elijah and in line with the previous action concerning the altars, YHWH is asked to prove himself as superior to Baal by taking over the work that is ascribed to Baal and the gods surrounding him. Further, the fact that Gideon chooses a threshing-floor is significant here. In the beginning of the chapter this was a place he avoided out of fear for Midianites; threshing wheat in a safer place. Now he seems to act more in the open. Even more important, however, is the fact that a threshing-floor is associated with cultic activities in Canaanite religion, as the place where the venerated spirits of the ancestors appear (cf. Rouillard, DDD, 692; perhaps also Hos. 9:1 should be read against this background). Some scholars note other parallels with Ugaritic texts: the myth of Baal mentions a dream of the god El about the skies raining oil and the wadies running with honey,

222

Judges6:1–8:32

proving that Baal is alive (KTU 1.6.III:1–9). Parallels can be found in the structure and a god proving himself with symbols of fertility (cf. Dijkstra 1985, 106), but the correspondences remain superficial. A passage in the epic of Aqhat describing women who are addressed as “you who carry water on your shoulder, who scoop up dew from the wool, who know the course of the stars” (KTU 1.19.II:1–3; cf. Margalit 1981–1982) indicates that Gideon seems to refer to a common practice (cf. also Tolkowsky 1923, 198, assuming a parallel to a similar practice in the Neolithic period on an island with few water resources near Madeira in the northern Atlantic Ocean). It underlines that the real miracle is the second one, in which the natural circumstances are reversed. It is remarkable that, in this part of the story, not the name of YHWH is used, but three times the more general indication ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬. ֱ This may be related to the fact that only in vv. 36 and 38 it is told explicitly that Gideon addresses his god. We never find in chapters 6–8 the phrase “Gideon said to YHWH”. This peculiarity in style is probably best explained by assuming that vv. 36– 40 come from a different source than the previous stories about Gideon’s encounter with YHWH. They have been fitted in very well with the way Gideon was described earlier, hinting at character development with Gideon. He shows more initiative by asking a more specific sign than before. In his repeated request, risking evoking God’s anger, he even looks like Abraham (v. 39; cf. Gen. 18:30 [with the same construction of a jussive followed by a cohortative], 32). Within the book of Judges, the closest parallel is found in the story of Jephthah, for whom receiving the spirit of YHWH did not keep him from looking for extra guarantees from YHWH (11:29–31). Gideon’s double request compares favourably with Jephthah’s rash vow. It is also interesting to note that the verb ‫ נסה‬piel, “to test”, was used earlier in 2:22; 3:1, 4 to indicate that YHWH uses the peoples who remained in the land to test Israel. Gideon has the courage to reverse this and to test YHWH. 7:1–3 1

2

3

Jerubbaal–thatisGideon–roseearlyandallthepeoplewithhim. They camped by the spring of Harod and the camp of Midian was northofit,fromthehillofMoreh,inthevalley. YHWHsaidtoGideon:“Toomanyisthepeoplethatiswithyoufor metogiveMidianintotheirhand,lestIsraelwouldglorifyitselfover me,saying:myhandhasdeliveredme. Now,callouttotheearsofthepeople,saying:‘Whoisfearfuland trembling? Let him turn around and depart from mount Gilead’”. Fromthepeopletwenty-twothousandturnedaroundandtenthousand remained.

Gideon

223

Everything seems ready now for the big event of Gideon delivering his people with the help of YHWH. The first line can be read as a summary of what prepared this moment. It mentions both names of the saviour appointed by YHWH. The name Jerubbaal seems to be added, because in the rest of the story the name of Gideon is used. The reason for this may be that the name Jerubbaal (in the way it was explained before) reminds us of the story in which YHWH proved to be stronger than Baal. The fact that Gideon rises early is reminiscent of the two previous places where this verb ‫ שׁכם‬hiphil was used (in the rest of the book it is found only in 19:5, 8; 21:4): first in 6:28 about the men of the city rising early to find the altar of Baal demolished and then in 6:38 about Gideon finding that YHWH had performed the requested miracle. Compared to these moments it can be established that now Gideon can rise with confidence in a positive outcome, especially now he also has “all the people with him”. The spring of Harod has until now not been convincingly located (proposed identifications are En El-Gimain near Tell Humud or En-Jalud in the upper part of the Valley of Jezreel; cf. Rösel 1976, 11–16; Gaß 2005, 279–281, and Groß 2009, 431–433, on the many problems with regard to the topography in these verses, concluding with the open question: “Hat der Autor des Textes klare Ortsvorstellungen gehabt und mitteilen wollen?”). What is probably more important in the present context, and also something in line with the many other examples of puns on names is that the name of this place can be associated with the “trembling” (‫)ח ֵרד‬ ָ of part of the army in v. 3. Both the wordplay and the reference to a spring point forward to what is to come, namely the reduction of the numbers of the army of Gideon; first by sending home who are afraid and then by selecting the soldiers on the way they drink from the water. The place name Moreh is also mentioned in Gen. 12:6 and Deut. 11:30 as a place near Shechem. This name may have a special meaning here as well. ‫מּוֹרה‬ ֶ ‫ גִ ְב ַעת ַה‬can be translated as “Teacher’s Hill” (Boling 1975, 144) or “the Hill of (Oracular) Seeing” (Mobley 2005, 138; it would underscore a motif, running in his view through the entire narrative, of divination). It is also possible to suggest a relation with the “fearing” (‫ )יָ ֵרא‬mentioned in v. 3 next to the “trembling” (cf. Garsiel 1993, 310). It could be related then to ‫מוֹרא‬, ָ “terror” aroused by YHWH on behalf of Israel against its enemies (cf. among others Deut. 26:8; 34:12). In Ps. 9:21 it is spelled as ‫מוֹרה‬, ָ which makes this association more likely. It would mean that not only “the source of Harod” but also “the hill Moreh” symbolizes the state of mind of the Israelites: they are afraid of the terror they are facing. This is also indicated by their position: the Israelites are located on a low place; the Midianites can look down upon them. The fear of the Israelites will become apparent in the next verses, but at the end of the story it will be the Midianites who are afraid.

224

Judges6:1–8:32

The roles of YHWH and Gideon are reversed (cf. Bluedorn 2001, 113– 119, about the many similarities between 6:36–40 and 7:2–7). In the previous stories it was Gideon who tempted YHWH hoping to find security about him keeping his promise. Now it is YHWH tempting Gideon to ascertain that neither he nor Israel will claim the honour for the work that is done by YHWH. In a previous question Gideon still assumed that YHWH had to do the job: “If it is you who delivers Israel by my hand” (6:36), but it is not unlikely that once the battle is won Israel will “glorify itself” over YHWH, “saying: my hand has delivered me” (by placing ‫יָ ִדי‬, “my hand”, at the beginning of the sentence it is emphasized; cf. JM § 155 nb). Having a big army could very well lead to this misunderstanding. The first measure to reduce the army takes up one of the stipulations in the laws on warfare in the Torah. In Deut. 20:8 it is stated that the officials should ask the people before battle: “Who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, lest the heart of his brothers faint like his heart”. Gideon must ask his soldiers the same, “calling out to their ears”, that is, making sure that no one misses the message. He also has to add that the fearful are free, “to depart from mount Gilead”. The reference to that location is surprising and has occupied scholars already for many centuries, because Gilead usually refers to a place at the east side of the river Jordan (cf. 5:17; 10:8). In BHK and BHSit is suggested that the phrase ‫וֽ יִ ְצפֹּר ֵמ ַהר ַהגִּ ְל ָעד‬ is corrupt and it is proposed, with Moore 1895, 203, and many others to read ‫וְ יִ ְצ ְר ֵפם גדעון‬, “and Gideon tested them”, assuming that, just as in the next verse, the verb ‫ צרף‬was used in stead of the hapaxlegomenon ‫צפר‬. This solution is also found in the Targum (cf. Smelik 1995, 501). MT, however, is supported by all the ancient witnesses and it is also unlikely that an ancient scribe would have missed a reference to Gideon (cf. BHQ, 68*, advising to retain the MT). Another old suggestion to emend the text is to read Gilboa instead of Gilead (cf. Bertheau 1845, 120; recently defended again by Scherer 2005, 259). This makes topographically more sense, but also in this case it remains difficult to understand why this would have been changed during the course of transmission into Gilead. The reference to Gilead has been explained as pointing to the route the soldiers leaving the battle place should take: to avoid the Midianites, they would first have to cross the river Jordan and go home through the territory of Gilead (Studer 1835, 197). It has also been suggested that Gilead does not refer here to the region of the east side of the Jordan but to a hill with that name in the valley of Jezreel. It would have been preserved in the modern Arabic name mentioned above, En Jalud or Ain Galud (cf. Burney 1920, 208–209; Block 1999, 276; Gaß 2005, 336). Very attractive in the light of what was assumed above with regard of the wordplay with the place names “spring of Harod” and “hill of More” is the suggestion that it is mentioned here because of the fact that it may be translated as “Coward’s Spring”, relating it to Akk. galādu, “to be afraid”

Gideon

225

(Burney 1920, 209; Block 1999, 276). Another suggestion of wordplay is that it might be connected with the verb ‫גלע‬, “to break out”: “hill of the breaking out (of the battle)” (Bluedorn 2001, 126). Both proposals, however, remain farfetched. It is not likely that the author of the book of Judges would have added, without a hint, this new meaning to the name which was already used in 5:17 and returns many times in chapter 10 and 11. Especially in the way Jephthah is presented in 11:1 as a man from Gilead and a brave hero, we may find a clue for the right interpretation of the name of Gilead in 7:3. Also in Josh. 17:1 Gilead is associated with bravery. To Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, land is given “because he was a man of war”. So, Gilead may stand, also in the present text, for military spirit (Cassel 1871, 122). “Departing from mount Gilead” may have been meant as a way of saying that one no longer belongs to the brave (cf. Sasson 2014, 351: “The clause seems modeled after a gnomic saying and so is best left as is”). More than two third of the men admit their fear and leave. From the thirtytwo thousand, only ten thousand are left. It has been suggested that ‫ ֶא ֶלף‬does not mean “thousand” here and refers to a much smaller unit of about nine men. In the original story the total number of number of the thirty-two units would have been three hundred men (cf. Mobley 2005, 138, 164–166, referring to a personal communication by D.N. Freedman who assumes that the writer is playing games with the word ‫)א ֶלף‬. ֶ It is more likely, however, that here and in other places in the book of Judges (cf. 1:4; 3:29; 4:6 etc.) ‫ֶא ֶלף‬ functions as a numeral, albeit that the numbers are exaggerated (see also the remarks on 20:2). 7:4–8 4

5

6

7

8

YHWH said to Gideon: “Still the people are too many. Let them descendtothewaterandIwillrefineitforyouthere.Itwillbeabout whomIsaytoyou:thisoneshallgowithyou,heshallgowithyouand allofwhomIshallsay:thisonewillnotgowithyou,heshallnotgo”. Heletthepeopledescendtothewater.YHWHsaidtoGideon:“Everyonewholickswithhistonguefromthewater,asadoglicks,youmust sethimbyhimselfapartfromeveryonewhobendshiskneestodrink”. Thenumberofthoselickingwiththeirhandtotheirmouth(was)three hundred men. All the rest of the people bended their knees to drink water. YHWHsaidtoGideon:“Withthethreehundredmenwhowerelicking IwilldeliveryouandIwillgiveMidianinyourhandandallthepeople willgo,amantohisplace”. Theytooktheprovisionsofthepeopleintheirhandandtheirram’s horns.EverymanofIsraelhehadsentaway,amantohistentsand hetookholdofthethreehundredmen.

226

Judges6:1–8:32

Just as Gideon asked for a second token in 6:39, YHWH goes on taking measures to prevent that Gideon and his people might think that they delivered themselves by their own power. Within the present context one may note an extra correspondence with the signs requested by Gideon from YHWH before, because they were also related to water. To this can be added that the second part of the test is more exceptional than the first one. The very elaborate command in vv. 4–5 emphasizes that YHWH is dominant in this matter. It is the other way around compared to Gideon asking for a sign at the end of the previous chapter. The speech of YHWH is emphasized in the MT by placing a setuma before v. 4 and in the middle of v. 5. This blank space in the middle of a verse is called a pisqâbe-ʼemṣaʽ pasûq. It was also used introducing the speech of the messenger of YHWH in 2:1. The reduction of the army is called “refining” here, using the verb ‫צרף‬. The uncommon use of this verb in the present context is probably due to the wish of the author to connect it to the previous scene by wordplay, because ‫ צרף‬recalls the equally uncommon verb ‫ צפר‬in v. 3 (cf. Van Midden 1998, 32; Nelson 2017, 143). The criterion for this “refining” is clear, and also repeated in v. 7: those who consume the water by licking are the chosen ones. The way the command is formulated, however, and the rationale behind the criterion leave much room for discussion and speculation (cf. the surveys of the history of interpretation by Légasse 2000, 242–249, and Gunn 2005, 105–106, 117). In v. 5 things are still clear: those who lick with the tongue, like dogs (cf. also 1 Kgs 21:19; 22:38) should be set apart. They have to be separated from those who bend the knees. With most translations, it has to be assumed that ְ‫ ו‬after ‫ל ָבד‬,ְ “by himself”, has the same function as the preposition ‫מן‬, ִ “apart from”. The difference with the other men is that they do not lick the water but drink it by pouring it into their mouth. With regard to their posture, those who lick the water not only had to bend their knees but also had to lean forward to reach the water. The outcome as described in v. 6 is confusing because it seems to mix up both groups when it refers to “those licking with their hand to their mouth”. It calls up the picture of men scooping up the water with their hands, which makes the comparison with dogs difficult. Already the ancient Greek translator seems to have felt the need to produce a more coherent text. In LXX (A) YHWH’s command and the outcome is reproduced as follows: “‘Everyone who laps from the water with his tongue as if a dog laps, you shall put him to one side, and everyone who kneels down on his knees to drink, you shall put him by himself.’ And the full number of those that lapped with their tongue was three hundred men, and all the rest of the people knelt down on their knees to drink water”. Especially leaving out the phrase “with their hand to their mouth” makes the text easier to understand. It is retained or put back again in LXX (B) which

Gideon

227

follows the MT. In modern research many attempts are made, more or less, in line with LXX (A), to reconstruct a more logical Hebrew text. Because of the lack of evidence from the ancient versions and the problem of explaining how an easier text could have been corrupted, it is better to keep to the MT (cf. BHQ, 69*, against BHSand many commentators; cf. also the elaborate discussion by O’Connell 1996, 467–469). Some scholars who refrain from emending the MT find a solution to the problems of the present Hebrew text by assuming that the comparison with a dog should not be taken too literally and be related to the image of bringing the water to the mouth with one’s hand (cf. Assis 2005, 61–62; Nelson 2017, 149). An explanation for the reference to the hand in v. 6 can also be found by relating it to the next verse. There YHWH declares that through the remaining three hundred “lickers” he will give Midian “in your hand” (cf. Van Midden 1999, 182–183). The wish to play with words seems to have gone at the expense of the clarity of the description of the criteria in the test. In the history of research, many explanations have been given for this manner of selecting. In the rewritten version of Josephus (Ant. 5. 215–217) those who kneel to drink are presented as the courageous and the other group is described as drinking in haste, which qualifies them as fearful. By selecting the latter, less fit for battle, it will be clear that victory can only come from God. This is not in line with the fact that according to 7:3 the fearful already had left the army. In Josephus’ version this is not a problem because of in this shortened version he had left this part out. According to other ancient and modern interpreters it is the other way around assuming that the three hundred are selected on positive grounds. The way they quench their thirst would prove their alertness (cf. Gaster 1969, 420–422; Boling 1975, 145; Mobley 2005, 140–141). Against such a more positive interpretation, it can be argued that it seems to contradict the motive mentioned in the beginning; that Israel should have no reason to pride itself. As is indicated in the conclusion of the words of YHWH, “With the three hundred men who were licking I will deliver you” (v. 7), the most important elements in the second selection are the small number of remaining soldiers and licking as the criterion for selecting them. Because the verb ‫לקק‬, “to lick up”, is only used of dogs, the comparison with dogs plays a prominent role. It can be compared to Goliath who feels humiliated with the young boy David as his opponent in battle: “Am I a dog?” (1 Sam. 17:43). This is an indication that the three hundred were selected because they would fit best in the role of loser. Note also that it is expressly stated here that it is YHWH who will deliver Israel (cf. 6:36; 7:2). It is formulated in the form of a chiasmus: the two elements of the first line have their counterparts in reversed order in the second line: the three hundred remaining men mentioned at the beginning are contrasted with the people going home mentioned at the end

228

Judges6:1–8:32

on the second line and in between we read “I will deliver you” with its parallel in “I will give Midian in your hand”. With the three hundred men who were licking I will deliver you and I will give Midian in your hand and all the people will go, a man to his place.

According to BHS the beginning of v. 8 (“They took the provisions of the people in their hand and their ram’s horns”) is corrupted. It is suggested to replace ‫ וַ יִּ ְקחוּ‬by the singular ‫ וַ יִּ ַקּח‬and ‫צ ָדה‬, ֵ “provisions”, by the more likely reference to ‫כּ ֵדּי‬, ַ “jugs”, mentioned next to the ram’s horns in v. 16: “he took the jugs of the people from their hands and their ram’s horns”. This would solve the problem of the unexpected transition of the subject and the problem of the absolute state of ‫צ ָדה‬.ֵ It certainly makes more sense in the present context, describing Gideon’s preparations for the confrontation in the same way as in v. 16, but it is difficult to explain how the Hebrew text, which is supported by the versions, could be corrupted. Moreover, the picture of Gideon already knowing exactly what to do as suggested in the reconstructed text seems to be too positive at this stage of the story. Three times the number three hundred is mentioned: in v. 6 describing the outcome of the selection; in v. 7 with YHWH’s promise concerning these men; and in v. 8 about Gideon “taking hold” of them. The latter is formulated in a special way, using the verb ‫ ָחזַ ק‬hiphil, as if he is holding them like a stick (cf. v. 20). They are for him something to hold on to. The number of three hundred soldiers has many parallels in war stories (cf. Tolkowski 1925), the most interesting of which is the number of the legendary group of Spartan soldiers lead by Leonides fighting the large Persian army in Thermopylae (cf. Herodotus, Histories, 7.205). It is also the number of the Spartan royal bodyguard. It is very well possible that this association with that number was in the back of the mind of an author who may have lived in the early Hellenistic period (cf. introduction § 3.4), especially in describing the following events about a small group of soldiers being outnumbered by the invading army but nevertheless withstanding them. 7:9–15 9 10 11

It happened in that night that YHWH said to him: “Arise, go down intothecamp,becauseIhavegivenitintoyourhand. Andifyouareafraidtogodown,godownyouandPura,yourboy, tothecamp. And you must listen to what they are saying and afterwards your handsshallbestrengthenedandyouwillgodownintothecamp”. He went down, he and Pura, his boy, to the edge of the groups of fiftyinthecamp.

Gideon 12

13

14

15

229

Midian,AmalekandallthechildrenoftheEastweresettledinthevalley,numerouslikelocustsandtheircamelshadnonumber,numerous likesandthatisontheshoreofthesea. Gideoncameand,look,amanrecountingtohisfellowadream.Hesaid: “Look,adreamIhavedreamt:look,aloafofbarleybreadwasrolling intothecampofMidian,itcameuntilthetentandstruckitanditfell. Itrolleditupsidedownandthetentfell”. Hisfellowansweredandsaid:“Thisisnoneotherthantheswordof Gideon,thesonofJoash,themanofIsrael.GodhasgivenMidianin hishandandthewholecamp”. Ithappened,whenGideonheardtherecountingofthedreamandits interpretation,thatheboweddownandreturnedtothecampofIsrael. Hesaid:“Arise,becauseYHWHhasgiventhecampofMidianintoyour hand”.

For the third time in this story YHWH makes things happen in the night. According to 6:25 he gave Gideon the command at night to demolish the altar of Baal and the Asherah and according to 6:40 he performed a miracle with the fleece, giving Gideon the assurance of his powerful assistance. Now it is time to incite Gideon to make the next step and start the fight with the Midianites. As in 7:4–5 and 7:7 the words of YHWH are very well formulated. The command is given in three lines in a concentric order with a corresponding first and last line (cf. Assis 2005, 69). It starts with the order to go down into the camp, using the verb ‫ ירד‬with the preposition ‫ב‬. ְ This is followed by raising the possibility that Gideon still may be reluctant to go. This time the verb is used with the preposition ‫אל‬, ֶ indicating that he does not have to go into the camp but can stay just outside it. Then, finally, when he may have overcome his fear, it is suggested that he indeed will go into the camp, using again the preposition ‫ב‬. ְ The two references to Gideon’s hand(s) further underline the structure (cf. Nelson 2017, 151): Arise, go down into the camp, because I have given it into your hand. And if you are afraid to go down, go down you and Pura, your boy, to the camp. And you must listen to what they are saying and afterwards your hands shall be strengthened and you will go down into the camp.

It will not come as a surprise that Gideon chooses the safe option and goes with a companion to the edge of the camp. In the book of Judges there are relatively many references to a ‫נַ ַער‬, “young man, boy” (cf. 8:14, 20, 21; 9:54; 13:5, 7, 8, 12, 24; 16:26; 17:7, 11, 12; 18:3, 15; 19:3, 9, 11, 13, 19). It always denotes someone from a lower level, be it in age (as a son) or in standing (as a servant). The fact that here the young man is mentioned,

230

Judges6:1–8:32

together with the suggestion that Gideon might be afraid, and that he has no other function (one could think of witness or weapon bearer) than to accompany him, makes his presence humiliating. It is remarkable that the young man with his very small part in the story is mentioned by name, even twice. Because of the many puns on names one would expect something similar with the name of Pura, which in the LXX is rendered as Φαρα. ‫ ֻפּ ָרה‬can be interpreted as a defectively written ‫פּוּרה‬, ָ “winepress through” (Isa. 63:3; cf. HAL, 908), which relates his presence to the beginning of the story where Gideon was hiding in the winepress. According to v. 11 Gideon and Pura go “to the edge of the groups of fifty in the camp”. The translation of ‫ ַה ֲח ֻמ ִשׁים‬is debated. Following the LXX who translates “fifty” it is related here to the numeral ‫ח ֵמשׁ‬, ָ “five”, assuming it indicates a division of the army. The reference to a number fits well to the preceding part of the story about the selection of the three hundred. Sasson 2014, 353, prefers an association with ‫ח ֶֹמשׁ‬, “abdomen”: “those girded for battle”. For the third time, the three enemies of Israel are mentioned in v. 12 (cf. 6:3, 33). As in 6:5 their number is emphasized: they cannot be counted. Here this is underlined with the simile of the grains of sand. Again, attention is drawn to the numbers: whereas the Israelite army had become very small, the army of the enemies looked even bigger than before. The turning point in which Gideon’s fear for this big army should definitively be taken away is introduced in v. 13 by three times ‫הנֵּ ה‬, ִ “look”. First it is Gideon who is surprised by hearing a Midianite telling his dream, after that it is the Midianite who twice calls for attention. The precise meaning of ‫( ְצ ִליל‬ketiv: ‫)צלוּל‬ ָ is uncertain. It is a hapaxlegomenon, which may be a matter of style: the foreign soldier using exotic words. The given translation “loaf” follows HAL, 961. The image of a loaf of barley bread rolling into the camp recalls the beginning of the story of Gideon: his attempt to save something from the cereal harvest in a winepress. Note also the possible association of the name of his servant Pura with a winepress. The presence of Pura and the dream of the rolling bread symbolize the change that is at hand. The tent is a fitting image of the Midianites, who are described as nomads setting up their tents (6:5). The destruction of the tent by the bread is described in the customary style of the book, that is, in three steps: it “came” until the tent, then “struck” the tent making it fall, and finally “rolling” the tent “upside down”. This sentence has been treated in different ways by the ancient versions. According to BHQ, 70*, this is caused by the fact that in Hebrew the text reads “a little clumsily”, which reflects the disorder within a dream. The change of fortunes of Israel begins with the change of attitude with Gideon. This is well illustrated by the words of Gideon to the Israelites in v. 15: “Arise, because YHWH has given the camp of Midian into your hand”.

Gideon

231

They repeat what YHWH said to Gideon before he went to the camp of the Midianites. When he hears these words again out of the mouth of the Midianite soldier, it gives him the courage to make these words his own. Finally, he has overcome his reluctance, accepts his task and starts acting as a good leader, that is, as an intermediary between YHWH and his people. According to Baker 2018, 360, we find here precisely in the middle of the story of Gideon the theological centre of the cycle. The dream of the Midianite is a medium used by YHWH to predict the future. It can be compared to the dreams of Joseph (Gen. 37:5–11) and especially to the dreams of other non-Israelites, such as those of the Egyptian cupbearer and baker (Gen. 40:5–19) and of Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1–7). As in these stories from the book of Genesis, it is not explicitly mentioned that the dream comes from YHWH. In the present story also the interpretation is given by a non-Israelite. The irony in this is that the words of enemy soldiers have more impact on Gideon than the words of the messenger of YHWH or even of YHWH himself, directly spoken to him at the beginning of the story. One could also compare the message which the Israelite spies receive from the Canaanite woman Rahab in Jericho (Josh. 2:9). Sometimes you need the vision of an outsider. 7:16–22a 16 17

18

19

20

21 22

Hedividedthethreehundredmeninthreecompanies.Hegaveram’s hornsinthehandofallandemptyjugsandtorchesinsidethejugs. He said to them: “To me you must look and thus you must do. Look, Iamgoingtotheedgeofthecamp.Itshallbe:asIdo,thus youdo. I will blow the ram’s horn, I and all who are with me, you too shall blowyourram’shornsaroundthewholecampandyoushallsay:‘For YHWHandforGideon’”. Gideoncameandthehundredmenwhowerewithhimtotheedgeof thecamp,atthebeginningofthemiddlewatch.Theyhadjustinstalled thewatcherswhentheyblewtheram’shornsandshatteredwerethe jugsintheirhand. Thethreecompaniesblewtheram’shorns,brokethejugs,seizedwith theirlefthandthetorchesandintheirrighthandtheram’shornsto blowon.Theycalledout:“AswordforYHWHandforGideon!” Theystood(still),amaninhisplacearoundthecamp.Allthecamp startedtorun,shoutedandfled. The three hundred ram’s horns were blown and YHWH put to the sword,amanagainsthisfellowandthewholecamp.Thecampfled untilBeth-Hashitta,toZezerah,totheborderofAbel-Mehola,above Tabat.

232

Judges6:1–8:32

Now he is convinced that he can act successful, Gideon does not waste any time. The text suggests that the attack on the camp of the Midianites takes place in the same night in which Gideon received the order from YHWH (7:9). In v. 19 the moment is specified as “the beginning of the middle watch”. His visit together with Pura must have taken place during the first watch. As so often in the book of Judges all things come in threes. The army is divided in three parts and all the soldiers receive three objects: a ram’s horn, a jug and a torch. This is not a normal soldier’s kit and in the history of interpretation it has given rise to much allegorical speculation (cf. Légasse 2000, 251–255), for instance by Gregory the Great (6th century) who stated that the trumpets point to the shouting of those who preach the gospel, the torches to the illumination by the miracles and the jugs to the fragility of the body. The plan is clear and looks to be simple. Moreover, Gideon instructs his soldiers very well, showing that he is now fully in charge. He seems to have come up with this plan all by himself. He also attracts all attention. This is especially clear in his instructions in vv. 17–18. Gideon asks the soldiers to look at him, to follow him and to blow the horn like him. They also have to say his name, next to the name of YHWH. This is an indication that Gideon is starting to feel more and more important. No longer is he giving all credits to YHWH, as stated in 6:36 (“if it is you who delivers Israel through my hand”). Now he suggests that he is on the same level as YHWH. The phrase “For YHWH and for Gideon” has interesting parallels in West-Semitic inscriptions: an inscription found in Carthage dated to the 8th century BCE and an inscription found in Ekron dated at the end of the 7th century BCE, with a dedication to a deity and a royal person side by side (cf. Schmitz 2008). This may be understood as an indication that the way the relation between YHWH and Gideon is depicted here, is dubious at least. Little is left of the modest man of the first part of the story. Now the scale seems to tip in the direction of haughtiness. This will only be furthered by the fact that in their enthusiasm the soldiers even do more than Gideon asked them. They do not “say” the words but shout “A sword for YHWH and Gideon”, adding the word “sword” as a symbol of power. Gideon had not referred to a sword, because that is exactly the thing they will not use. The swords belong to the Midianites. It was the Midianite explaining the dream of his companion who spoke about the sword of Gideon (v. 14) and it will be the Midianites who use their swords against each other (v. 22). It is not clear how precisely Gideon’s orders could be executed. With a torch in your left hand and a ram’s horn in your right it is not easy to break the jug in which the torch is hidden. Some scholars assume that the present text is a combination of different versions of this story (cf. Richter 1966,

Gideon

233

188–202; Scherer 2005, 285–300). According to Sasson 2014, 354, however, there is no problem when we assume that the torches were unlit. The jugs would not have been used to hide burning torches and surprise the Midianites by the sudden lights, but only to be smashed to add to the noise of the ram’s horns. Only after the jugs were broken the torches would have been lit. The horns could have been tied around the neck, so that the hands were free to do the job with the torches. Korpel 2011,1, suggests that perhaps they hit their neighbour’s jug with their own. Be this as it may, it is clear, however, that the author was not very precise in his description of the battle. Also, the reason why Gideon divided his army into three groups remains unclear. If it is true, as is suggested in the introduction to the exegesis, that most of the story of Abimelech is older than the story of Gideon, it may be assumed that, with regard to the division into three parts, the author was inspired by what is more elaborately told in 9:43 about Abimelech’s strategy. Also, the stylistic habit to formulate things in threes does not always contribute to the story’s lucidity. It is found again in the way the chaos among the Midianites is described in v. 21: “All the camp started to run, shouted and fled”. Next to this it can be noted that in vv. 16–22 the ram’s horn is mentioned precisely seven times. This is hardly a coincidence (cf. Groß 2009, 441). Note also the special way it is formulated the seventh time in v. 22: “the three hundred ram’s horns were blown”. This puts extra emphasis on the ram’s horns. A number of scholars, followed by BHK and BHS, suggest reading ‫ה ֵמאוֹת‬, ַ making the soldiers the subject: “and the three hundred blew the ram’s horns”. In BHQ, 71*, it is remarked that this proposal lacks a sufficient textual basis. Moreover, by this remarkable construction the focus is put on the ram’s horns, which makes good sense in the present context. It precedes the remark that it was YHWH who caused the Midianites to take up the sword against each other. The central role of the ram’s horns characterizes the battle as a kind of cultic act. It can be compared to the way they functioned in the capture of Jericho according to Josh. 6 (note also the parallel mentioned above with Rahab). Just as the song “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho” misses the point of the biblical story that it was YHWH who was responsible for the victory, the praise of “Gideon’s military genius” (Malamat 2001, 121) is hardly in line with the story in Judg. 7. In the story of Gideon, the question about the relation between the work of God and the work of man plays an important role. Some scholars speak in this connection of the concept of “dual causality” (cf. Assis 2005, 80). Other scholars note different views on the way the work of God is in relation to the work of man and ascribe this to different layers or redactions (cf. Groß 2008). However, precisely this aspect of the relation with YHWH seems to have been used by the author as part of his description of the character development of Gideon, from a fearful person to a smart warrior and later also to an intelligent diplomat (cf. Amit 2012, 116–118).

234

Judges6:1–8:32

7:22b 

ThecampfleduntilBeth-Hashitta,toZezerah,totheborderofAbelMehola,aboveTabat.

The places Beth-Hashitta, Zezerah, Abel-Mehola, and Tabat cannot be located with certainty. Only Abel-Mehola is also mentioned elsewhere (cf. 1 Kgs 19:16, the hometown of Elisha). We have to assume that they are located east of the valley of Jezreel, near or on the other side of the river Jordan. BethHashitta is associated by Garsiel (1993, 312) with the story in Num. 25 about the idolatry at Baal Peor, being led astray by the Midianites. This took place at Shittim (‫)שׁ ִטּים‬, ִ a name resembling Beth-Hashitta (‫)בּית ַה ִשּׁ ָטּה‬. ֵ Zezerah (‫)צ ֵר ָרה‬ ְ could be related then to YHWH’s command to Moses to kill them because of the fact that they had “treated you as enemies”, using the verb ‫צרר‬. A number of Hebrew manuscripts read ‫ צרדתה‬with a dalet instead of the second resh. This may have been inspired by the reference to that place in 2 Chron. 4:17 (cf. also 1 Kgs 7:46; 11:26) and is not decisive for changing the MT as is suggested by some scholars (cf. BHQ, 71*). 7:23–25 23 24

25

The men of Israel were summoned from Naphtali, from Asher and fromallManasseh.TheypursuedMidian. GideonhadsentmessengersonallmountEphraim,saying:“Godown tomeetMidianandtakeforthemthewateruntilBeth-Barahandthe Jordan”.AllmenofEphraimweresummoned,andtheytookthewater untilBeth-BarahandtheJordan. TheytookthetwocommandersofMidian,OrebandZeeb.Theykilled OrebattheRockofOrebandZeebtheykilledattheWinepressofZeeb. They pursued Midian. The head of Oreb and Zeeb they brought to GideonacrosstheJordan.

As is explained in the introduction to the exegesis, 7:23–8:3 and 8:4–21 interrupt the flow of the story. They can also be read as two different versions of the same story of pursuing the Midianites, killing its two leaders and settling an inner-Israelite conflict. The assumption that these parts of the text stem from different sources can also explain some contradictions. The fact that v. 23 refers to the original big army ignores the fact that in 8:4 we read again of Gideon’s small army of three hundred men. Compared to the list of Israelite tribes in 6:35, Zebulon is missing for unclear reasons. Instead, Gideon now asks Ephraim to participate. Within the present context there is a clear parallel to the story in 12:1–6 about the controversy between Ephraim

Gideon

235

and Jephthah. They both take place in the aftermath of the victory over the enemy and in both stories we find the elements of crossing the river Jordan and of aphorisms about the differences between tribes. The basic difference is the outcome: whereas Gideon manages to keep the peace between the tribes, Jephthah fails to do so. The summoning of the tribes is described in almost the same way as in 6:34–35. This time the verb ‫ צעק‬niphal is used (cf. also 10:17 and 12:1) instead of ‫( זעק‬cf. also 12:2; 18:23). A more important difference is that they are explicitly called up by Gideon. They do not have to be convinced of Gideon’s leadership anymore (cf. Assis 2005, 83). With the Ephraimites, who had not been involved before, things are different. Just as it was added in 6:35 that “messengers had been sent to all Manasseh”, we now read the same regarding Ephraim. The fact that this text was formulated on the basis of this parallel, may have influenced this uncommon expression, which is only used here: “all mount Ephraim”. The Ephraimites are called up to come up from the south to cut off the passage of the Midianites fleeing from the north and trying to escape by crossing the Jordan. That is a good place to deliver the decisive blow to the enemy, like Ehud did to the Moabites (3:28– 29) and Gilead would later do to the Ephraimites themselves (12:5–6). The place is specified as Beth-Barah, a name only mentioned here. It would be in line with the style of the author to assume wordplay as in the next verses with the names of the places where the Midianite leaders were executed, but it is not clear what would be the association with ‫בּית ָבּ ָרה‬. ֵ It has been suggested to replace ‫ת־היַּ ְר ֵדּן‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ַמּיִם ַעד ֵבּית ָבּ ָרה וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֶ “the water until BethBarah and the Jordan”, with ‫ת־מ ְע ְבּרוֹת ַהיַּ ְר ֵדּן‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֶ “the crossings of the Jordan”, as in 3:28 (cf. Burney 1920, 225). An ancient and more likely suggestion is to read ‫בּית ֲע ָב ָרה‬, ֵ “house of crossing, fording” (cf. Block 1999, 284; cf. also the critical discussion by Studer 1835, 209–210, of the suggested identification with a place Bethabara mentioned by Origen as the place where John the Baptist worked according to John 1:28). The Ephraimites do exactly what they are told: “they take the water”. We must assume that this means that they take control over the fords of the Jordan. The uncommon expression in Hebrew may have been caused by the wish of the author to use the same verb ‫ לכד‬as in the following action: they “take” two Midianite leaders. Oreb and Zeeb have the same function or status as Sisera: of “commander” (‫)שׂר‬. ַ This suggests that just as Sisera was serving king Jabin (4:2), they had the same relation to Zebah and Zalmunna, who are called “kings of Midian” (8:5). The names of Oreb and Zeeb are mentioned three times, first when they are captured, then when they are killed, and finally when their heads are brought to Gideon. They have the names of animals: ‫ע ֵֹרב‬, “raven”, and ‫זְ ֵאב‬, “wolf”.

236

Judges6:1–8:32

The place where they were killed will keep the memory of this moment: “Rock of Oreb” and “Winepress of Zeeb”. These place names also symbolize the contrast between the beginning of the story with Gideon hiding in a winepress (cf. 6:11, using a different word in Hebrew) and placing the offering for the messenger of YHWH on a rock (cf. 6:20). The impact of this event resonates in Isa. 10:26, referring to the victory of Midian at the Rock of Oreb, just as Isa. 9:3 seems to remind of the previous victory in the valley of Jezreel on “the day of Midian”. The two Midianite commanders are also mentioned in Ps. 83:12, next to Zebah and Zalmunna, who will figure in the following episode. This must have been seen as one of the highlights in the history of ancient Israel. It is disputed what is meant here with ‫מ ֵע ֶבר ַליַּ ְר ֵדּן‬: ֵ “by the Jordan” (Block 1999, 281), “on the other side of the Jordan” (Nelson 2017, 142; cf. Groß 2009, 360: “jenseits des Jordan”) or “from across the Jordan” (Sasson 2014, 348). Usually the expression indicates a location at the other side of the Jordan (cf. HAL, 738), but that would suggest that Gideon had already crossed the river. This would contradict what is reported in 8:4, unless the Ephraimites killed the Midianites on the east side of the Jordan. More important than the precise location of Gideon at that moment, may be within the book of Judges the association with the story of the conflict between the Ephraimites and Jephthah with its dramatic finish at the fords (‫)מ ְע ָבּרוֹת‬ ַ of the Jordan (12:5–6). 8:1–3 1

2 3

ThemenofEphraimsaidtohim:“Whatisthisthingyouhavedoneto us,notcallinguswhenyouwenttobattlewithMidian?”Theystrove withhimwithstrength. Hesaid:“WhathaveIdonenowcomparedtoyou?Arenotthegleanings ofEphraimbetterthanthevintageofAbiezer? InyourhandGodhasgiventhecommandersofMidian,OrebandZeeb. WhatcouldIhavedonecomparedtoyou?”Thentheirspiritagainst himsubsidedwiththiswordhespoke.

The conflict between Gideon and the Ephraimites and its settlement is told following a concentric pattern (cf. Assis 2005, 87; Nelson 2017, 162). Three times there is a question introduced with ‫מה‬, “what?” The first question relates this twice to “us”, and is followed by two questions “to you”. It starts with the Ephraimites asking “What is this thing (‫)ה ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ you have done to us?” and it ends with the Ephraimites calming down “with this word (‫”)ה ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ spoken by Gideon. The conflict as described in the second line (“They strove with him with strength”) is settled according to the penultimate line (“their spirit against him subsided”).

Gideon

237

What is this thing you have done to us, not calling us They strove with him with strength. …What have I done now compared to you? … … What could I have done compared to you? Then their spirit against him subsided with this word he spoke.

Between the repeated lines “What have I done compared to you” we read a declaration of humbleness, followed by the confession that it is God who gave the victory to Ephraim. The first is given in the form of an aphorism: “Are not the gleanings of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?” The gleanings refer to the final phase of the harvest, looking for what was left after the bulk of the grapes was already collected. On the one hand it denotes in general that the tribe of Ephraim is more important than the house of Abiezer, on the other hand it indicates that the capture of the two Midianite commanders was more important than the preceding victory over the Midianites in the Valley of Jezreel. Gideon’s modesty concerning his family reminds us of his reaction to his calling in 6:15. Attributing the victory to God recalls the way he addresses God in 6:36, explicitly acknowledging that it is God who must deliver Israel. It is remarkable that just as in 6:36–40 the name of YHWH is not used in 8:3 but replaced with ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬. ֱ The use of the verb ‫ריב‬, “to strive”, denoting the conflict between the Ephraimites and Gideon is reminiscent of the conflict between Gideon and Baal in 6:31–32. It was related to the name Jerubbaal. In that case Joash had to solve the problems for Gideon, now his son shows that he has grown into his role as a leader and capable of handling the issue himself. The conflict with the Ephraimites resurfaces and escalates in 12:1–6. It is symbolic for the deteriorating quality of leadership under Jephthah. Compared with him, Gideon does a far better job. The returning conflict with Ephraim can be read against the background of the theological explanation of the demise of the kingdom of Israel, represented by the tribe of Ephraim (cf. Ps. 78:67–68). 8:4–9 4 5

6 7

GideoncametotheJordan,crossingover,heandthreehundredmen whowerewithhim,wearyofthepursuit. HesaidtothemenofSuccoth:“Giveloavesofbreadtothepeople who(followat)myfootsteps,becausetheyareweary.Iampursuing ZebahandZalmunna,thekingsofMidian”. ThecommandersofSuccothsaid:“IsthegraspofZebahandZalmunna nowinyourhand,thatweshouldgiveyourarmybread?” Gideonsaid:“Therefore,whenYHWHgivesZebahandZalmunnain myhand,Iwilltreadoveryourfleshwiththethornsofthewilderness andwiththenettles”.

238 8 9

Judges6:1–8:32 HewentupfromtheretoPenuel.Hespoketothemlikethis.Themen ofPenuelansweredhimasthemenofSuccothhadanswered. HesaidtothemenofPenuelaswell,saying:“Uponmyreturninpeace Iwilldemolishthistower”.

After the first story about the pursuit of the Midianites, the capture of two of its leaders, and an inner-Israelite conflict in 7:23–8:3 now follows a similar story in 8:4–21 with two other Midianite leaders and other Israelites opposing Gideon. In the end the outcome is the same for the Midianites, but the innerIsraelite conflict is not settled in harmony. In 7:23–8:3 the two elements were placed after each other: first the pursuit and capture of the enemy and then the inner-Israelite conflict. In 8:4–21 the two elements are interwoven: The pursuit of the Midianites (vs. 4) The people of Succoth and Penuel declining Gideon’s request for support (vv. 5–9) The continued pursuit and the capture of the Midianite kings (vv. 10–13) Gideon punishing Succoth and Penuel (vv. 14–17) Execution of the Midianite kings (vv. 18–21

The transition in the story line in v. 4 is not smooth. In 7:25 it was reported that the heads of Oreb and Zeeb had been brought to Gideon “at the other side of the Jordan”, suggesting that he had already crossed the river. According to v. 4, however, he still had to cross it. The construction in the Hebrew text with a participle ‫ ע ֵֹבר‬is uncommon but not impossible (cf. BHQ, 72*, against BHK and BHS who suggest a change to an imperfectumconsecutivum; Groß, 365, translates “in der Absicht ihn zu überschreiten”). A number of scholars note that with the crossing of the Jordan, Gideon crosses another line: “The moment that he and his men cross the Jordan, a whole new Gideon emerges. In contrast to the ‘first’ Gideon, who was a timid ‘hacker’ and who succeeded by the grace of God, this ‘second’ Gideon is a forceful, resourceful, avenging ‘hacker’, whose very success breeds even worse failure” (Younger 2002, 197; cf. also Smelik 2001, 106–107). There is also a tension between the reference of an army of three hundred men and the fact that according to 7:23 the original big Israelite army had become active again, as if this army had not been under Gideon’s command. Be this as it may, in 8:4–5 the emphasis is on the close relation between Gideon and his army. The three hundred are the men he had selected and here they are mentioned in his conversation with the people of Succoth as those who are following him, literally: ‫בּ ַרגְ ָלי‬, ְ “at my feet”, and for whom he feels responsible. Gideon asks the help of the people of the city of Succoth for his exhausted men in their pursuit of the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna. It is remarkable that these leaders have not been mentioned before. In the stories of

Gideon

239

Othniel, Ehud, Deborah and Barak the names of the leaders of the enemy were mentioned already in the introduction. In the following stories of Jephthah and Samson, the opponents are not mentioned by name anymore. In the final chapters, even most Israelites remain anonymous. So, in this regard, the story of Gideon mentioning the names of the leaders of the enemy only in the second part takes a middle position. Another remarkable element is the repeated reference to two leaders, first indicated as commanders and now as kings. As with Oreb and Zeeb, their names call up certain associations. ‫ זֶ ַבח‬is the normal Hebrew word for sacrifice. It can be compared to the name of the Moabite king Eglon (3:12), which can be related to the Hebrew word for calf, which within the context of the story points to him being butchered by Ehud. The name ‫ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬can be translated as “shadow is withheld”, combining ‫ ֵצל‬with a form of the verb ‫( מנע‬cf. Burney 1920, 228–229; the suggestion by Garsiel 1993, 308, to relate it to ‫צ ֶלם‬, ֶ “likeness”, and the remark in v. 18, “they were like you”, is less convincing). It points to the fact that he will not find protection (cf. the use of ‫ ֵצל‬in Ps. 121:5). Attempts made to reconstruct their original Midianite names (cf. Böhl 1926, 203–204 [= 1953, 17–18]) remain hypothetical; it is likely that we are dealing here with names “confected ironically or pejoratively” (Sasson 2014, 360; cf. Moore 1895, 218: “perverted by malicious wit”). Succoth (usually identified with present day Deir Allah) and Penuel (still not located with certainty), recall the story of Jacob on his way back from Haran to his homeland. Jacob gave these places their name as a remembrance of his encounters with God and with Esau. Penuel or Peniel received this name because Jacob has seen God there, face to face (Gen. 32:30–32). Succoth is named by Jacob after the huts (‫)סכּוֹת‬ ֻ he built for his cattle after having survived the meeting with Esau (Gen. 33:17). Against this background, the negative reaction of the present inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel is disappointing. On the other hand, the loyalty of cities in this region in the Transjordan hill country to someone like Gideon should be not taken for granted (cf. Sergi 2018, 295–298). Moreover, when we recall Gideon’s hesitation at the beginning of the story, when he was called to fight the Midianites, one would have expected that Gideon showed more understanding; even more so, because the answer of the commanders of Succoth reminds us of his own words in 6:36. They say: “Is the grasp of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give your army bread?” This recalls how Gideon introduced his request to YHWH to give him a sign: “If it is you who delivers Israel by my hand, as you have spoken”. YHWH had shown his patience by offering two more signs to Gideon proving his power and assistance. Gideon leaves no room for doubt. He himself is now certain that YHWH will also give Zebah and Zalmunna into his hand (v. 7) and he announces that those who not share this trust will dearly pay for that. The condition of the commanders

240

Judges6:1–8:32

of Succoth that Gideon should show them the hand of the Midianite kings first has been related to what is known from Assyrian and Egypt texts about the cruel treatment of defeated enemies (cf. H. Altenmüller, LÄII, 940; Groß 2009, 448–449; Sasson 2014, 511; see also the remarks on 1:6–7). Within its present context, it fits in the first place within the references to the hand, which from 6:1 on regularly return in the phrase “to give into the hand” and related expressions, as noted in the comments on 6:1 above. They should be seen as a constant wordplay with the name of Midian. It also returns in Gideon’s answer: “when YHWH gives Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand”. The promised punishment, “to tread over your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with the nettles”, can also be related to the beginning of the story. The verb ‫דושׁ‬, “to tread”, is commonly used to denote the treading out of grain, that is, to thresh. According to 6:11 it is what Gideon was doing when the messenger of YHWH appeared to him. Out of fear for the Midianites he could not do it in the normal manner. Now Gideon is in charge, he returns to threshing, and again it is far from normal; using it as a metaphor for torture. The threat against Penuel, that also refuses to support Gideon, is simpler: Gideon will demolish its tower. The tower (‫)מגְ ָדּל‬ ִ is a symbol of human power (cf. Gen. 11:4–5; Exod. 14:2) and metaphorically also of the power of YHWH (Ps. 61:4; Prov.18:10; cf. D. Kellermann, ThWAT IV, 645). Within the book of Judges, such a tower shall also play a prominent role in the story of Abimelech (9:51–52). It is one of the elements which illustrate that the stories of Gideon and of Abimelech function as each other’s counterpart: whereas Gideon at the peak of his power is capable of destroying the tower of the enemy, Abimelech will find his inglorious end at the foot of the tower he tried to take in vain. There is an interesting parallel between the threatening words of Gideon to the men of Penuel and Jephthah’s vow in 11:31. They both speak of what will happen after their “return in peace” (‫שׁוּבי ְב ָשׁלוֹם‬ ִ ‫)בּ‬. ְ The promise by Gideon is clearer and its fulfilment less dramatic than it will be for Jephthah. 8:10–17 10

11 12

ZebahandZalmunna(were)inKarkor,theirarmywiththem,about fifteenthousand,allleftoverfromthewholearmyofthechildrenof theEast.Thefallen(were)hundredtwentythousandsword-wielding men. Gideonwentupalongtheroadofthetentdwellers,eastofNobahand Jogbahah.Hestruckthearmy.Thearmyhadbeencarefree. ZebahandZalmunnafled.Hepursuedafterthemandcapturedthe twokingsofMidian,ZebahandZalmunna.Thewholearmyhemade tremble.

Gideon 13 14

15

16 17

241

Gideon,thesonofJoash,returnedfromthebattle,frompassHeres. HecapturedaboyfromthemenofSuccothandhequestionedhim. He wrote down for him the commanders of Succoth and its elders, seventy-sevenmen. HecametothemenofSuccothandsaid:“Look,ZebahandZalmunna, withwhomyoumockedme,saying:‘IsthegraspofZebahandZalmunna nowinyourhand,thatweshouldgiveyourwearymenbread?’” Hetooktheeldersofthecityandthethornsofthewildernessandthe nettlesandhadthemenofSuccothknowthem. ThetowerofPenuelhedemolished,andhekilledthemenofthecity.

The description of the definitive settlement with the Midianite army contains many new details about numbers and places. This is one of the reasons why, as is indicated in the introduction to the exegesis, this part of the text is usually considered as an authentic historical account of a war between tribes of Israel and the Midianites. The places mentioned here, Karkor, Nobah and Jogbahah, were probably located in the heartland of Midian. Jogbahah is also mentioned in Num 32:25 (vocalized as Jogbehah) as a place east of the Jordan. The usual play with names seems to be absent here. Also, the reference to “the road of the tent dwellers” affirms that Gideon now has ventured to go into the territory of his opponents, who were associated with tents in 6:5. For the first time we now hear of exact numbers of the Midianites. Fifteen thousand are left, with which they still clearly outnumber Gideon’s small army. The fact that he is able to beat the Midianites is not presented here as a miracle, but as a miscalculation of the Midianites. They felt “confident” (‫)בּ ַטח‬, ֶ just like the people of Laish (18:7), apparently, because they assumed that they had reached a safe location. Just as in the battle described in chapter 7, the victory seems to have been won because the Midianites are overtaken by a sudden fear (“he made them tremble”). It is not clear what location is precisely meant with ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלה ֶה ָח ֶרס‬in v. 13. It is remarkable that the second element of the name was also used in the place names ‫ר־ח ֶרס‬ ֶ ‫ה‬, ַ “Mount Heres”, in 1:35 and ‫ת־ח ֶרס‬ ֶ ַ‫ת ְמנ‬, ִ which is usually left untranslated as “Timnath Heres” in 2:9. ‫מ ֲע ֵלה ֶה ָח ֶרס‬, ַ which clearly refers to again another place can be translated as “the pass of Heres” or “the ascent of Heres”. The second element can also be interpreted as a word for the sun (cf. 14:18), as is done in the Targum, which translates: “he returned from the war before the sun had set” (Smelik 1995, 511). It has also been related to ‫ח ְר ִסית‬, ַ “potsherd”, as in the “Potsherd Gate” (Jer. 19:2; cf. Sasson 2014, 362: “Potsherd Heights”). As with the other place names in this part of the text it probably does not have a special meaning and is part of an old tradition used by an author who even himself probably did not know the exact location.

242

Judges6:1–8:32

An interesting detail in the execution of the acts of vengeance is the role of a young captive from the town of Succoth. The reference to a boy (‫)נַ ַער‬ is reminiscent of the young man accompanying Gideon on his visit to the Midianite camp (7:10) and also points forward to the scene in v. 20, where the reluctance of Gideon’s son Jether to kill the prisoners is explained by the fact that he was still a boy, and also to the role of the boy at the end of the story of Samson (16:26). The young man from Succoth proves to be useful to Gideon as he writes down the names of the leaders of the city. His action can be compared to that of the man from Luz showing the spies from the tribe of Joseph an entrance to the city (1:24). This support from insiders may be seen as a token of weakness of the enemy. Just like Rahab living in Jericho but convinced of the superiority of the Israelites, they take the side of the attackers. The fact that in the case of Succoth it was a boy who helped Gideon to makes his selection was also humiliating. The list helps Gideon to find and punish those who had mocked him. Whether he stopped there and left the rest of the inhabitants unharmed, is not clear. The final words of v. 16 suggest that in the end all men of Succoth were subjected to the announced torture, just as all the inhabitants of Penuel were killed according to the next verse. There is much discussion about the use in the MT of the verb ‫ ידע‬hiphil in the phrase “he had the men of Succoth know them”, that is, the thorns and the nettles. In LXX (B) it is suggested that the verb used in v. 7, ‫דישׁ‬, “to tread” or “to trash”, is also used here. LXX (A) translates more freely with “he cut the men of Succoth to pieces with them”, which also points in this direction. This has led to a commonly accepted emendation of ‫ וַ יּ ַֹדע‬to ‫( וַ יׇּ ׇדשׁ‬cf. BHQ, 73*–74*; Groß 2009, 365; Emerton 1970 suggests that we are dealing here with a second root ‫ ידע‬hiphil, “to make quiet”; in his article of 1991, 160, however, Emerton suggests to read ‫רע‬ ַ ‫ וַ יׇּ‬of the verb ‫ רעע‬hiphil, “and he broke”). A related problem is the contradiction at the beginning of v. 15 between the MT (“the men of Succoth”) and LXX (“the rulers of Succoth”) (see on this issue Tov 2012, 485). In the MT there is a tension with v. 16 which refers to the elders. In the LXX (A) this seems to be harmonized by referring at the beginning of v. 16 to “the rulers and the elders of the city”; LXX (B) is in line with the MT. It may be assumed that the uncommon use of the verb ‫ ידע‬in v. 16 and the confusing differences in the references to the inhabitants of Succoth in vv. 15–16 in the MT led to attempts in the versions (cf. also Smelik 1995, 512, on the free translation in the Targum) to improve the text. It is the first time in the book of Judges that an Israelite leader decides to use violence against Israelites. It will not be the last time and will culminate in the civil war at the end of the book. This is another indication that with the changes in Gideon’s personality and style of leadership we are on a turning point in the on-going story of the judges and saviours. In his actions

Gideon

243

he looks more like a foreign king who punishes the breach of a vassal treaty (cf. Malamat 2001, 148–150, who notes parallels with Hittite treaties). 8:18–21 18

19 20 21

HesaidtoZebahandZalmunna:“Wherearethemenwhomyoukilled inTabor?”Theysaid:“Likeyoutheywere,oneliketheappearance ofthesonsoftheking”. Hesaid:“Mybrothers(theywere),sonsofmymother.Bythelifeof YHWH,ifyouhadletthemlive,Iwouldnothavekilledyou”. HesaidtoJether,hisfirstborn:“Arise,killthem!”,buttheboydidnot drawhissword,becausehewasafraid,becausehewasstillaboy. Zebah and Zalmunna said: “Arise, you (yourself), and attack us, becauseasisthemansoishismight”.GideonaroseandkilledZebah andZalmunna.Hetookthecrescent(ornaments)thatwereonthenecks oftheircamels.

One can only speculate about what precisely Gideon is referring to when he asks about his brothers killed by Zebah and Zalmunna. It is also not certain, as is often suggested, that the author wanted to indicate that Gideon was only pursuing a personal feud. Within the present context, it is more relevant to note the clear correspondences with other parts of the story. The reaction by the Midianite kings introduces the idea of Gideon as fit for kingship. It will return in the offer by the Israelites in v. 22. The reference to brothers being killed points forward to what will happen in the next chapter. There it is not the foreign enemy who will kill the brothers, but Abimelech killing the sons of his father. As was already remarked above, the reference to the young boy has parallels in the preceding story, but also again in the story of Abimelech: at the end of his unsuccessful career as a king he will also ask a boy to do the killing, not the enemy but himself (9:54). The story of the violent death of the Midianite kings follows a pattern that can be found in other stories in the books of Judges (9:54) and Samuel (1 Sam. 22:17–18; 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:9–10; 5:15). Especially the comparison with the story of the killing of the priests of Nob after a first refusal shows interesting parallels (cf. Gunn 1974, 297–301). Gideon’s son Jether is mentioned only here. It is remarkable that Jether is also a name used in Exod. 4:18 for Moses’ father-in-law, usually referred to as Jethro, the priest of Midian. If the name was made up by the author of the book of Judges, he probably was inspired by the story of Moses. With regard to the personality of Gideon one can note a contrast with 7:10, where we read that Gideon was accompanied by a young boy on his trip to the camp of the Midianites. The humiliating suggestion is made that this has to do with his fear. Now the situation has changed drastically. Gideon has

244

Judges6:1–8:32

become the victorious leader of the Israelites. He is no longer the fearful man, hiding behind a young boy. There is some irony, however, in the fact that his enemies have to make him realize that he finally has become the brave man as he was called by the messenger of YHWH in 6:12. Their words “as is the man so is his might” (‫בוּרתוֹ‬ ָ ְ‫)כ ִאישׁ גּ‬ ָ recall the way Gideon was greeted as “mighty hero” (‫)גִּ בּוֹר ֶה ָחיִ ל‬. Two times Gideon reacts positively to the hints of his Midianite opponents, who in fact command him as Deborah commanded Barak and YHWH had commanded Gideon before, with the imperative ‫קוּם‬, “stand up” (cf. 4:14; 7:9). Firstly, he does not deny that his brothers, just like himself, have the appearance of kings. Secondly, he shows his masculinity by killing them. On his own initiative he then also takes the golden ornaments from their camels; another ominous hint of what is going to happen next. 8:22–23 22

23

ThemenofIsraelsaidtoGideon:“Ruleoverus,alsoyou,alsoyour son,alsothesonofyourson,becauseyouhavedeliveredusfromthe handofMidian”. Gideonsaidtothem:“Iwillnotruleoveryouandmysonwillnot ruleoveryou.YHWHwillruleoveryou”.

For the third time in the story of Gideon we now hear of ‫( ִאישׁ־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬earlier in 7:23 and without the meteg in 7:8), which is a singular, but clearly should be interpreted as a plural: “the men of Israel”. Within the book of Judges this term is also used in chapter 20, where it emphasizes the unity of the tribes over against the one tribe of Benjamin (cf. especially 20:11). The same can be assumed here, be it that in the previous chapter only a limited number of tribes are mentioned. According to 6:34–35, Gideon had summoned next to his family clan, the tribes Manasseh, Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali. These were the “men of Israel” who did not dare to follow him according 7:8. According to 7:23 Gideon had summoned “men of Israel” from the tribes of Naphtali, Asher and Manasseh to pursue the Midianites. According to the present text, they are now the ones asking Gideon to rule over them. They are the men of Gideon’s army and must be distinguished from the more general term ‫בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ְ “the sons/children of Israel”. The men of Israel agree with the two Midianite kings: Gideon is fit for ruling his people. They do not use the verb ‫מלך‬, “to be king”. According to Stone 2012, 299, they were not offering Gideon and his family kingship but “senior rank as ‘chief’ over the region”. More important than the title and precise filling-in of the function is the fact that it is hereditary. The confidence in Gideon’s offspring is remarkable after the preceding scene with Gideon’s

Gideon

245

son Jether, who had not shown special qualities. One may also assume that, with the reference to Gideon’s son, the author hints at the following story about Abimelech. His name can be translated as “my father is king” and his actions will show that the confidence of the men of Israel shall prove to be misplaced. It should also be noted that the argument brought forward by Abimelech to convince the men of Shechem to choose him as their leader is related to the offer to Gideon, using the same verb ‫( משׁל‬9:2). The reason for their offer is that the men of Israel consider Gideon responsible for the delivery from the Midianites. This seems to be contrasted by Gideon’s own words in 6:36, using the same verb ‫ ישׁע‬hiphil, that it is YHWH who will deliver Israel by the hand of Gideon (cf. also 7:15). Indirectly, this is corrected by Gideon in his answer that only YHWH can be Israel’s ruler. Gideon does not explicitly mention YHWH as the one who is responsible for the delivery, but his statement is clear. Three times he uses the verb ‫ משׁל‬to decline the offer for him and his progeny and to utter the confession about YHWH as ruler, which is well-known especially from hymns (cf. Ps. 22:29; 59:14; 66:7; 89:10; 103:19). He shares this insight with David (cf. 1 Chron. 29:12) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:6) and keeps the people from making the mistake in the time of Samuel of rejecting YHWH as their king (cf. 1 Sam. 8:7). Gideon also seems to have taken a step back compared to his instruction to his soldiers in 7:18, when he ordered them to call out “for YHWH and for Gideon”. He no longer suggests that he could be mentioned as on one level with YHWH. There is much discussion in the history of interpretation, especially in modern exegesis, about the question of how to place Gideon’s statement within the context of his story, and within the wider context when it comes to the view on kingship: how does it relate to his own behaviour and how does it relate to the seemingly more positive view on kingship in the final chapters of the book? The different views about kingship in the book of Judges have been explained in different ways (elaborate surveys of the history of interpretation can be found with Müller 2004, 1–11; Scherer 2004, 332–340; Assis 2005, 108–109, 239–243). One can distinguish between a diachronic and a synchronic approach. Within these also, different choices have been made. The classical diachronic solution is represented by the suggestion of Wellhausen that 8:22–23 is a late anti-monarchic addition dating from the exilic period. Other scholars relate the assumed addition to antimonarchic sentiments in an earlier stage of the history of Israel, for instance, in the period after king Solomon (cf. Crüsemann 1978, 52–54; Soggin 1981, 160) or in the period before the monarchy (cf. Groß 2009, 455, for an overview of the many different proposed dates). It is also assumed that 8:22– 23 was not added later, but that it is part of the oldest layers of the story and that the following negative reports about Gideon and the ephod were

246

Judges6:1–8:32

added at a later stage (cf. Groß 2009, 386–387, 455–457). It is often assumed that especially the negative judgment about this ephod in v. 27b as leading Israel on the path of idolatry is added later (cf. Kuenen 1890, 17; Crüsemann 1978, 44; Amit 1999, 230–231; Scherer 2005, 343). Among those who prefer a synchronic approach we also find different interpretations about the relation between vv. 22-23 and its context. A nowadays popular solution is to assume a difference between Gideon’s words and his deeds. Only in theory he would have declined the offer to be king, in practice he already acted as such (cf. Block 1999, 296–304; Olson 2004, 212; Wilson 2017, 90). Others suggest that Gideon’s opposition was no more than a polite refusal and that in fact he accepted the offer (cf. Zapletal 1923, 134; Davies 1963; Van Midden 1998, 206–208; Heffelfinger 2009, 285). According to Assis, Gideon’s intentions were good. He did want to place YHWH in the centre, but he also wanted to glorify himself. This contradiction was intended by the author “to demonstrate the destructive results of the action of a leader who is driven by personal interests” (Assis 2005, 110). Wilson 2017, 224, emphasizes on the basis of his analysis of Judges 6–9 the “multivocality and overdetermination in the discourse’s transition from judgeship to kingship”. Before any entering into this discussion, it is necessary to look at the next verses: in how far does the negative judgment about Israel falling back into idolatry (v. 27b) affect the picture of Gideon? 8:24–27 24

25 26

27

Gideonsaidtothem:“Iurgentlyaskyou:giveme,(every)man,aring of his booty”, because golden rings they had, because they were Ishmaelites. Theysaid:“Wewillcertainlygive(them)”.Theyspreadoutthemantle andthrewthere,(every)manaringofhisbooty. Theweightofthegoldenringsthatheaskedwasseventeenhundred (weightsof)gold,asidefromthecrescent(ornaments),theearrings, andthepurplegarmentsthatwereonthekingsofMidianandaside fromthecollarsthatwerearoundthenecksoftheircamels. Gideon made it into an ephod. He placed it in his city, in Ophrah. AllIsraelwentwhoringafteritthere.ItwasforGideonandforhis houseasnare.

The conversation between Gideon and the men of Israel continues, this time in reversed order. Gideon adds to his refusal a request. In the Hebrew text this is emphasized by adding the noun from the same root: “he requested a request”. The same construction with the verb ‫ ָשׁ ַאל‬followed by the noun ‫ ְשׁ ֵא ָלה‬is found in 1 Sam. 1:17, 27 where Hannah asks YHWH to give her a son and in 1 Kgs 2:16, 20 where Bathsheba pleads for a son with David.

Gideon

247

It indicates that Gideon is not acting here as a commander. He could simply have said: “give me my part of the booty”. Instead, he is presented here as someone who dares to ask only on the basis of their good relation (cf. Scherer 2005, 341: “Der Text legt großen Wert darauf, Gideon nicht als besitzgierigen Despoten erscheinen zu lassen”). Gideon did not wait for a reaction to his refusal to become their leader. His request must be seen as the alternative to the proposal made to him. Gideon does not want status, he desires gold. He does not tell why he wants it; only afterwards it will become clear that he needs it for making an ephod. This is a basic difference compared to the story often associated with gold, namely the story in Exod. 32 about Aaron making a golden calf from the golden rings of the Israelite women (cf. Assis 2005, 104–105; Groß 2009, 458–459). This starts with the wish of the people saying to Aaron that he should make them gods. In the case of Gideon, we should assume that it is Gideon’s reputation as their military leader that motivates the people to hand him their rings. They had thanked him for delivering them. They also owe him part of the booty from the victory they achieved under his leadership. It is hard to explain why in v. 24 the Ishmaelites have taken the place of the Midianites, even when v. 24b is taken as a reader’s gloss (cf. Frolov 2013, 357, 360–361). Something similar can be observed in Gen. 37:28, which first speaks of Midianites passing by and after that of Joseph being sold to Ishmaelites. Apparently, both names can denote the same group of people. It may be a coincidence, but it is remarkable that also in Gen. 27:28, the Ishmaelites are associated with precious metal. Another remarkable coincidence is that 1 Chron. 2:17 mentions an Ishmaelite with the same name as the son of Gideon mentioned in 8:20, namely Jether (cf. also 2 Sam. 17:25 referring to the Ishmaelite Jetra). It can also be noted that the name Ishmaelites fits very well to the assonance of the verbs ‫משׁל‬, “to rule”, and ‫שׁאל‬, “to ask”, in the previous lines (cf. Van der Deijl 1993, 66–67). The way the men of Israel react is in line with Gideon’s request: they wholeheartedly give what he asks for. In the Hebrew text there is also a doubling of words: after ‫ ֶא ְשׁ ֲא ָלה ִמ ֶכּם ְשׁ ֵא ָלה‬in v. 24 now follows ‫נָ תוֹן נִ ֵתּן‬, “we will certainly give”. Instantly, the action is suited to the word and the proceeds are enormous. Although the specific number of seventeen hundred is given and although we can safely assume that we are dealing with shekels, the precise weight is not certain. A safe estimation is that it was about twenty kilograms. To this is added the jewellery from the Midianite kings, which according to 8:21 had been taken by Gideon himself. So, Gideon also contributed his share. Next to the items mentioned in 8:21 the text refers to “the purple garments that were on the kings of Midian”. Purple symbolizes royalty, but fabric dyed with red purple were also used for many object in Israel’s cult (cf. Hartley 2010, 202–203).

248

Judges6:1–8:32

The ephod is one of the cultic objects, next to the Urim and Thummim and the lots, mentioned in the Hebrew Bible for divination. It is also mentioned in 17:4–5 and 18:14–20, next to images. From the extensive description in Exod. 28 we learn that it was also part of the priestly clothing. According to Exod. 28:6, gold was one of the materials used for the manufacturing of these clothes. We probably have to think of some kind of costly garment that could be worn by priests and draped over images. It was used to consult (‫)שׁאל‬ YHWH and as such plays an important role in the stories about Samuel and David (cf. 1 Sam. 23:9–12; 30:7–9). If YHWH is accepted as ruler, this means that one should also have the possibility to find out what he wants. In the first verse of the book it was presented as something uncomplicated: the people asked YHWH and he answered directly. The stories about Samuel and David mentioned above, indicate that it was normal to consult YHWH with the help of an ephod. In itself, there seems to be nothing wrong with Gideon making an ephod, neither with the fact that it was probably more precious than usual. One could see it as underlining his statement that YHWH should be Israel’s ruler (cf. Crüsemann 1978, 49). Amit (1999, 261) calls it “a deliberate step meant to concretize and strengthen his declaration that God is the true ruler”. According to Halpern, it indicates that Gideon did not want to become king and adopted the role of priest instead (Halpern 1978, 84–85). Sasson (2014, 371–372) prefers to think here of something like the “sponsorship of cultic objects”. The reason why it is condemned in v. 27b as something which led Gideon and the Israelites astray must have been the way the ephod was used by Gideon. Decisive here is the fact that Gideon is acting on his own. He is not following the advice of YHWH or his representative any more. It can be compared to what Samuel accuses Saul of after he brought sacrifices to YHWH himself because he did not want to wait for Samuel any longer (1 Sam. 13:8–14). Moreover, by placing it in his city, Ophrah, Gideon made it his personal cult object attributing to his own status. This is in line with the signs of a growing self-conceit in the previous verses. People going to Ophrah to consult YHWH would also be remembered of the great deeds of Gideon. The beginning of Gideon’s “career” was marked by the building of an altar for YHWH in Ophrah (6:24). Gideon named it “YHWH is peace”. At the peak of his success he now also puts there this precious ephod. It is not explicitly stated in the text that this was the wrong thing to do. We can only deduce from the consequences that something was wrong, causing Gideon and the Israelites to alienate from YHWH. In the story this alienation becomes clear when one notices the decline in the direct contact with YHWH. In the beginning of the story there is an intensive communication between YHWH and Gideon. At the end Gideon may say impressive things about YHWH, but the direct contact with YHWH is gone. Even a big golden ephod appears to

Gideon

249

be no guarantee for a good contact. The criterion is whether YHWH answers or not. As was indicated in the comments on 1:1 this is also the central theme in the stories about Saul and David (cf. also 1 Sam. 3:1). In this respect the story of Gideon and its sequel in the story of Abimelech foreshadow them. Within the book of Judges this tendency of YHWH falling silent is also found in the story of Jephthah. 8:28–32 28

29 30 31 32

MidianwashumbledbeforethechildrenofIsrael.Theydidnotcontinue toliftuptheirhead.Thelandwasquietforfortyyearsinthedaysof Gideon. Jerubbaal,thesonofJoash,wentandsettledinhishouse. Gideonhadseventysons,comingforthfromhisloins,becausehehad manywives. Hisconcubine,whowasinShechem,shetooborehimason.Henamed himwiththenameAbimelech. Gideon,thesonofJoash,diedingoodoldage.Hewasburiedinthe graveofJoash,hisfather,inOphrahoftheAbiezrites.

The story of Gideon ends, like the ones of Ehud and Deborah, with the statement that the enemy was humbled before Israel (3:30; 4:23). The same phrase will also return after Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites (11:33). Just as with Deborah, it is also followed by the remark that the land had peace (“was quiet”) for forty years. The same period was mentioned after Othniel (3:11), whereas that period was doubled after Ehud, which may have something to do with the role of Shamgar. A period of rest is no longer mentioned after Jephthah, which can be interpreted as an indication of decline of the quality of leadership in Israel. The fact that there were still forty years of rest after Gideon indicates that Gideon was not yet seen as part of this decline. The negative judgment in v. 27 then would apply primarily to “the house” of Gideon, that is, to his descendants. As in 7:1 the name of Jerubbaal is mentioned next to the name of Gideon. In 7:1 it was explicitly indicated that the two names are referring to the same person. Here, the same message is conveyed by referring to Jerubbaal in a verse which is preceded by a verse ending with the name of Gideon and followed by a verse beginning with the name of Gideon. Moreover, Jerubbaal is called the son of Joash, reminding of the story explaining how he got this name (6:31–32). The information that Jerubbaal goes home, that is, to Ophrah, connects this verse again to v. 27 reporting that Gideon had placed the ephod there. The name of Jerubbaal is also important for the transition to the following story about Abimelech, who is consistently referred to as the son of Jerubbaal and not of Gideon (9:1, 28).

250

Judges6:1–8:32

It is clear we can ascribe all this to editorial activities of the author combining originally separate stories. It is likely that we also should see the following information about Gideon in this light. It describes him as someone acting like a king, who has many wives and a son called Abimelech, which can be translated as “my father is king”. With seventy sons Gideon reaches an ideal number, which can be compared to the seventy descendants of Jacob (Exod. 1:4), the seventy sons of the Jaudic king Panammuwa II (KAI215:3), and of the Canaanite goddess Athiratu (KTU1.4:VI.46; cf. Fensham 1977). It surpasses the thirty sons of Jair (10:4) and Ibsan (12:9) and the forty sons of Abdon (12:14). King Ahab also had seventy sons. Just as in 2 Kgs 10:1 these sons are only mentioned to become the victims of an usurper (cf. 9:5). So, again, this information functions as a bridge to the next chapter. The same holds true for the reported fact that Gideon had a concubine living in Shechem. This location only makes sense as an introduction to the coming events taking place in a city which had not been associated with Gideon before. The emphasis is on the name giving: ‫ת־שׁמוֹ‬ ְ ‫וַ יָּ ֶשׂם ֶא‬, “and he named him a name”. This is an uncommon expression, underlining the fact that naming your son Abimelech is something you would not expect from a man who had rejected leadership for himself and his son (v. 23). The only consistency is in the syntax: just as in vv. 24–25 one can note the phenomenon of doubling words from the same root. The report about Gideon’s death is more elaborate than the preceding reports about Othniel (3:11), Ehud (4:1) and the following one about Jephthah (12:7). It adds that he died “in good old age” (in LXX [B] this is changed into ἐν πόλει αὐτοῦ, “in his city”). The reference to a burial is also found with Jephthah, the “minor” judges (10:2, 5; 12:10, 12, 15), and Samson (16:31). With respect to the combination of these elements, Gideon can be compared to Abraham and David (cf. Gen. 25:8–11; 1 Chron. 29:28). It points to a “good” death: after a long life, with many descendants, in peace, buried in a grave in one’s own land. The story of Gideon ends at the place where it began. All the names mentioned in 6:11 return in 8:32.

JUDGES 8:33–9:57

ABIMELECH

TRANSLATION 8:33

34 35 9:1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

IthappenedafterGideonhaddied,thatthechildrenofIsraelreturned andwentwhoringaftertheBaals.TheymadeforthemselvesBaal Berith(their)god. ThechildrenofIsraeldidnotrememberYHWHtheirgod,whohad rescuedthemfromthehandofalltheirenemiesaround. They did not act loyal with the house of Jerubbaal Gideon in accordancewithallthegoodthathehaddoneforIsrael. Abimelech, son of Jerubbaal, went to Shechem, to the brothers of hismother.Hespoketothemandtothewholeclanofthefather’s houseofhismother,saying: “SpeaktotheearsofallthelordsofShechem:‘Whatisbetterforyou: rulingoveryoubyseventymen,allthesonsofJerubbaal,orruling overyoubyoneman?RememberthatIamyourboneandyourflesh’”. Thebrothersofhismotherspokeabouthimtotheearsofallthelords of Shechem, all these words. Their heart inclined after Abimelech, becausetheysaid:“Ourbrother(is)he”. Theygavehimseventy(piecesof)silverfromthehouseofBaalBerith. WiththemAbimelechhiredemptyandrecklessmen.Theywentafter him. Hecametohisfather’shouseinOphrahandkilledhisbrothers,the sonsofJerubbaal,seventymenononestone.Jotham,theyoungest sonofJerubbaal,wasleft,becausehehadhiddenhimself. All the lords of Shechem gathered and all Beth-Millo, they went andmadeAbimelechkingbytheoakofthepalisadethatissetupin Shechem. TheytoldJotham.HewentandstoodonthetopofmountGerizim. Heraisedhisvoice,hecalledoutandsaidtothem:“Listentome, lordsofShechemandGodwilllistentoyou. Oncethetreeswenttoanointakingoverthemselves.Theysaidto theolive:‘Bekingoverus’. Theolivesaidtothem:‘HaveIstopped(toproduce)myoilwithwhich bymetheyhonourgodsandmen,thatIshouldgotoswayoverthe trees?’

252 10 11 12 13 14 15

16

17 18

19

20

21 22 23 24

25

26 27

Judges8:33–9:57 Thetreessaidtothefigtree:‘Yougo,bequeenoverus’. Thefigtreesaidtothem:‘HaveIstopped(toproduce)mysweetness andmygoodyield,thatIshouldgotoswayoverthetrees?’ Thetreessaidtothegrapevine:‘Yougo,bequeenoverus’. Thegrapevinesaidtothem:‘HaveIstopped(toproduce)mynewwine, thatgladdensgodsandmen,thatIshouldgotoswayoverthetrees?’ Allthetreessaidtothethornbush:‘Yougo,bekingoverus’. Thethornbushsaidtothetrees:‘Ifintruthyouareanointingmeas kingoveryou,come,seekrefugeinmyshadow,and,ifnot,fireshall gooutfromthethornbushanddevourthecedarsoftheLebanon’. And now, if you acted in truth and with integrity when you made AbimelechkingandifyouactedgoodwithJerubbaalandwithhis houseandifyouactedtohimaccordingtothedealingsofhishands, aswhenmyfatherfoughtforyou,casthislifeinfrontandrescued youfromthehandofMidian, andyou,youhaverisenagainstthehouseofmyfathertoday,when youkilledhissons,seventymen,ononestoneandmadeAbimelech, thesonofhismaid,kingoverthelordsofShechem,becauseheis yourbrother, andifyouactedintruthandwithintegritywithJerubbaalandwith hishouseonthisday,rejoiceinAbimelechandmayhealsorejoice inyou. But,ifnot,fireshallgooutfromAbimelechanddevourthelords ofShechemandBeth-Milloandfireshallgooutfromthelordsof ShechemandfromBeth-MilloandshalldevourAbimelech”. Jothamfled,ranoffandwenttoBeer.Hesettledthere,awayfrom thefaceofAbimelech,hisbrother. AbimelechgovernedIsraelforthreeyears. GodsentanevilspiritbetweenAbimelechandthelordsofShechem. ThelordsofShechembetrayedAbimelech, so that the violence to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal would come andtheirbloodwouldbeplacedonAbimelech,theirbrother,who hadkilledthem,andonthelordsofShechemwhohadstrengthened hishandstokillhisbrothers. ThelordsofShechemplacedforhimpeopleinambushonthetops of the mountain. They robbed everyone who passed over them on theroad.ItwastoldtoAbimelech. Gaal,thesonofEbed,cameandhisbrothers.Theypassedthrough Shechem.ThelordsofShechemtrustedthem. They went out in the field, harvested their vineyards, trod (the vintage)andmadeacelebration.Theycameintothehouseoftheir god.TheyateanddrankandcursedAbimelech.

Abimelech 28

29 30 31

32 33

34 35

36

37

38

39 40 41 42 43

253

Gaal,thesonofEbed,said:“WhoisAbimelechandwhoisShechem thatweshouldservehim?IshenotthesonofJerubbaalandZebul hisgovernor?ServethemenofHamor,thefatherofShechem.Why shouldweservehimourselves? Whoshallgivethispeopleintomyhand?IshallremoveAbimelech”. HesaidtoAbimelech:“Makebigyourarmyandgoout”. Zebul,thecommanderofthecity,heardthewordsofGaal,theson ofEbed,andhisangerflaredup. He sent messengers to Abimelech in secret, saying: “Look, Gaal, thesonofEbed,andhisbrothershavecometoShechem.Look,they arebesiegingthecityagainstyou. Now,ariseatnight,youandthepeoplewhoarewithyouandliein ambushinthefield. Itwillbeinthemorning,whenthesunrises:youwillrise-upearly andattackthecity.Look,heandthepeoplewhoarewithhimwillbe goingoutagainstyouandyouwilldowithhimwhateveryourhand findstodo”. Abimelech arose and all the people who were with him at night. TheylayinambushagainstShecheminfourcompanies. Gaal,thesonofEbed,wentoutandstoodattheentranceofthegate ofthecity.Abimelecharoseandallthepeoplewhowerewithhim fromtheambush. GaalsawthepeopleandsaidtoZebul:“Look,peoplecomingdown fromthetopsofthemountains”.Zebulsaidtohim:“(Itis)theshadow ofthemountainsthatyouareseeingasmen”. Gaalstillcontinuedtospeakandsaid:“Look,peoplecomingdown from the Navel of the Land and one company is coming from the roadoftheOakoftheSoothsayer”. Zebulsaidtohim:“Wherenowisyour(big)mouththatwassaying: ‘whoisAbimelechthatweshouldservehim?’Isthisnotthepeople whomyourejected?Gooutnowandfightwithit”. GaalwentoutinfrontofthelordsofShechemandfoughtagainst Abimelech. Abimelechpursuedhimandhefledfromhisface.Manyfellpierced uptotheentranceofthegate. AbimelechstayedatAruma.ZebuldroveoutGaalandhisbrothers fromdwellinginShechem. It happened on the following day that the people went out to the field.TheytoldAbimelech. He took the people, divided them into three companies and lay in ambushinthefield.Hesawand,look,thepeoplegoingoutfromthe city.Hearoseagainstthemandstruckthem.

254 44

45

46 47 48

49

50 51

52 53 54

55 56 57

Judges8:33–9:57 Abimelechandthecompaniesthatwerewithhimhadattackedand takenastandattheentrancetothegateofthecity.Twocompanies hadattackedallthosewhowereinthefieldandstruckthem. Abimelechwasfightingwiththecityallthatday.Hecapturedthe cityandthepeoplewhowereinithekilled.Hedemolishedthecity andsoweditwithsalt. All the lords of the tower of Shechem heard (it). They came to the vaultofthehouseofElBerith. ItwasreportedtoAbimelechthatallthelordsofthetowerofShechem hadgathered. AbimelechwentupmountZalmon,heandallthepeoplewhowerewith him.Abimelechtookthetwo-edged-axeinhishand,cutabranchof trees,lifteditupandplaceditonhisshoulder.Hesaidtothepeople whowerewithhim:“Whatyouseemedo,quicklydolikeme”. Alsoallthepeoplecut,amanabranch,andwentafterAbimelech. Theyplaced(them)onthevaultandkindledthevaultoverthem withfire.Also,allthemenofthetowerofShechemdied;aboutone thousandmenandwomen. Abimelech went to Thebez. He encamped against Thebez and capturedit. Atowerwasthere,inthemiddleofthecity.Thereallthemenand womenandallthelordsofthecityfled.Theyshutthemselvesinand wentuptotheroofofthetower. Abimelechcameuptothetowerandfoughtagainstit.Heapproached theentranceofthetowertoburnitwithfire. OnewomanthrewanuppermillstoneontheheadofAbimelechand crushedhisskull. Quicklyhecalledtotheboywhowascarryinghisweapons.Hesaid tohim:“Drawyourswordandputmetodeath,lesttheysayabout me:‘Awomanhaskilledhim’”.Hisboypiercedhimandhedied. The men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead. They went, each mantohisplace. GodreturnedtheevilofAbimelechthathehaddonetohisfather bykillinghisseventybrothers andalltheevilofthemenofShechemGodreturnedontheirhead. OverthemcamethecurseofJotham,thesonofJerubbaal. BIBLIOGRAPHY

E. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon,Abimelech,andJephthahNarratives (Judg 6–12) (SVT 106), Leiden 2005; R. Bartelmus, “Die sogenannte Jothamfabel – eine politisch-religiöse Parabeldichtung:

Abimelech

255

Anmerkungen zu einem Teilaspekt der vordeuteronomistischen israelitischen Literaturgeschichte”, ThZ41 (1985), 97–120 (reprinted in: idem, AufderSuchenachdem archimedischenPunktderTextinterpretation:Studienzueinerphilologisch-linguistisch fundierten Exegese alttestamentlicher Texte, Zürich 2002, 53–79); C.T. Begg, “Abimelech, King of Shechem according to Josephus”, EThL72 (1996), 146–164; W. Bluedorn, JahwehversusBaalism:ATheologicalReadingoftheGideon-Abimelech Narrative (JSOTSup 329), Sheffield 2001; R.G. Boling, “ ‘And Who is Š-k-m?’ (Judges IX 28)”, VT13 (1963), 479–482; T.A. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone: Retribution in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem”, JSOT 32 (1985), 45–56; C. Briffard, “Gammes sur l’Acte de traduire”, Foietvie101 (Cahier Biblique 41) (2002), 12– 18; E.F. Campbell, “Judges 9 and Biblical Archeology”, in: C.L. Meyers, M. O’Connor (eds), TheWordoftheLordShallGoForth(Fs Freedman), Winona Lake 1983, 263– 271; I. de Castelbajac, “Histoire de la rédaction de Juges IX: Une solution”, VT 51 (2001), 166–185; S. Eder, “Gender Trouble in Judges 4? An Intertextual Approach to the Violent Depiction of Jael”, ProtokollezurBibel27 (2018), 73–84; V. Endris, “Yahweh versus Baal: A Narrative-Critical Reading of the Gideon/Abimelech Narrative”, JSOT 33 (2008), 173–195; H. Eshel, Z. Erlich, “Abimelech’s First Battle with the Lords of Shechem”, Tarbiẕ 58 (1988-1989), 111–116 (Hebr.); Z. Farber, “Jerubaal, Jacob and the Battle for Shechem: A Tradition History”, JHS13 (2013), Article 12; F.C. Fensham, “Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East”, BA 25 (1962), 48–50; idem, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat”, PEQ 109 (1977), 113– 115; I. Finkelstein, “Comments on the Abimelech Story in Judges 9”, UF47 (2016), 69–84; J.P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19”, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), “Sha῾arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient NearEast (Fs Talmon), Winona Lake 1992, 33–45; V. Fritz, “Abimelek und Sichem in Jdg. 9”, VT 32 (1982), 129–144; S. Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem: A ReligioLiterary Aspect of City Destruction”, VT13 (1963), 53–62; S. Gillmayr-Bucher, “What did Jotham talk about? Metaphorical Rhetoric in Judg 9:7-20”, in: A. Labahn, P. Van Hecke (eds), Conceptual metaphors in Poetic Texts (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 18), Piscataway 2013, 41–56; B. Halpern, “The Rise of Abimelek Ben-Jerubbaal”, HAR 2 (1978), 79–100; K.M. Heffelfinger, “ ‘My Father is King’: Chiefly Politics and the Rise and Fall of Abimelech”, JSOT33 (2009), 277–292; R.L. Heller, “What is Abimelek Doing in Judges?”, in: K.L. Noll, B. Schramm (eds), Raising Up a Faithful Exegete (Fs Nelson), Winona Lake 2010, 225–235; G. Hentschel, “Abimelech – Two Sides of the Story (Judges 9)”, in: K.D. Dobos, M. Kőszeghy (eds), WithWisdomasaRobe:QumranandOtherStudies (Fs Fröhlich; HBM 21), Sheffield 2009, 41–56; D.D. Herr, M.P. Boyd, “A Watermelon Named Abimelech”, BAR 28/1 (2002), 34–37, 62; B.P. Irwin, “Not Just Any King: Abimelech, the Northern Monarchy, and the Final Form of Judges”, JBL 131 (2012), 443–454; D. Hoyos, TheCarthaginians, London 2010;E. Jans, Abimelech undseinKönigtum:DiachroneundsynchroneUntersuchungenzuRi9 (ATSAT 66), St. Ottilien 2001; D. Janzen, “Gideon’s House as the ʼṭd: A Proposal for Reading Jotham’s Fable”, CBQ 74 (2012), 465–475; J.G. Janzen, “A Certain Woman in the Rhetoric of Judges 9”, JSOT38 (1987), 33–37; K. Jaroš, Sichem:EinearchäologischeundreligionsgeschichtlicheStudiemitbesondererBerücksichtigungvonJos24 (OBO 11), Freiburg/Göttingen 1976; J. Joosten, “‫ ֶהחֳ ַד ְל ִתּי‬formamixta?”, ZAW102 (1990), 96–97; E. Kellenberger, “Once Again: the Fable of Jotham (Judg 9) and Aesop”, Sem 60 (2018), 131–137; C. Labuschagne, “Jotham’s Fable in Judges 9:8– 15”, www.labuschagne.nl (2012); C. Levin, “Das vorstaatliche Israel”, ZThK97

256

Judges8:33–9:57

(2000), 385–403; T.J. Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith”, JBL 115 (1996), 401–423; C. Lichtert, “De la manigance au massacre et de la trahison au meurtre: analyse structurelle du cycle d’Abimélek (Jg 8,33-9,57)”, EstBib 74 (2016), 335–364; B. Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable: A New Form-Critical Analysis”, JTS (1973), 55–66; H. Liss, “Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8–15 – Versuch einer strukturellen Deutung”, BN 89 (1997), 12–18; M. Livni, “The Parable of Jotham: The Question of Authority in Judaism”, JBQ 30 (2002), 247–252; J. van der Meersch, “Problema de expugnatione Sichem ab Abimelech”, VerbumDomini 31 (1953), 335–343; C. Mckinny, A. Tavger, “ ‘Flames from the Bramble’ – The Geography of the Abimelech Episode in Judges 9 and the Identification of Beth-millo”, in: A. Tavgar, Z. Amar (eds), IntheHighland’sDepth.JournalfortheStudyofArchaeologyand HistoryoftheHighland’sRegion 7 (2017), 11*–33*; E.H. Maly, “The Jotham Fable – Anti-Monarchal?”, CBQ 22 (1960), 298–305; P. van Midden, Broederschap en koningschap.EenonderzoeknaardebetekenisvanGideonenAbimelekinhetboek Richteren, Maastricht 1998; idem, “Een boom van een mens, een droom van een wens”, Interpretatie 13/6 (2005), 7–10; idem, “Mijn vader is een koning – en ik ben niet veel beter ..”., Interpretatie 19/6 (2011), 8–11; A. Moenikes, Diegrundsätzliche AblehnungdesKönigtumsinderHebräischenBibel (BBB 99), Weinheim 1995, 105– 150; J.C. de Moor, TheRiseofYahwism:TheRootsofIsraeliteMonotheism, Leuven 2 1997; idem, “Seventy!”, in: M. Dietrich, I. Kottsieper (eds), “UndMoseschrieb diesesLiedauf”:StudienzumAltenTestamentundzumAltenOrient(Fs Loretz; AOAT 250), Münster 1998,199–203; R. Müller, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: UntersuchungenzuralttestamentlichenMonarchiekritik (FAT 2.3), Tübingen 2004; N. Na’aman, “A Hidden Anti-Samaritan Polemic in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem (Judges 9)”, BZ 55 (2011), 1–20; idem, “Rediscovering a Lost North Israelite Conquest Story”, in: O. Lipschits etal. (eds), RethinkingIsrael:Studiesin theHistoryandArchaeologyofAncientIsrael(Fs Finkelstein), Winona Lake 2017, 287–302; M. O’Connor, “The Women in the Book of Judges”, HAR 10 (1986), 277–293; G.K. Oeste, Legitimacy,Illegitimacy,andtheRighttoRule:Windowson Abimelech’sRiseandDemiseinJudges9 (LHB/OTS 546), London/New York 2011; G.S. Ogden, “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9”, BiTr 46 (1995), 301–308; J.F. Priest, “The Dog in the Manger: In Quest of a Fable”, The ClassicalJournal81 (1985), 49–58; T. Römer, “The Hebrew Bible and Greek Philosophy and Mythology – Some Case Studies”, Sem 57 (2015), 185–203; E. Ruprecht, DieJothamfabelundaußerisraelitischeParallelen, Göttingen 2003; J. Schipper, Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge 2009; K. Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech and Fable as Prophetic Comment on Abimelech’s Story”, SJOT 18 (2004), 3– 22; K.A.D. Smelik, “Sprekende bomen: De Bijbel op het pad van New Age?”, Interpretatie 17/5 (2009), 10–13; L. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant’”, in: P.H. Williams, T. Hiebert (eds), RealiaDei: EssaysinArchaeologyandBiblicalInterpretation(Fs Campbell), Durham 1999, 228– 249; N. Steinberg, “Social Scientific Criticism: Judges 9 and Issues of Kinship”, in: G.A. Yee (ed.), JudgesandMethod:NewApproachesinBiblicalStudies, Minneapolis 1995, 45–64; W.S. Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum in Judges IX”, VT 56 (2006), 105–124; J. de Waard, “Jotham’s fable: An Exercise in Clearing Away the Unclear”, in: K. Aland (ed.), WissenschaftundKirche (Fs Lohse; Texte und Arbeiten zur Bibel 4), Bielefeld 1989, 362–370; E. Würthwein, “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems. Studien zu Jdc. 9”, in: E. Würthwein, Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227), Berlin 1994, 12–28; W.C. van Wyk, “The Fable of Jotham in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting (Judg 9:8-15)”, in: idem (ed.), StudiesinWisdomLiterature, Pretoria 1973, 89–95.

Abimelech

257 ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES

Within the book of Judges, the story about Abimelech looks odd. It is relatively long; in the previous chapters, only Gideon/Jerubbaal was afforded more text and after this only Samson will and, besides, Abimelech is called neither judge nor saviour. The customary introduction is missing as is the customary conclusion. The other stories and notes about the judges and saviours do not, or only hardly, relate to each other, but the story of Abimelech in connected in many ways to the previous story about Gideon/ Jerubbaal. In fact, Abimelech’s deeds are presented as the sad consequence of Gideon’s final acts. Whereas Gideon’s leadership may be evaluated as positive, Abimelech represents the negative counterpart. This becomes clear especially in his relationship to YHWH. Gideon had a very close relationship with YHWH. He may not always have been very courageous, but at least he was open to contact with YHWH and could be inspired by him. This contact with YHWH is completely lacking in the story of Abimelech. He does not seek advice or support by YHWH and YHWH does not send a messenger to put him on the right track, but sends an evil spirit instead. It is telling that whereas Gideon’s first action is to demolish the altar for Baal, Abimelech starts his career with the help of financial support from the temple of Baal Berit. The previous stories all started with a conflict between the Israelites and YHWH, followed by YHWH punishing the people by delivering it into the power of an enemy and then saving it again by sending a judge or saviour. This time there is no enemy from the outside and no saviour from the inside. The conflict is between God (the name YHWH is not used) and the Israelite leader. When God sends his spirit, it is not to inspire a saviour but to sow discord, attributing to a process in which evil punishes itself. One could also formulate it more positively that this time it is God himself who acts as the judge bringing justice. Just as with other leaders in the book of Judges, Abimelech may be associated with later kings of Israel and Judah. There are parallels with the story of Saul. Both become possessed with an evil spirit and both suffer a dishonourable death on the battle field. Abimelech may also be related to the much criticized king Jeroboam; both stories are centred round Shechem. The killing of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal has a parallel in Jehu, who is responsible for the killing of the seventy sons of Ahab. All these associations concern sad events, which fits very well to the fable of Jotham criticizing leadership executed by kings who are not fit to rule. The author seems to have used different sources in this chapter. Jotham’s fable does not fit the context exactly and we, therefore, have to assume that it has its origin outside of the book of Judges. Also, the episode of the conflict with Gaal can be read as a separate story. The author may have used a number of traditions about local conflicts to illustrate that the question which came

258

Judges8:33–9:57

up in the story of Gideon: what about kingship in Israel?, needs more consideration. So much is clear: kingship without a good relationship with YHWH is doomed to fail. In the history of research (cf. Gunn 2005, 122–132) Abimelech has received relatively little attention. As a rule, Abimelech is presented as the bad example for any leader, whereas Jotham is praised for his wisdom and the manner in which he presented his insights in his fable. This tendency is already well illustrated in the way Judg. 9 is retold by Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 37). Of Abimelech, it only reports very briefly that he killed his brothers, that he ruled for one and a half year and that he died because a woman threw half a millstone on his head. It is remarkable that not only most of the stories about Abimelech are left out, but that also the period of his reign and the deadly millstone have been cut in half. Nearly all attention is given to the fable about the trees. It is told directly by the writer, leaving Jotham out. The bramble is related to the bramble of Exod. 3: as in the case of the revelation to Moses it was lit by the fire of truth. Josephus’ retelling of the story in Ant.5.233–253 is more elaborate (cf. Begg 1996). He adds several details: Abimelech’s mother receives the name Drouma, which may have been derived from the place name Aruma in 9:41; Abimelech’s government is called a “tyranny” and he himself is portrayed negatively: “he did whatever he pleased instead of what was lawful and he was terribly scornful of those who upheld what was just” (234); Zebul/Zaboul is called “a close friend of Abimelech” (243) and Gaal/Gual is accused of “having put up only a weak struggle against Abimelech’s soldiers” (246). Elsewhere, Josephus abridges the story. He leaves out the many place-names in the story and he also erases all references to YHWH, thus steering clear from both the geographical and the theological problems.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

I:

INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

This chapter of the book of Judges challenges the interpreter with a few difficult questions. In the first place, there is the relation between Gideon and Abimelech. They are presented as father and son, but there are reasons to assume that this relationship is created by the author, or editor, to relate originally separate stories. The most important of these reasons is the fact that the name of Gideon as father of Abimelech is only used in the verses on the border of both stories and that otherwise Abimelech is consistently referred to as son of Jerubbaal. Next to this, it is remarkable that the son of Gideon (mentioned in 8:20), Jeter, is not mentioned in the next chapter. Instead, we hear of another son, Jotham, who does not play a role in the previous story. Also, the relationship between the fable told by Jotham and the story

Abimelech

259

of Abimelech is problematic, because the story of trees looking for a king does not exactly fit the situation to which it is reacting; in which Abimelech aspires after kingship. Another problem noted in the scholarly research is the fact that there are two stories about an attack on Shechem: in vv. 34–40 and 42–49. Finally, it should be noted that this chapter describes a number of local conflicts. This raises the question of how this relates to the references to the Israelites as a people. More generally, there is also the question about the portrayal of kingship. There can be no doubt about it that Abimelech is pictured as an example of a bad king. This seems to be in contradiction with the final chapters of the book, in which all trouble seems to be attributed to the absence of a king. These and many other questions (Jans 2001, 77–126, notes no less than forty-six tensions in the text) have been answered in many different ways (extensive surveys can be found with Bluedorn 2001, 20–49; Jans 2001, 10– 32; and Oeste 2011, 31–54; nicely summarized by Sasson 2014, 402–403). In the older literature, the story of Abimelech was attributed a high historical value (cf. Studer 1835, 231), but it was also noted that it originally did not belong to the stories of the judges and was added later as contrast to the story of Gideon (cf. Bertheau 1845, 136–137). On the historicity of this chapter Kuenen (1890, 13) remarks: “der Abschnitt über Abimelech, ist glücklicher Weise weder verloren gegangen noch erheblich verändert: derselbe ist für die richtige Beurtheilung der Verhältnisse in der Richterperiode von der grössten Bedeutung”. The historical report would only have been “pragmatisch bearbeitet” by adding vv. 24, 56, 57 and perhaps also vv. 7–20. However, the reconstruction of the historical background remains a matter of dispute (cf. Farber 2013, and the critique by Na’aman 2017, 289). Much attention is devoted to the discussion about the attribution of different parts to the sources which were also assumed to have been used in the Pentateuch. For instance, in his commentary Moore distinguishes two accounts of the hostilities between Abimelech and the Shechemites: vv.22–25 + 42–45 and vv. 26–29 + 30–41. He ascribes the second story about Gaal to J and the other to E. The combined history of Abimelech and the Shechemites would have been part of an old Jehovistic book, which was worked over by D when it was incorporated in the Deuteronomistic book of Judges (Moore 1895, 238). The same analysis may be found among others, with Burney 1920, 268 and Van der Meersch 1953, who want to solve the inconsistencies in the narrative of Abimelech by considering vv. 26–40 as an insertion. A division into J and E with a Deuteronomistic and a post-Deuteronomistic redaction was still defended by Simpson 1957, 40–44, 141–145, but in the meantime, the old source theory had been replaced convincingly by Noth’s hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic History, which was refined by Richter who argues that the stories of Gideon and Abimelech belong to a pre-Deuteronomistic

260

Judges8:33–9:57

“Retterbuch”. The Deuteronomistic writer would have identified Gideon with Jerubbaal, added a framework and connected the different traditions about Gideon and Abimelech. This “Retterbuch” is dated by Richter in the 9th century BCE. One of the arguments is that the killing of the seventy sons of Gideon may be related to the killing of the seventy sons of Ahab as commanded by Jehu (2 Kgs 10:7). Richter finds the old traditions used by the author/editor in vv. 1-7, 16a, 19b–21, 23–24, 41–45, and 56–57. He would have used a ring of stories (“Erzählungskranz”) in vv. 26–40 and 46–54, which probably also go back to earlier reports concerning battles. Especially vv. 26–38 testify in his opinion of a “Freude am Erzählen” and a “Freude an großen Männern” (Richter 1963, 316). At the same moment also the fable of vv. 8–15, stemming from a different source, would have been added. Finally, the text would have been placed in the present wider Israelite framework by adding vv. 16b–19a, 22, and 55. The remaining v. 25 is attributed again to another source. According to Richter this reconstruction is convincing because of its simplicity (“durch die Einfachkeit, mit der das Werden des Textes erklärt werden kann”; p. 317). Nevertheless, not everyone was convinced. Crüsemann 1978, 32–42, assumes that the core text consists of only vv. 23, 25, 42*, 43–54 and must be dated before the monarchic period. To this, first the originally independent story about Gaal in vv. 26–41 would have been added. In a next phase vv. 1, 2*–6*, 7–16a, 19b–21, 56–57 would have been added, of which vv. 2*–6* and the fable in vv. 8–15a were taken from other sources. Finally, vv. 22 and 55 would have been added to turn the story into a pan-Israelite history. Also vv. 16b–19 explaining the fable are ascribed to a later edition. Crüsemann rejects Richter’s suggestion of the “Retterbuch”. In his opinion Judg. 6–9 was originally an independent combination of stories, written in the monarchic period problematizing kingship by placing Abimelech in comparison with Gideon. Fritz 1982 distinguishes five stages: (1) the Gaal episode in vv. 26–41; (2) the story about Abimelech as king of Shechem in vv. 1–5a, 6 , 23, 25, 42–45, 50–54, 56; (3) an edition which added the fable and its explanation in vv. 5b, 7–16a, 19b–21, 46–49; (4) an extension to all Israel in vv. 22 and 55; (5) later additions in vv. 16b-19a, 24 and 57. The first two stages he dates before the 9th century BCE; the later ones would have been Deuteronomistic editions. In reaction to this analysis (but he could also have reacted in the same way to most other diachronic analyses), Boogaart 1985 maintains that Fritz disregards the plot of the story centred on the theme of retribution. The evil deeds of Abimelech and of the men of Shechem return in the same form upon them, as can be derived from the parallel structure of vv. 1-6 and vv. 25-54; especially by the fact that Abimelech who kills on a stone (v. 5), is then killed by a stone (v. 53).

Abimelech

261

According to Würthwein 1994, 22, the original story of Abimelech consisted of vv. 1–2, 6, 22 (with Shechem instead of Israel), 23b, 25, 42a, 43– 45 and concerns a Canaanite ruler. In a later stage it would have been combined with the fable and, finally, together with 6:25–32, related to the story of Gideon. This suggestion about the Canaanite origin was taken up by De Castelbajac 2001 who assumes a story about the conflicts of a local Canaanite chief in vv. 1–5a, 23, 26–41. A related story, found in vv. 25 and 42–54, about an Israelite leader fighting against Canaanite Shechemites would have been combined with the older story, together with the fable and its explanation and linking verses 8:35; 9:16b–19a, 24, 57, giving it a place in the book of Judges. It would have been meant, in the first place, to condemn king Jeroboam. The result is that in its present form Judg. 9 presents two antithetic portraits of Abimelech. According to Levin 2000, 398–399, the original story about Abimelech is found in vv. 1*, 2*, 6*, 26a, 28*, 29*–31, 34–39*, 40–41, 50, 51*-54, and represents a historically reliable description of a situation before the period of the Israelite monarchy. In a post-exilic edition, the fable would have been added together with several other additions explaining Abimelech’s downfall as retribution. Finally, Shechem would have been pictured as a non-Israelite city by additions in vv. 1–3, 18, 27–29, and 45, to turn Abimelech’s relation to the Shechemites into an example of the relation between the Israelites and the Canaanites. In his dissertation (supervised by Groß) published in 2001, Jans finds the oldest story (“Gaal I”) in vv. 26*–34a and 44* and he interprets it as the description of an historic event written in the 12th century BCE glorifying the rule of Abimelech. At an early stage it would have been expanded by a second stratum (“Gaal II”: vv. 34b–42*), emphasizing Gaal’s haughtiness which caused his downfall. In the 9th century this combined story would have been embedded in the “Baalim-Erzählung”, adding vv. 1–25* and 46–54, including also the originally independent older fable. In this edition the originally positive relation between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem was turned into enmity. This version would have been meant to criticize the Baal cult and the leadership of queen Athaliah during that period. After the Babylonian exile, the story would have been incorporated in the book of Judges, adding vv. 16–19*, 22*, 43*–45, and 55a*. Now the purpose would have been to warn against reinstalling the monarchy. Finally, vv. 24 and 56– 57 would have been added, representing the theology of retribution. Müller 2004, 93–118, finds the original story about Abimelech in vv. 26– 41. When it was incorporated in the book of Judges it was introduced positively in vv. 1*, 2* and 6, supporting the idea that it is good to have one person as a leader. When this story was related to the story of Gideon by adding vv. 8:31; 9:1*, 2*, 3a, and 5a, the picture of Abimelech was darkened.

262

Judges8:33–9:57

A third layer in vv. 3b, 7, 15*, 16a, 19*, 20a, 23b, 25b, 26b, 27, 33, 42-44, 46-49, taking up the originally independent fable, emphasizes this negative view of kingship. Two more layers would have been added; the first about divine retribution against Abimelech because of the killing of his brothers (vv. 19*, 20b, 23a, 24*, 25a, 56), the second against the Shechemites for their part in this crime (8:35; 9:4, 16b–19, 24*, 57). In his commentary Groß 2009, 494, summarizes his analysis by distinguishing seven layers: (1) old stories going back to the 12th century BCE about Abimelech in vv. 22*, 23b, 25, 43–54; (2) the Gaal episode in vv. 26–41; (3) the addition of v. 42 to connect the first two layers; (4) an independent fable in vv. 8a–15*; (5) a layer connecting after the exile the story of Abimelech to the story of Gideon by adding vv. 1–7, 15*–16c, 19b–21, 23a, 24, 56–57 + 6:25–32; 7:1; 8:29, 31; (6) added reference to Israel in vv. 22 and 55; (7) addition of vv. 16d–19a. Hentschel 2009 finds the oldest part of the story in vv. 26–41, 46–49, 50–54. Together with vv. 25 and 42–45 they were turned in an all Israelite story by adding vv. 22 and 55. At this stage Abimelech was still portrayed positively as the leader who successfully put down a rebellion. In a layer consisting of vv. 1–5a, 6*, 23–24, 56–57, added during the exile, taking up the originally independent fable of vv. 8–15a, enlarging and explaining it in vv. 15b and 16-20, he was portrayed negatively. The fact that the redactors did not eliminate the still existing benevolent traits indicates that the ambiguity may have been intentional, as was suggested also by De Castelbajac 2001, 166. Na’aman 2011, assumes an old pre-Deuteronomistic story about Abimelech in vv. 1, 2*–3, 6, 23, 25, 26–41, and 43–54. In a first Deuteronomistic redaction vv. 22 and 55 would have been added. In the old story Abimelech is pictured positively as a tribal leader of pre-monarchical Israel. He was charismatic and brave and memorized on account of the exceptional way in which he was killed in battle. A late editor inserted a few extra episodes: 6:25–32 about the destruction of Baal’s altar and the renaming of Gideon as Jerubbaal; 8:29–34, the transition between the histories of Gideon and Abimelech; 9:2*, 4–5, reworking the introduction; vv. 7, 8-15, 16a, 19b–21, inserting Jotham’s apologue; and vv. 56–57 as the new conclusion. In this way Abimelech, Shechem and its temple were portrayed in a negative light, which makes it likely that this edition is part of the anti-Samaritan polemic and that it is related to the decline of Shechem during the Persian period: Jotham’s curse would have been directed at the poor state of Shechem in that time. Finkelstein 2016 accepts the view that the stories of Gideon and Abimelech were linked by a late, probably post-Deuteronomistic redactor. The beginning of the old tale can be found in vv. 1–6. The negative elements in these

Abimelech

263

verses should be ascribed to a later edition. Also, vv. 7–21 with the fable (or parable) are secondary, to which was also added the connection with Gideon/Jerubbaal in vv. 16b–17 and 19a. Finkelstein finds the original tale in vv. 23b and 25, whereas vv. 22-23a are Deuteronomistic and v. 24 is part of the polemic edition. The heart of the old tale is found in vv. 26–45. In vv. 46–54 we find a parallel polemic story and in vv. 56–57a a related summary. The verses 55 and 57b were added later. According to Finkelstein the old story has its historical background in events in the late 11th or early 10th century BCE and was put in writing in the 8th century. The later polemics would fit best the anti-northern sentiments in the late monarchic period. In the introduction to chapters 6–8 already the views of Milstein 2016 were mentioned. She assumes, with many others, that an old story is preserved in vv. 26–54. When the stories of Gideon and Abimelech were combined, Abimelech was presented as the son of Gideon/Jerubbaal in a new introduction (9:1–25). Next to – and often in reaction to – the diachronic approach of the text, there is a growing number of synchronic studies, such as the one of Boogaart 1985, mentioned above. It is also possible to relate this more positively to the diachronic approach as a form of redaction critical study, explaining how different sources and traditions were combined to form the present text. This is done, for instance, by Jans 2001, 424–480, relating synchronic studies to his theory of the “Baalim Erzählung”. Most synchronic studies mention one specific theme as a unifying element in the story of Abimelech, mostly in connection with the story of Gideon. According to Van Midden 1998 this is brotherhood. Assis 2005 suggests that it is part of an ongoing story warning against leaders who act out of self-interest. Wong 2006a emphasizes the relation with chapters 17–21 and the failure to accept YHWH as king. Bluedorn 2001 and Endris 2008 propose to read it, in the first place, as the story about the conflict between YHWH and Baal. Oeste 2011 finds the coherence of the story in its attempt to warn against local, self-styled kings and to argue for centralized leadership. According to Irwin 2012, the book of Judges and especially the story of Abimelech, is about the character of kingship, denigrating the kind of kingship that dominated in the northern kingdom of Israel and looking for the best alternative in the postexilic era. Fokkelman pays attention to the internal structure of chapter 9 pointing to any number of relations forward and backward which, in his opinion, show that it is “not an independent narrative, but a part of, and the crown of, the Gideon act” (Fokkelman 1992, 38). He divides the story into four parts: (1) vv. 1–6, exposition, Abimelech takes control through a massacre; (2) vv. 7–24, speech by Jotham; (3) vv. 25–41, subplot, fight between Gaal and Zebul; (4) 42–57, sieges by Abimelech, a woman kills him. They must

264

Judges8:33–9:57

read as two halves, indicated by the parallels between the end of the second and of the fourth part: both vv. 23–24 and vv. 56–57 explaining what happens as decided by divine providence. Other arguments for this structure are to be found in the fact that part 1 ends in v. 6 with the solemn coronation using three times ‫ מלך‬in contrast to the three times ‫ משׁל‬in 8:23, where his father turned down the offer of kingship. In this part, the play on the name Abimelech is very important. It relates him to the hidden aspirations of his father in the previous chapter and to the theme of the family in the first verses. In part 2 Abimelech loses the initiative to Jotham, whose name points to the central theme of honesty (‫)תמים‬. Part 3 is the only one characterized by dialogue. Part 4 is introduced by a time designation. It is related to the previous parts by the fact that the destruction by fire of the tower is the fulfilment of Jotham’s curse in v. 20. The prediction that also Abimelech is consumed by fire is taken up in the wordplay of fire (‫ )אשׁ‬and the woman (‫ )אשׁה‬who is responsible for his death. She is referred to as “one woman” in v. 53, together with the millstone she used, this can be related to the “one stone” on which Abimelech had killed his brothers (cf. also Boogaart 1985 and Janzen 1987). Part 4 is also related to part 1 as the only places where Abimelech is presented as speaking (vv. 2, 48 and 54). Oeste 2011, 166, notes a well-considered plot structure with sections linked by “Leitwörter” and “Leitmotifs” and with clear rhetorical goals. The exposition (vv. 1–6) portrays Abimelech’s rise to kingship relating him to the Shechemites and distancing him from the family in Ophrah; the complication (vv. 7–22) condemns Abimelech and the Shechemites; the unravelling (vv. 25–55) describes the dramatic consequences of God’s intervention; the conclusion (vv. 56–57) condemns again Abimelech and the Shechemites. Lichtert 2016, 363, finds in the story of Abimelech, starting in 8:33, the following concentric structure: A (8:33–9:21) – killing of the brothers / opposition by Jotham B (9:22–25) – intervention by God / change of the Shechemites A’ (9:26–57) – opposition by Gaal / killing of the citizens and of Abimelech

According to Lichtert, also the units themselves show signs of a concentric structure. 8:33–9:8a and 9:15b-21 are framing vv. 8b-15a, with the final part referring to what was recounted in the first part of the story. The third sequence (vv. 26–57) is divided into two parts. The first, vv. 26–41, has a concentric structure, in which vv. 32–35 take the central place, emphasizing that the initiative is with Gaal and Zebul, whereas Abimelech acts only when he is told to do so. The second part of the third sequence is divided into three parts: vv. 42–45, 46–52, and 53–57, all three structured in the same way and again with the first being related to the last.

Abimelech

265

This survey of modern diachronic and synchronic research illustrates that the attempts to answer the question formulated above about the tensions and coherence of this chapter have resulted in even more questions and in contradictory solutions. Nevertheless, some tendencies can be noted. The old suggestion that we are dealing with relatively ancient and originally independent traditions, especially Jotham’s fable and the story of the war between Abimelech and Gaal, still stands. Next to this it may be noted that, in its present form, the text shows many signs of coherence and that it is also clearly related to the wider context. A plausible reconstruction may be found in a combination of the noted tendencies in both the diachronic and the synchronic approach. In line with the conclusions of Jans 2001 and Finkelstein 2016 it may be assumed that the episode of the conflict between Gaal, Zebul and Abimelech, son of Jerubbaal, in vv. 26–45 is the oldest source. It can be read as a separate story, which is supported by the fact that Gaal and Zebul are not mentioned in the rest of the chapter. The author of the book of Judges seems to have combined this story with two other originally independent stories: a fable about kingship (vv. 8–15) and a story about Abimelech besieging the towers of Shechem and Thebez (vv. 46–54). These stories were adapted and placed in a new framework, relating them to the story of Gideon in order to present Abimelech as his counterpart and explaining Abimelech’s demise as the work of God punishing Abimelech and the Shechemites for their evil deeds. The most important elements of this adaption are (1) that Abimelech was related to Gideon as his son by identifying Jerubbaal with Gideon; (2) that both Jotham’s fable and the story about Gaal are introduced with reference to God (vv. 7 and 23; note the similar theological introductions in chapters 6 and 13); (3) that Abimelech was related to Saul by explaining his downfall as the result of God sending an evil spirit; (4) that Abimelech was related to both Sisera and Saul by the way he died. The author also left his mark in the added elements in the style we know from the rest of the book: in the poetic introduction to the fable and conclusion (vv. 7 and 20); in the play with the name of Jotham in the explanation of the fable (vv. 16–19); in the three times repeated phrase “it was told to Abimelech” (vv. 25, 42, 47), framing the old story; and in the concentric structure of the story, in line with the analysis by Lichtert 2016: 8:33–9:6 – Israel forgets YHWH and Abimelech kills his brothers vv. 7–21 – Jotham predicts deadly fire coming from Abimelech vv. 22–25 – divine intervention causing enmity between Abimelech and Shechem vv. 46–49 – Abimelech burns down the tower of Shechem vv. 50–57 – Abimelech is killed, explained as punishment b God

The fact that this concentric structure is not as clear as the ones in chapters 2–4 may have to do with the fact that the author probably used existing texts, which left little room for sophisticated literary art.

266

Judges8:33–9:57 SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

8:33–35 33

34 35

IthappenedafterGideonhaddied,thatthechildrenofIsraelreturned andwentwhoringaftertheBaals.TheymadeforthemselvesBaal Berith(their)god. ThechildrenofIsraeldidnotrememberYHWHtheirgod,whohad rescuedthemfromthehandofalltheirenemiesaround. They did not act loyal with the house of Jerubbaal Gideon in accordancewithallthegoodthathehaddoneforIsrael.

These verses repeat almost verbatim what was told in 2:10–12. The verb ‫זנה‬, “to go whoring”, in the sense of worshipping idols, was also used in 2:17 and 8:27. Just as what happened after Joshua’s death, the Israelites now also forget what YHWH had done for them and start serving the Baals. The plural indicates that we must think of local gods. Every town had its own Baal and its own cult place, like the father of Gideon (cf. 6:25). We also have to assume that the cult of Baal, as the god of fertility, was more attractive than keeping to the faith of a god who was primarily connected with history. In chapter 2, this history was the delivery from slavery in Egypt. Here the reference is to the rescue from the hand of all their enemies around. So, we should think of the Midianites and the other peoples mentioned in the stories before. A difference with the situation of chapter 2 is also that there is no reference to a new generation. Directly after Gideon’s death the Israelites go astray, so also people who had witnessed his deeds in the name of YHWH. One of the Baals is singled out, namely Baal Berith. His name can be translated as “lord of the covenant”. This name returns in the reference to El Berith in v. 46. It is not likely that we should differentiate between Baal Berith and El Berith. Both the name Baal and the name El can be used as a general indication of an important god. The epithet Berith probably indicates that it is “a patron god who established a kinship bond with the city inhabitants” (Lewis 1996, 423). Within the book of Judges the reference to the covenant reminds us of the words of the messenger of YHWH in 2:1, pointing the Israelites to the covenant made with YHWH, emphasizing also in this situation that the covenant with YHWH is broken by the Israelites. In the following story Shechem plays a central role and it was precisely at this place where, according to Josh. 24, YHWH and the Israelites had made their covenant. Israel’s idolatry is presented as not being loyal (‫)ח ֶסד‬ ֶ to the house of Gideon. The same term “loyal” is often used in connection to maintaining the covenant (cf. Deut. 7:5; 7:12; 1 Sam. 20:8; 1 Kgs 8:23; Isa 54:10; 55:3;

Abimelech

267

Ps 28:10; 89:28; 106:45; 2 Chron. 6:14; Neh. 1:5; 9:32; Dan. 9:4). The choice of the Israelites for Baal Berith is a choice against the god of the covenant and goes against what Gideon had done when he destroyed the altar of Baal. This is the only place where the names of Jerubbaal and Gideon are put side by side directly. LXX (B) harmonizes the text with 7:1 by adding explanatory words: Ιεροβααλ αὐτός ἐστιν Γεδεων, “Ierobaal, he is Gedeon”, whereas LXX (A) is in line with MT. It is often suggested that the name of Gideon was added by a later hand to clarify that Jerubbaal was no other than Gideon (cf. BHQ, 75*). In its present context, the reference to the two names side by side is not necessary anymore as an explanation, as in 7:1, but functions as a reminder of the good deed of destroying Baal’s altar as it was recounted in 6:25–32, on the basis of which Gideon had received the name Jerubbaal. 9:1 

Abimelech, son of Jerubbaal, went to Shechem, to the brothers of hismother.Hespoketothemandtothewholeclanofthefather’s houseofhismother,saying:

As was remarked in the comments on 8:31, the city of Shechem evokes many associations. In Josh. 24, which is closely related to and even partially repeated in the book of Judges, it is the place where the Israelites entered into a covenant with YHWH. This is in stark contrast to what is going to happen next. The name of YHWH is completely missing in this chapter and the covenant with YHWH uniting the Israelites is replaced by the temple of Baal Berith financing a fight among brothers. The reference to Shechem as a place of idolatry also points forwards to the history of Jeroboam establishing Shechem as his fortified city, splitting the state of Israel in two, together with installing his own cultic centres (1 Kgs 12:25–32; cf. Irwin 2012, 449). In LXX (A) the name is spelled as Σικιμα (LXX [B] has Συχεμ), which is simply a transcription of the Hebrew name with the ‫ ה‬of direction: ‫שׁ ֶכ ָמה‬. ְ In the different versions of the LXX, the reference to Shechem is influenced by the conflicts around the Samaritan temple at nearby mount Gerizim. For this reason, LXX does not refer to Shechem in Josh. 24:1, but to Shiloh. Whether this also influenced the text of Judg. 9 is not clear. In v. 31, the name Συχεμ is used again (see on the different references to Shechem in the LXX Kabiersch etal. 2011, 682–683). In the first verse it is all about family business with references to brothers, mother, and father. The brothers of his mother were not mentioned before. We seldom hear of a mother’s brother in the Hebrew Bible; the only other example is Laban (Gen. 28:2; 29:10). Within this story they are the counterpart of the brothers of Abimelech. It will also be no coincidence that

268

Judges8:33–9:57

brothers are explicitly mentioned in the story of the conflict with Gaal (vv. 26, 31, 41). Brotherhood appears to be a central theme of this story. 9:2–3 2

3

“SpeaktotheearsofallthelordsofShechem:‘Whatisbetterforyou: rulingoveryoubyseventymen,allthesonsofJerubbaal,orruling overyoubyoneman?RememberthatIamyourboneandyourflesh’”. Thebrothersofhismotherspokeabouthimtotheearsofallthelords ofShechem,allthesewords.TheirheartinclinedafterAbimelech, becausetheysaid:“Ourbrother(is)he”.

The citizens of Shechem are addressed as ‫בּ ֲע ֵלי ְשׁ ֶכם‬, ַ “lords of Shechem”. LXX simplifies the text by translating with “men”: ἐν ὠσὶν τῶν ἀνδρῶν Σικιμων (LXX [A]); ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν πάντων τῶν ἀνδρῶν Συχεμ (LXX [B]). This use of the word ‫ בעל‬is typical for this chapter, where it is found no less than fourteen times in different compounds: “lords of Shechem”, “lords of the tower of Shechem” (vv. 46–47), and “lords of the city” (v. 51). Next to this it is found in only five other places in the Hebrew Bible: Josh. 24:11; Judg. 20:5; 1 Sam. 23:11–12; 2 Sam. 21:12. When the reconstruction of the formation of the story given above in the introduction is correct, the fact that the term is used in the original story about Gaal (vv. 26, 39) may have influenced the added parts of the story. In v. 51 they are distinguished from the men and women of the city. Apparently, the term indicates an upper class. They can be compared to the citizens of Carthage, who are also called bʽlm and who had the right to elect their leaders (cf. Hoyos 2010, 25, 36–38, 147). Abimelech asks the lords of Shechem to speak on his behalf. Other examples of direct speech within direct speech are found in 6:10, 13; 8:15 and may be regarded as characteristic of the style of the chapters concerning Gideon and Abimelech. In his proposal Abimelech uses the same phrase ‫ ב‬+ ‫משׁל‬, “to rule over”, as was used by the Israelites when they asked Gideon to become their leader (8:22). After the threefold rejection of this offer in 8:23, there now follows a twofold question in which Abimelech offers to become their ruler. It is telling that the third part of Gideon’s answer, referring to YHWH as their ruler, is left out. Abimelech’s argument “remember that I am your bone and your flesh” has a clear parallel in 2 Sam. 19:13 (cf. Halpern 1978, 90, who assumes “a formulaic association with the royal covenant”; the phrase is also found in Gen. 2:23–24; 29:14; 2 Sam. 5:1; 1 Chron. 11:1). There it is used by David who gives the priests the command to say to the Israelites that they should accept David again as their king after the rebellion of Absalom. The parallel is underlined by the fact that they also explicitly must address them as brothers and by the fact that the outcome is also the same: “he inclined their heart”

Abimelech

269

(2 Sam. 19:15) // “their heart inclined after Abimelech” (Judg. 9:3). According to Groß 2009, 499, the narrator “lenkt somit zunächst den Glanz Davids auf Abimelech”. It is more likely, however, that this parallel, which is framed between the negative association with Gideon and the following violent acts financed with money from a Baal temple, primarily points to the dangers of someone who is both wicked and talented. He is a smooth talker and a brutal murderer at the same time. The story of Abimelech proves that being of the same bone and flesh or being brothers is no guarantee for a lasting good relation. 9:4 

Theygavehimseventy(piecesof)silverfromthehouseofBaalBerith. WiththemAbimelechhiredemptyandrecklessmen.Theywentafter him.

The number of pieces of silver given to Abimelech to hire his own army coincides with the number of the sons of Jerubbaal. It may have been chosen by the author to complete one of the many literary triads in this book, together with the two references to the seventy brothers in the preceding and following verses. Again, there is a clear contrast with the army gathered by Gideon. His father was led by the commandments of YHWH, whereas Abimelech receives his support from the temple of Baal Berith. Gideon’s army consisted of a number of men selected from men called up from the Israelite tribes, while Abimelech’s army consists of “empty and reckless men”. The qualification “empty” is also given to the men assembled by Jephthah (11:3). They could also be compared to the group of men following David according to 1 Sam. 22:2. These men can probably best be considered as outcasts, contrasting with the elite indicated here as “lords”. An interesting parallel to Abimelech’s “empty men” is found in 2 Chron. 13:7, where a similar group is related to Jeroboam (cf. Irwin 2012, 449–450, who also points to parallels between the speech of Jotham and the address by Abijah in 2 Chron. 13:4– 12). This underlines the association between Abimelech and Jeroboam noted above based on their connection to Shechem. The critical apparatus of BHQ notes a different reading of ‫יקים‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬in 1QJudg; in the commentary on p. 75* this is ascribed to a wrong reading of the editor. 9:5–6 5

6

Hecametohisfather’shouseinOphrahandkilledhisbrothers,the sonsofJerubbaal,seventymenononestone.Jotham,theyoungest sonofJerubbaal,wasleft,becausehehadhiddenhimself. All the lords of Shechem gathered and all Beth-Millo, they went andmadeAbimelechkingbytheoakofthepalisadethatissetupin Shechem.

270

Judges8:33–9:57

After the support Abimelech received from “the clan of the father’s house of his mother” in Shechem (v. 1) Abimelech now goes to his father’s house in Ophrah. The killing of seventy brothers has a parallel in an Aramaic text of the 8th century BCE in which Bar-Rakib describes how his father king Panammuwa escaped from a slaughter: “My father, Panammuwa – because of the loyalty of his father, the gods of Yaudi delivered him from the destruction which was in the house of his father. And the god Hadad stood with him (...) in the house of his father. And he killed his brother Barsur; and he killed seventy brothers of his father. But my father mounted a chariot” (KAI215:2–5; cf. Younger, CoS2, 158). In a following line it is reported that Panammuwa “killed the stone of destruction from the house of his father” (KAI215:7). In his notes to the Aramaic text Younger relates this to Isa. 8:14 (CoS2, 159), but one can also relate this line to the killing as described in Judg. 9 (cf. De Moor 1998, 201). It suggests that it concerns not just some random stone, but a stone related to a cult place. With regard to cult places Ophrah already had a reputation: Gideon had erected there an altar for YHWH (6:24), demolished an altar for Baal and an Asherah (6:25– 27), and placed an ephod (8:27). It can be compared to the stone mentioned in 1 Sam. 6:18–19, remembering of the return of the ark of the covenant from the Philistines and also the place where seventy people were killed by YHWH for not paying due respect. The closest parallel within the Hebrew Bible is found in the story of the seventy sons of Ahab slain on behalf of Jehu as pretender to the throne (2 Kgs 10:1–7; cf. Halpern 1978, 88–89). Because of the fact that the killing took place “on a stone”, we have to assume that, like the sons of Ahab, the sons of Abimelech were beheaded. As was noted above, Abimelech may be compared with Jeroboam taking power. In a similar way, he can be compared to this other northern king, Jehu, who appears to have no scruples in his attempts to become absolute sovereign. In doing the killing himself, Abimelech surpasses Jehu in brutality. The association with Jehu is strengthened by the fact that in the following fable Jotham refers to the anointing of the king, because Jehu is the only northern king of whom it is told that he is anointed, even twice (1 Kgs 19:6; 2 Kgs 9:1–6; cf. Bartelmus 2002, 76). To this may be added that there is also a connection with the hiding of Jotham in the story in 2 Kgs 10 about a massacre following the history of Jehu. Here, it is Joash who survives the killing of the royal family by Athalja because he was able to hide (2 Kgs 11:2). It is very well possible that, if it is true that the name of Jotham was made up for the occasion by the author (cf. the remarks about the pun in v.16), this was inspired by the notice in 2 Kgs 15:5. This reports about Jotham, son of king Azariah, who replaced his father because of his illness governing the people. This is described as ‫ת־עם‬ ַ ‫שׁ ֵֹפט ֶא‬ ‫ה ָא ֶרץ‬, ָ “judging the people of the land”. The same expression is used in the

Abimelech

271

parallel text of 2 Chron. 26:21. Next to Solomon, no king of Judah and Israel is described as a judge. So Jotham was probably well known for this association and this may have been used by the author of the book of Judges as another hint in relating his stories to the history of the kings. Whereas Abimelech looks like the disappointing king Saul, his brother Jotham points forward to a king with a much better reputation. Jotham survives the massacre, because he had the opportunity to hide himself. In this regard he can be compared to his father Gideon. Like Jotham, the first thing reported about Gideon was that he was hiding from the Midianites (6:11). This also indicates the change of the situation: the danger does not come from outside of Israel anymore, but from the inside. Apparently, the youngest son is not regarded as a serious rival, because the lords of Shechem ignore him. The same will happen when Samuel is looking for a candidate to succeed Saul among the sons of Isai (1 Sam. 16:11). There, it will turn out that the youngest is the best. Also Jotham will prove himself as wise and eloquent, but he does not get the opportunity to become king. Everyone agrees that it has to be Abimelech. This concerns not only the “lords of Shechem” but also “all Beth-Millo”. The latter may be translated as “house of the elevation” and probably refers to a part of city near the citadel (cf. 2 Sam. 5:9 referring to the Millo in Jerusalem) as the place where the elite were living. For the first time the leadership is described now explicitly as kingship, using no less than three times formulations of the root ‫מלך‬. It is difficult to express this in English. Fox 2014, 188, translates: “(they) kinged Avimelekh as king”. It is the counterpart of Gideon’s threefold rejection of the offer in 8:23. The ceremony takes place “by the oak of the palisade that is set up in Shechem”. The use of the verb “to set up” (‫ ֻמ ָצּב‬participle hophal of the verb ‫ )נצב‬seems to make little sense in connection to a tree. Many suggestions have been made to come to a more logical text, but this has not resulted in a convincing alternative (cf. BHQ, 75*). If we keep to the MT, it can be assumed that we are dealing with a special place which can be compared to the oak in Shechem mentioned in Josh. 24:26 (cf. Boling 1975, 172). The “setting up of the oak” in Judg. 9:6 could be a conflation of Joshua setting up a stone and placing it under the oak. In the book of Joshua this was the place where the Israelites promised to serve YHWH. In Judg. 9, it has become the place where the people promise to serve Abimelech as their king. Within the stories of Gideon and Abimelech there is also a parallel with the terebinth (‫;א ָלה‬ ֵ in 9:6 the word ‫ ֵאלוֹן‬is used) in Ophrah (6:11). This emphasizes again the difference between Abimelech and Gideon: in 6:11 we read that the messenger of YHWH must convince Gideon to deliver Israel, whereas in 9:6 Abimelech shows no reluctance at all to take the lead and does not seem to miss the divine guidance.

272

Judges8:33–9:57

9:7 

TheytoldJotham.HewentandstoodonthetopofmountGerizim. Heraisedhisvoice,hecalledoutandsaidtothem:“Listentome, lordsofShechemandGodwilllistentoyou.

Jotham is the third son of Gideon who is mentioned by name and who takes action. In 8:20 we heard of the eldest son, Jeter, who did not dare to kill the Midianite kings. After him came Abimelech who was not afraid of killing his own brothers. Like Jeter, Jotham does not take up the sword, but he is not afraid to protest against his violent brother. His words are introduced in the style which is typical of the author of the book of Judges: in a threefold way, using three subsequent verbs: “he raised his voice, he called out, and he said”. Just like Abimelech, he tries to convince the lords of Shechem to side with him. Unlike Abimelech he brings in God, because he claims that God is on his side. In the rest of his speech Jotham does not mention God anymore, which makes the reference at the beginning look forced. It is very likely that we are dealing here with an element added by the editor/author of the book of Judges, just as theological introductions were added to the story of Gideon in chapter 6 and to the story of Samson in chapter 13. Something similar may be assumed for the reference to God in v. 22. Jotham speaks from mount Gerizim, located to the south of Shechem. Together with mount Ebal, it is mentioned in Deut. 11:29; 27:11–28 and Josh. 8:33 with Gerizim as the mount of blessing and Ebal as the mount of the curse. The final specific curse mentioned in Deut. 27:25 concerns “the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person”. This can be related to Abimelech’s actions according to v. 4: accepting money, which facilitated him killing his brothers. Jotham will end his speech also with a curse (v. 20), which according to v. 57 eventually was fulfilled. 9:8–13 8 9

10 11 12 13

Oncethetreeswenttoanointakingoverthemselves.Theysaidto theolive:‘Bekingoverus’. Theolivesaidtothem:‘HaveIstopped(toproduce)myoilwithwhich bymetheyhonourgodsandmen,thatIshouldgotoswayoverthe trees?’ Thetreessaidtothefigtree:‘Yougo,bequeenoverus’. Thefigtreesaidtothem:‘HaveIstopped(toproduce)mysweetness andmygoodyield,thatIshouldgotoswayoverthetrees?’ Thetreessaidtothegrapevine:‘Yougo,bequeenoverus’. Thegrapevinesaidtothem:‘HaveIstopped(toproduce)mynewwine, thatgladdensgodsandmen,thatIshouldgotoswayoverthetrees?’

Abimelech

273

Jotham starts his story with a figuraetymologica, using twice a verb derived from the root ‫הלך‬, “to go”. This gives it “a weak emphatic nuance” (JM § 123k) and relates it to the relatively many occurrences of that verb in this part of the story (vv. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21), especially the one in v. 6 (cf. Van Midden 1998, 223). The going of the lords of Shechem is compared to the going of the trees (cf. also Bartelmus 2002, 65–67, who points to the fact that this form of speech usually denotes emphasis and does not function as marking a new beginning). The other root used twice in this verse is again ‫מלך‬, just as in v. 6. The second occurrence in the MT is ‫לוֹכה‬ ָ ‫;מ‬ ָ all textual witnesses follow the qere ‫ ָמ ְל ָכה‬and in v. 12 ‫מ ְל ִכי‬, ָ the imperative qal masculine, resp. feminine. The reason for the ketiv is not clear. It could be a way of attracting attention. Four times the trees ask the same question, three times they get the same negative answer, introduced with the word ‫החֳ ַד ְל ִתּי‬, ֶ which probably must be interpreted as a formamixta (Joosten 1990). By vocalizing it in this unusual way, the Masoretes left open the possibility to read it in two ways: as ‫ה ׇח ַד ְל ִתּי‬, ֶ the 1st person singular perfect qal preceded by the interrogative participle, or as ‫ה ְח ַד ְל ִתּי‬, ֶ the 1st person singular perfect hiphil. Again, the Masoretes may have wanted to emphasize this word. More important than the stem is the question of how to interpret the perfect. It is often translated as a future: “shall I give up”, following the old Greek translation; LXX (A): ἀφεῖσα τὴν πιότητά μου, “am I to neglect my fattiness”; LXX (B): μὴ ἀπολείψασα τὴν πιότητά μου, “shall I abandon my fattiness”. However, as a rule, a perfect in this part of the sentence should be translated as referring to a past act (cf. Bartelmus 2002, 54). According to JM § 112j it points here to a “surprised question”: “(will it be said that) I have left?” (cf. also GK § 106n). Buber and Rosenzweig translate: “Stockt mir denn mein Fett?” This has vast consequences for the interpretation, as noted by Bartelmus 2002, 56: “Die Problemstellung lautet dann nicht: Wer soll, oder sogar: Wer darf Konig werden? Sondern schlicht: Wer hat so abgewirtschaftet, wer ist so impotent geworden, wer ist so heruntergekommen, daß er als König in Frage kommen konnte?” (cf. also Groß 2009, 505; Sasson 2014, 383; against Ruprecht 2003, 13–14). So, the message is that only someone who has nothing to offer will accept the request to become king. In the same way, the “swaying over the trees” points to doing something useless. The same verb ‫ נוע‬is used in Isa. 7:2 of trees waved by the wind; there it is used as image of the frightened king, who feels powerless; just like his subjects. The olive, fig tree and grapevine are presented chiastically. The parts about the olive and the grapevine are related by the repeated reference to “gods and men”. One could also translate ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬singular as in the LXX as a reference to God, as he was also mentioned by Jotham in the introduction. LXX (A) has in v. 9: ἣν ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐδόξασεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωποι, “which God and

274

Judges8:33–9:57

men extol in me”; in LXX (B) this is theologically adapted to: ἐν ᾗ δοξάσουσι τὸν θεὸν ἄνδρες, “by which men extol God”. A number of scholars follow this version by changing ‫בּי‬, ִ “in me” into ֺ‫( ִבּו‬cf. BHS; rejected in BHQ, 76*). The opposite adaption of the text is found in v. 13 regarding the vine. Here LXX (B) follows MT: τὸν εὐφραίνοντα θεὸν καὶ ἀνθρώπους, “that cheers God and men”, whereas LXX (A) has: τὴν εὐφροσύνην τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, “the good cheer of men which comes from God”. In the rendering by the Targum, not only is the anthropomorphism avoided, but also the men are interpreted as the despicable chiefs of Shechem (cf. Smelik 1995, 521–525): “my oil, with which they glorify before the Lord, and which the chiefs indulge themselves in” (v. 9); “my wine from which they libate before the Lord and which the chiefs delight in” (v. 13). In the present context it is best taken as a merismus, in which two contrasting parts are made to stand for the whole: all agree in the value of the fruits of these three trees. This is emphasized by the chiastic structure, which includes the fruit of the fig tree in this praise. In early Jewish exegesis, the fable is interpreted as an allegory with the olive tree representing Othniel, the fig tree Deborah, and the vine Gideon. Kimchi explained the three trees as Gideon, his son, and his grandson. De Waard 1989, 368, adds to this the suggestion that the fig tree stands for Gideon because the corresponding numerical values: both ‫ ַה ְתּ ֵאנָ ה‬and the double name Jerubbaal Gideon (with scriptioplena) add up to 461 (5+400+1+50+5 and 10+200+6+2+70+30/+3+10+4+70+6+50). In this connection, also the word count of Labuschagne (2012) should be mentioned. He noticed that the total number (using another numerical system) of words of the fable is 98, which is 2×49, the number of the name of Abimelech (1+2+10+13+12+11). 9:14–15 14 15

Allthetreessaidtothethornbush:‘Yougo,bekingoverus’. Thethornbushsaidtothetrees:‘Ifintruthyouareanointingmeas kingoveryou,come,seekrefugeinmyshadow,and,ifnot,fireshall gooutfromthethornbushanddevourthecedarsoftheLebanon’.

The final request of the trees takes up the first in v. 8 as it is also an imperative masculine ‫ְך־ע ֵלינוּ‬ ָ ‫מ ָל‬, ְ after the two feminine forms ‫ ָמ ְל ִכי ָע ֵלינוּ‬in vv. 10 and 12. The well-considered way in which the series is built up can be seen when we put the four requests together (cf. Van Midden 1998, 225): ‫“ – ָמ ְל ָכה ָע ֵ ֽלינוּ‬be king over us” (v. 8;ketiv: ‫)מלוכי‬ ‫י־א ְתּ ָמ ְל ִכי ָע ֵלינוּ‬ ַ ‫“ – ְל ִכ‬you go, be queen over us” (v. 10) ‫י־א ְתּ ָמ ְל ִכי ָע ֵלינוּ‬ ַ ‫“ – ְל ִכ‬you go, be queen over us” (v. 12;ketiv: ‫)מלוכי‬ ‫ְך־ע ֵלינוּ‬ ָ ‫“ – ֵלְך ַא ָתּה ְמ ָל‬you go, be king over us” (v. 14)

Abimelech

275

One notes an ongoing intensity, expressed in the end by the way the personal pronoun is written with ‫ ַא ָתּה‬instead of the previous two times ‫א ְתּ‬. ַ Emphasis is also given by the fact that the text in v. 14 speaks of “all” the trees. Another structural marker is found in the fact that the final verse corresponds with the first line of the fable by the repeated reference to the anointing. The exact botanical identity of the ‫ ָא ָטד‬remains uncertain; (cf. Tatu 2006, who identifies it as the Christ thorn; it is also possible that it stands for a kind of thorn-tree; cf. also Groß 2009, 507–508) and is, therefore, best translated generally as “thorn bush”. In contrast to the three trees who pointed to the fruit they still produced, the thorn bush refers to its shade, which is something it certainly cannot give to trees that are far bigger. The threat of fire coming from the thorn bush is more realistic (cf. Isa. 10:17; 27:4; and the story of the burning bramble in Exod. 3:2). It is remarkable that the thorn bush speaks of himself in this final line: “fire shall go out from the thorn bush”. In LXX (B) this is changed into “from me”, which makes the text easier, but does not explain the MT. LXX (A) follows the MT. This element of fire points forward to the events as described in vv. 49 and 52. The change in vs. 15 from the first to the third person may be seen to be an indication of editorial activity of the author, relating the fable to the following story of the fight between Abimelech and Shechem (cf. Crüsemann 1978, 40; Ruprecht 2003, 10–11). The thorn bush is clearly not telling the truth about himself and, precisely on this point he is questioning the intentions of the trees: are they “in truth” asking to become king over them? Apparently, this is the point Jotham wants to make with this story, as he picks-up the phrase “in truth” in the next verse. Together with the way it was introduced with the figuraetymologicain v. 8, making the connection through the references about “going” and with the way in which it relates to the rest of the story through the returning element of fire, it shows how well the fable was fitted into the story of Abimelech. It is also clear, however, that the fable itself does not in all respects correspond to the situation of Abimelech and the lords of Shechem. The main difference is that the lords of Shechem were not looking for a king but reacted to Abimelech’s proposal. It is likely that the author used an originally independent fable illustrating the idea that it is not always the best who becomes king and that kingship is unproductive. It criticizes common ancient Near Eastern royal ideology as may be found in Isa. 32:2, Lam. 4:20 and in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts describing the protection by the king as finding refuge in his shadow (cf. the examples given by Ruprecht 2003, 16–18). Worldwide, many related fables are to be found (Ruprecht 2003, 45–96, gives examples from Africa, India, China, South America, and Russia) and also in the ancient Near East (cf. Jans 2001, 177–182). There is an old

276

Judges8:33–9:57

Sumerian fable, with a later Akkadian variant, about a dispute between the tamarisk and the date palm disputing who is best (cf. ANET, 592–593). A similar discussion between the bramble and the pomegranate is found in the Aramaic Words of Ahiqar of the 5th century BCE (ANET, 429–430). A comparison may also be made with the Greek fables of Aesop, who would have lived around 620–564, and to whom a fable is attributed about the trees and the olive with striking parallels to Jotham’s fable (cf. Briffard 2002; Römer 2016, 200–202). It tells about the trees asking the olive-tree to become their king. But the olive-tree refuses, because he does not want to give up the oil for which he is praised by God and men. Then they ask the fig-tree. He refuses as well for similar reasons. Then they go to the thorn bush who accepts the offer and asks them to come in his shadow, otherwise a fire will go out from the thorn bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon. There can hardly be any doubt that these texts are related. It should be taken into account, however, that the fables of Aesop are only available from medieval manuscripts at the earliest. It is more likely that we are dealing here with the work of a later Jewish or Christian editor of the fables of Aesop. Especially, it is the unexpected reference to the cedars of Lebanon which points in this direction (cf. Kellenberger 2018, 132, who also points at other differences indicating a Near Eastern and not a Greek background). This would not be the first example of fables from other times and places being attributed to Aesop (cf. Priest 1985). Nevertheless, it is very well possible – building on the hypothesis of the date of the book of Judges as presented in the introduction – that the author of the book of Judges took up from his Hellenistic environment a text of this genre which is unique in the Hebrew Bible. We only come across texts which are partly related, such as the reference to speaking trees in 2 Kgs 14:9 and Isa. 14:8. If it is true that the author used an existing fable, then we must also assume that he adapted the story to fit the new framework. This would explain why the original character of a fable is not completely preserved, as is observed by a number of scholars who challenge the qualification of the story as a fable (cf. Soggin 1981, 177; Bartelmus 2002, 71–75; Schipper 2009, 24–30; Gillmayr-Bucher 2013, 44). Strictly speaking, the way it functions in the present context suggests its genre is better defined as a parable. 9:16–20 16

17

And now, if you acted in truth and with integrity when you made AbimelechkingandifyouactedgoodwithJerubbaalandwithhis houseandifyouactedtohimaccordingtothedealingsofhishands, aswhenmyfatherfoughtforyou,casthislifeinfrontandrescued youfromthehandofMidian,

Abimelech 18

19

20

277

andyou,youhaverisenagainstthehouseofmyfathertoday,when youkilledhissons,seventymen,ononestoneandmadeAbimelech, thesonofhismaid,kingoverthelordsofShechem,becauseheis yourbrother, andifyouactedintruthandwithintegritywithJerubbaalandwith hishouseonthisday,rejoiceinAbimelechandmayhealsorejoice inyou. But, if not, fire shall go out from Abimelech and devour the lords ofShechemandBeth-Milloandfireshallgooutfromthelordsof ShechemandfromBeth-MilloandshalldevourAbimelech”.

In his explanation of the fable Jotham takes up most elements of the fable and its introduction, adding some interesting details. He first takes up the reaction of the thorn bush by repeating the phrase “in truth”. It is clear that the words of the thorn bush are only partly credible: he cannot offer shadow, but it is likely that fire will go out from him. Jotham asks not only for truth but also for integrity (vv. 16 and 19). In Hebrew the word ‫ ָתּ ִמים‬is related to the name of Jotham, which denotes that YHWH is ‫תּ ִמים‬, ָ “perfect” (cf. Block 1999, 315). Boling 1975, 171, suggests a relation with ‫יָתוֹם‬, “orphan”, and translates his name as “he was orphaned”. Halpern 1978, 96, uses this as an argument that Jotham may have been another name for Abimelech himself and that originally the fable was not meant to condemn him, but was instead “the royal admonition against violating the new covenant”. This would mean that the explanation given in vv. 16–20 is secondary and that in comparing himself to a thorn bush Abimelech would have been extremely modest. Both assumptions are unlikely. Three times Jotham questions, in v. 16, the actions of the lords of Shechem, three times introduced with the conjunction ‫אם‬. ִ He contrasts their deeds with Gideon’s actions, which remembers the remark made in the introduction that the people “did not act loyal with the house of Jerubbaal Gideon in accordance with all the good that he had done for Israel” (8:35). He adds that Gideon had staked his life (v. 17; it is not necessary to read with BHS ֺ‫ ִמנֶּ גֶ דּו‬instead of ‫;מנֶּ גֶ ד‬ ִ cf. BHQ, 76–77*). Then he repeats the reference to the killing of the seventy sons of their father on one stone and the crowning of Abimelech. He adds a sneering detail by calling Abimelech “the son of a maid”, which compared to “concubine” (8:31) should be considered a degradation. Jotham’s remark that if they acted truthfully and with integrity they may “rejoice in Abimelech and he may also rejoice in you” (v. 19), remembers the introduction in v. 7: “Listen to me, lords of Shechem and God will listen to you”. This draws attention to the fact that, in the following curse a reference to God is missing. This is surprising, because one would expect

278

Judges8:33–9:57

that after this introduction Jotham would also announce that God would punish any transgressions. Instead, taking up the final element of the fable, he suggests that evil will punish itself: fire will go out from Abimelech and devour the lords of Shechem and vice versa. 9:21 Jothamfled,ranoffandwenttoBeer.Hesettledthere,awayfrom thefaceofAbimelech,hisbrother. Jotham’s escape is described in three consecutive verbs, just as the threefold introduction to his speech in v. 7. The name town of his refuge, Beer, can be translated as “well”, which might be seen to be a fitting contrast to the fire threatening Abimelech and the lords of Shechem. The location is unknown. It is tempting to relate it to Beersheba in the far south, because according to Gen. 21:22–34 it got its name because of the covenant made there between Abraham and Abimelech. Whereas Jotham was forced to get away from Abimelech, Abraham and the namesake of Jotham’s brother found a way to live together. The scene ends by repeating his affiliation with Abimelech as his “brother”, denoting again the central theme of the story thus far. 9:22 

AbimelechgovernedIsraelforthreeyears.

The report about the period in which Abimelech governed Israel is remarkable in the sense that it deviates from the other reports about the judges and saviours of Israel. It is not given at the end of his story, it is also indicated with the unusual verb ‫( שׂרר‬only found also in Num. 16:13; Est. 1:22; Prov. 8:16; Isa 32:1; and 1 Chron. 15:22). Apparently, the author wanted to avoid the verb ‫מלך‬, as if his leadership did not deserve to be called royal. This is supported by the fact that the governor of the city of Shechem, Zebul, who serves Abimelech, has the title of ‫שׂר‬, ַ which is derived from the verb ‫שׂרר‬. The time of his government is the shortest of all leaders in this book and the following story explains why. 9:23–24 23 24

GodsentanevilspiritbetweenAbimelechandthelordsofShechem. ThelordsofShechembetrayedAbimelech, so that the violence to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal would come andtheirbloodwouldbeplacedonAbimelech,theirbrother,who hadkilledthem,andonthelordsofShechemwhohadstrengthened hishandstokillhisbrothers.

Abimelech

279

Considering the returning patterns in the book of Judges, we might note here the special way in which God gets involved in this history. After the customary reference of the Israelites forgetting YHWH and choosing other gods (8:33–34), one would have expected YHWH to punish his people by giving them into the hand of a foreign enemy. Instead, we hear of Abimelech killing his brothers and becoming king. YHWH did not have to call up someone from the outside to punish his people. It came up by itself, from the inside. To those who might doubt whether Abimelech’s kingship is good or bad, Jotham brings clarity. His function may be compared to that of the prophet in 6:7–10 and also to that of the people crying for help to YHWH. Normally, YHWH would now call up a saviour like Gideon, endowing him with his spirit to fight the foreign army. Instead, YHWH sends an evil spirit to ignite an inner-Israelite fight. The fact that the author does not use the name YHWH can be interpreted as an indication of the distance between Abimelech and YHWH. In the preceding story of Gideon there was a continuous interaction between Gideon and YHWH with much direct speech. This is replaced here by a description of one-sided divine action. The evil spirit contrasts sharply with the spirit of YHWH coming over Gideon (6:34). It has a parallel in the evil spirit sent by YHWH to king Saul (1 Sam. 16:14) and foreshadows Abimelech ending his life in the same way as Saul (v. 54; cf. 1 Sam. 31:4). 1 Kgs 22:21–22 describes a scene in heaven where a spirit asks permission of YHWH to deceive king Ahab. Compared to that text, God acts more directly here. There are no considerations required to come to the conclusion that Abimelech needs to be punished for the crime committed against his brothers. The resulting controversy between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem is emphasized by the chiastic structure, with the second part reversing the order in which they are mentioned. In the next verse they are both mentioned again, for the third time, in the original order. The construction in v. 24 (“so that the violence to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal would come and their blood would be placed on Abimelech”) of ‫לבוֹא‬,ָ “to come”, and ‫לשׂוּם‬,ָ “to place”, is uncommon because of the change of subject, first “violence” and then “blood” taking active roles. It emphasizes Abimelech’s gruesome deed and recalls the story of Cain and Abel with Abel’s blood calling out from the earth (Gen. 4:10). 9:25 

ThelordsofShechemplacedforhimpeopleinambushonthetops of the mountain. They robbed everyone who passed over them on theroad.ItwastoldtoAbimelech.

In the stories about the fights that will follow, we often come across the tactics of the ambush, with the verb ‫ ארב‬qal, “to wait in ambush” (v. 32), or

280

Judges8:33–9:57

piel, “to set up men in ambush” (v. 25), or the noun ‫מ ֲא ָרב‬, ַ “ambush” (v. 35). It is used by the Shechemites against Abimelech 9v. 25), by Abimelech against Gaal (vv. 32 and 34–35), and by Abimelech against Shechem (v. 43). It is a not so sympathetic way of trying to beat the enemy by surprise (cf. Ps. 10:9; 59:4); also applied by the Philistines against Samson (16:2, 9, 12) and by the tribes of Israel against Benjamin (20:29–38). Like the latter it is here also part of a battle between Israelites among themselves. This was something that Gideon had prevented when he succeeded to calm down the Ephraimites (8:1– 3). Later he did punish the people of Succoth and Penuel (8:13–17), but these were cities east of the river Jordan. Now, the inner Israelite controversy has reached the heart of the land. The conflicts around Shechem will be the first of a number of civil wars. It will be followed by the war between Jephthah and the Ephraimites in chapter 12 and Benjamin against the other tribes in chapters 20–21. Apparently, the lords of Shechem are opposing Abimelech by undermining his authority as a ruler who was responsible for the safety of travellers in his land. It may be seen to be another indication of the curse spoken by Jotham coming over Abimelech as expressed, for instance, in Deut. 28:29: “you shall not prosper on your ways and you shall be oppressed and robbed all day and there shall be no one to save you”. The verb ‫גזל‬, “to rob”, returns in 21:23 describing the Benjaminites robbing the girls from Shiloh. It is probably coincidental but nevertheless interesting to note that it is also used in the story of the covenant between Abraham and Abimelech(!) in Gen. 21:25 (see also the remark on Beer in v. 21). In any case, both stories indicate how stealing threatens good relationships and, comparing the stories, it shows that the problems can be solved in very different ways. The phrase “it was told to Abimelech” uses the same expression as in v. 7, when it was told to Jotham that Abimelech was made king, in v. 42 (plural) and in v. 47, with information about the citizens of Shechem opposing Abimelech. They signal three steps in the growing conflict with the Shechemites. 9:26–27 26 27

Gaal,thesonofEbed,cameandhisbrothers.Theypassedthrough Shechem.ThelordsofShechemtrustedthem. They went out in the field, harvested their vineyards, trod (the vintage)andmadeacelebration.Theycameintothehouseoftheir god.TheyateanddrankandcursedAbimelech.

In v. 26, a new person is introduced abruptly. The same happens in v. 28 with Zebul, of whom we only learn (in v. 30) that he is the commander of the city. As was indicated in the introduction to the exegesis, here is, perhaps,

Abimelech

281

the beginning of an originally separate story. There is a connection, however, with the previous verse by the repetition of the verb ‫עבר‬. It suggests that Gaal was one of the people running the risk of being robbed by the Shechemites. Apparently, he somehow made a lucky escape. His attitude in the next verses indicates that, like Abimelech, he impressed the Shechemites with his selfassured presentation, placing himself above Abimelech just as Abimelech had placed himself above his brothers. Within the present context, Gaal’s name, lineage, and company clearly have a special meaning. The name Gaal, which is unique in the Hebrew Bible, does not sound positive in Hebrew. It can be related to the verb ‫געל‬, “to feel disgust” (cf. Oeste 2011, 149). In Ezek. 16:5 the word ‫ גּ ַֹעל‬refers to a child thrown away as something without any value. So, his name is reminiscent of the “worthless men” surrounding Abimelech at the beginning of his violent career (v. 4). The name of his father Ebed can be translated as “servant” or “slave”, which reminds us of Abimelech’s origin as the son of a concubine (8:29–30) or, in the words of Jotham, a maid (v. 18). The fact that Gaal is accompanied by his brothers recalls Abimelech’s brothers, with the telling contrast that Abimelech got rid of the company of his brothers, as was mentioned shortly before. Although Gaal and his company are no more than passers-by, they instantly receive the trust of the lords of Shechem, who appear to change sides easily. Just as they had no problem abandoning the fifty sons of Jerubbaal, they now simply not only drop Abimelech but even curse him. The verb ‫קלל‬, “to curse”, and the related noun are used only here and in v. 57, explaining everything that happened to Abimelech as the result of the curse by Jotham. Also, the reference to the place where the lords of Shechem pronounce their curse, reminds one of what happened previously between Abimelech and his brothers. They are gathered “in the house of their god”. This is the same place as the temple from where they had taken the money; the money to support Abimelech, namely the temple of Baal Berith, “lord of the covenant” (v. 4). The fact that they were eating and drinking there together fits very well with the idea that they made a covenant there, because this is a normal way of sealing a covenant (cf. Gen. 26:28–30). 9:28–29 28

29

Gaal,thesonofEbed,said:“WhoisAbimelechandwhoisShechem thatweshouldservehim?IshenotthesonofJerubbaalandZebul hisgovernor?ServethemenofHamor,thefatherofShechem.Why shouldweservehimourselves? Whoshallgivethispeopleinmyhand?IshallremoveAbimelech”. HesaidtoAbimelech:“Makebigyourarmyandgoout”.

282

Judges8:33–9:57

In v. 28 there is a clear wordplay with the name of Gaal’s father Ebed: three times the related verb ‫עבד‬, “to serve”, is used. Both the play with names and repeating a word three times are characteristic of the style of the author of the book of Judges. So, if the assumption that the story about the conflict with Gaal was an originally separate story is correct, it should also be observed that the author presents it in his own words. It is not exactly clear what Gaal is saying here and whom he addresses; especially the reference to Shechem as a person and the imperative ‫ ִע ְבדוּ‬is much discussed (cf. Groß 2009, 514–515). In the LXX the problems are solved by inserting “the son of” before Shechem and by changing the verb into a noun: “And Zeboul his supervisor is his slave along with the men of Hemmor father of Sychem”. Many modern exegetes follow the Greek version, emending the vowels and taking Abimelech as subject: “Did not this son of Jerubbaal and his agent Zebul once serve the men of Hamor, ancestor of Shechem?” (Sasson 2014, 388). The present Hebrew text may be explained (in line with the interpretation by Boling 1963) as a circumstantial way of putting the Shechemites against Abimelech by taking up the argument used by Abimelech to the Shechemites to choose his side; namely that they would be “of the same bone and flesh” (v. 2). Instead, Gaal points out, Abimelech is the son of Jerubbaal and Shechem is represented by Zebul who has taken sides with Abimelech as his governor. So, Abimelech is not a full blood Shechemite and Zebul may be from Shechem, but he betrays his people. Therefore, the people should choose against Abimelech and Zebul and prefer to serve people who are real Shechemites from descent and in behaviour and thus have shown to be the real offspring of Hamor, the father of Shechem. Hamor is presented as the father of Shechem in Gen. 33:19 (cf. also Josh. 24:32). Apparently, the gap in time is considered irrelevant here. What is more important, is that Gaal tells the Shechemites not to look at Abimelech’s mother, but at his father. To this he adds the reference to Zebul. This may be regarded as pointing to the difference in status. Zebul means “prince”, which is in stark contrast with the name of Gaal and his father. The following question in v. 29, “who shall give this people into my hand?” (cf. on this optative formula JM § 163d) is reminiscent of the oft-used phrase that YHWH gave Israel into the hand of some enemy or, the other way around, the enemy into the hand of a saviour. Now Gaal utters the wish that power will be given to him, so that he can deal with Abimelech as the enemy of the people. The rest of the story will clearly show that his wish is not granted. Almost every time we hear of the people (‫)עם‬ ַ it will be the people following Abimelech (cf. vv. 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38), only once does it refer to Gaal’s people (v. 33). After addressing the Shechemites and – indirectly – YHWH, Gaal speaks to Abimelech, challenging him to gather a big army and to “go out”. LXX

Abimelech

283

translates καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ Αβιμελεχ, “and I will say to Abimelech”, which avoids the problem that Gaal would be speaking to someone who is not present. BHKand BHS suggest following the Greek text emending the Hebrew, but this is rejected by BHQ, 78*. Just like the reading in 1QJudg as a plural, LXX should be regarded as an attempt to make the text easier to understand. Within the context of the stories of Gideon and Abimelech, the reference to the big army recalls Gideon’s decimated army and the “going out” to what will follow. In the next verses, the same verb ‫יצא‬, “to go out”, is used many times (vv. 33, 35, 38, 39 42, 43), but never of Abimelech. It shows that Gaal is not successful in his attempt to manipulate his environment. 9:30–33 30 31

32 33

Zebul,thecommanderofthecity,heardthewordsofGaal,theson ofEbed,andhisangerflaredup. He sent messengers to Abimelech in secret, saying: “Look, Gaal, thesonofEbed,andhisbrothershavecometoShechem.Look,they arebesiegingthecityagainstyou. Now,ariseatnight,youandthepeoplewhoarewithyouandliein ambushinthefield. Itwillbeinthemorning,whenthesunrises:youwillrise-upearly andattackthecity.Look,heandthepeoplewhoarewithhimwillbe goingoutagainstyouandyouwilldowithhimwhateveryourhand findstodo”.

In v. 30 we get more information about Zebul. He is “the commander of the city” and can be compared to the commanders of Sukkoth mentioned in 8: 3 and 6. The title ‫ ַשׂר‬is related to the verb ‫ שׂרר‬used in v. 22 to denote Abimelech’s leadership. There does not seem to be much difference in status between Zebul and Abimelech. Zebul acts as Abimelech’s representative and appears to be more loyal to Abimelech than the commanders of Sukkoth had been to his father. He is emotionally involved: “his anger flared up”. The same expression in used of YHWH in 2:14, 20; 3:8; 10:7 (cf. also 6:39) and of Samson in 14:19. 1QJudg adds ‫( מאד‬Vulgate: valde), apparently, to make it more understandable why Zebul acted so treacherously. He must have been very angry. The expression ‫בּ ָת ְר ָמה‬, ְ which is only found here in the Hebrew Bible, is much discussed in the history of research (cf. the overview in BHQ, 78*). It is often interpreted as a place name: “in Tormah”, which may have been another name for Aruma or, emended to ‫רוּמה‬ ָ ‫בּ ָא‬, ‫“ ׇ‬in Aruma”, in line with the place name mentioned in v. 41 (cf. BHS). The ancient Greek translations, however, support the MT. LXX (A) translates μετὰ δώρων, “with gifts”,

284

Judges8:33–9:57

connecting it with ‫רוּמה‬ ָ ‫תּ‬, ְ whereas LXX (B) stays closer to MT with ἐν κρυφῇ, “in secret”, connecting it with ‫רמה‬, “to deceive”. Within the present context, the most likely interpretation is that Zebul secretly informed Abimelech. Wordplay relating Aruma with deceit (cf. Van Midden, 50, n. 217) is unlikely, because Aruma has not yet been mentioned and because there is no clear reason why Aruma should be put in a negative light. Zebul reports to Abimelech what was already related in v. 26; that Gaal and his brothers have come to Shechem. He adds that they are threatening to take over the city, using the verb ‫צור‬. The usual construction is with the preposition ‫על‬, indicating the besieging of the city (cf. Deut. 20:12; 2 Sam. 11:1). Instead of speculating about emending the text (cf. BHQ, 79*), it is better to assume that the verb has a different and uncommon meaning here, which is more in line with the situation; that Gaal is acting against Abimelech from within the city. Zebul’s advice to lay an ambush shows that he uses the same, not so sympathetic, tactics as the lords of Shechem (v. 25): they get what they started in return. 9:34–38 34 35

36

37

38

Abimelech arose and all the people who were with him at night. TheylayinambushagainstShecheminfourcompanies. Gaal,thesonofEbed,wentoutandstoodattheentranceofthegate ofthecity.Abimelecharoseandallthepeoplewhowerewithhim fromtheambush. GaalsawthepeopleandsaidtoZebul:“Look,peoplecomingdown fromthetopsofthemountains”.Zebulsaidtohim:“(Itis)theshadow ofthemountainsthatyouareseeingasmen”. Gaalstillcontinuedtospeakandsaid:“Look,peoplecomingdown from the Navel of the Land and one company is coming from the roadoftheOakoftheSoothsayer”. Zebulsaidtohim:“Wherenowisyour(big)mouththatwassaying: ‘whoisAbimelechthatweshouldservehim?’Isthisnotthepeople whomyourejected?Gooutnowandfightwithit”.

Zebul appears to be the one who is fully in charge. Abimelech follows his advice and, as was predicted by Zebul, Gaal now comes out of the city. Facing a new situation, Gaal also consults Zebul. In his words to the people of Shechem, Gaal had pinned down Zebul as servant of Abimelech but, in this moment of distress, he needs his advice. Contrary to Gaal, Zebul controls the situation and his opponents. He first misleads him, then mocks him, and finally sends him to his demise.

Abimelech

285

Abimelech’s dividing the army into four companies may be seen to be part of the tactics intended to confuse the enemy. It can also be compared to Gideon dividing his troops into three divisions (7:16). In vv. 36–37 the actions of three of these four groups are described. Three times it is reported that they are coming down to the city. Before and after we read of Gaal going out (v. 35) and Zebul urging Gaal to go out (v. 38). This repeated use the verb ‫יצא‬, “to go out”, recalls Gaal’s challenge to Abimelech in v. 29. One may note progress in the threefold observation by Gaal. He first speaks of people coming down with a singular form of the participle (‫יוֹרד‬ ֵ ‫ה־עם‬ ָ ֵ‫ִהנּ‬ in v. 36); in the next verse the participle is in the plural (‫ה־עם יֽ ְוֹר ִדים‬ ָ ֵ‫;הנּ‬ ִ cf. JM § 150e). Also, the place where he sees his opponents becomes more and more threatening. After “the tops of the mountain” (‫אשׁי ֶה ָה ִרים‬ ֵ ‫;מ ָר‬ ֵ v. 36; there seems to be a wordplay with the “companies’, ‫אשׁים‬ ִ ‫ר‬,ָ mentioned in vv. 34 and 37), then follows “the Navel of the Land” and “the Oak of the Soothsayer”. In the history of interpretation several attempts have been made to make sense of the unknown place names (cf. Eshel and Erlich 1988–1989; Gaß 2005, 326–330), without reaching convincing results. The most likely interpretation is that the names suggest a mythical and cultic background, making them more ominous. 9:39–45 39 40 41 42 43

44

45

GaalwentoutinfrontofthelordsofShechemandfoughtagainst Abimelech. Abimelechpursuedhimandhefledfromhisface.Manyfellpierced uptotheentranceofthegate. AbimelechstayedatAruma.ZebuldroveoutGaalandhisbrothers fromdwellinginShechem. It happened on the following day that the people went out to the field.TheytoldAbimelech. He took the people, divided them into three companies and lay in ambushinthefield.Hesawand,look,thepeoplegoingoutfromthe city.Hearoseagainstthemandstruckthem. Abimelechandthecompaniesthatwerewithhimhadattackedand takenastandattheentrancetothegateofthecity.Twocompanies hadattackedallthosewhowereinthefieldandstruckthem. Abimelechwasfightingwiththecityallthatday.Hecapturedthe cityandthepeoplewhowereinithekilled.Hedemolishedthecity andsoweditwithsalt.

Now Gaal finally goes out. According to v. 29 he had challenged Abimelech to go out, but Abimelech had chosen the more cautious approach of waiting

286

Judges8:33–9:57

in ambush. It may be seen to be an indication that Abimelech is characterized as being not very brave. Be this as it may, the fight seems to have been short and one-sided. Abimelech is victorious and Gaal must flee. He leaves the story as abruptly as he entered. The possibility is left open that he is among those who fell at the entrance of the gate (1QJudg and LXX [A] add “of the city”, harmonizing the text with vv. 35 and 44). It is not clear why Abimelech was staying in Aruma and remained there and had chosen not to live in Shechem with his family (cf. v. 9). The location of Aruma is uncertain. It is often identified with Khirbet el-‘Urma, which sounds alike but has the ‘ayin instead of the ’aleph as the first letter (cf. Gaß 2005, 330). It is also possible that Aruma is another example of a name invented by the author, this time indicating Abimelech’s haughtiness. It would relate the place of his residence to the verb ‫רום‬, “to be exalted”, because ‫רוּמה‬ ָ ‫ֲא‬ sounds like ‫ארוּם‬, ָ “I am exalted” (cf. Ps. 46:11), followed by the ending denoting location. Zebul is given the credits of driving out Gaal from Shechem. It makes Abimelech look passive again. Zebul not only makes the plans, but he also executes them. Abimelech does not take the initiative; only reacts secondarily. This is also indicated by the repeated phrase “it was told to Abimelech” in v. 42. It is used also in vv. 25 and 47 in the singular. 1QJudg likewise has the singular here, which, according to BHQ, 80*,has to be preferred as the lectio difficilior, but it is more likely that it should be interpreted as a harmonization with vv. 25 and 47. A similar plural form is found in v. 9 and in 4:12. When Abimelech does act, it is not against enemies coming from outside, like Gaal and his brothers, but against his own people. Now the outsiders have been driven out, Abimelech starts his campaign against the Shechemites. He does this in the way Zebul had suggested to him earlier: by laying an ambush. He also seems inspired by the example of Gideon because, just like his father, he divides his army into three companies (cf. 7:16). In v. 44 the verb changes to a perfect tense, suggesting that it describes an action that has taken place concurrently with the one described in the previous verse (cf. Groß 2009, 520–521). It is also important to note that, for the third time, “the entrance of the gate” is mentioned (cf. vv. 35 and 40), emphasizing the change of situation: Abimelech has taken the place of Gaal. The plural “companies” mentioned at the beginning of the verse is often changed into singular as in some Greek manuscripts (cf. BHQ, 80*), because this is more in line with the reference to the number of three companies mentioned in v. 43. Two companies were out in the field, so there is only one company left to stand at the entrance of the gate. It is also possible, however, to assume that the two companies in the field were part of the companies mentioned at the beginning and that their description was a detail of the attack mentioned first (cf. Van Midden 1998, 52).

Abimelech

287

Compared to the way Gideon had dealt with the opposition of the cities of Succoth and Penuel (cf. 8:16–17), Abimelech shows less mercy. Whereas Gideon did not kill everyone and demolished only part of the cities, Abimelech leaves no one alive and destroys the whole city. He also discourages its rebuilding by making sure that its soils becomes infertile, poisoning it with salt, like Sodom and Gomorra (cf. Deut. 29:23; Ps. 107:34; cf. Fensham 1962 on salt as a curse). Gevirtz 1963 and Gaster 1969, 428–429, note parallels with other stories in the ancient Near East about devastated cities, but the assumption by Gevirtz that the salt denotes purification here is unlikely. There is a sharp contrast with the way Shechem was pictured earlier: the happy city celebrating the rich harvest (cf. vv. 26–27) has been turned into a place of death. 9:46–49 46 47 48

49

All the lords of the tower of Shechem heard (it). They came to the vaultofthehouseofElBerith. ItwasreportedtoAbimelechthatallthelordsofthetowerofShechem hadgathered. AbimelechwentupmountZalmon,heandallthepeoplewhowerewith him.Abimelechtookthetwo-edged-axeinhishand,cutabranchof trees,lifteditupandplaceditonhisshoulder.Hesaidtothepeople whowerewithhim:“Whatyouseemedo,quicklydolikeme”. Alsoallthepeoplecut,amanabranch,andwentafterAbimelech. Theyplaced(them)onthevaultandkindledthevaultoverthem withfire.Also,allthemenofthetowerofShechemdied,about thousandmenandwomen.

Abimelech deals with Shechem in three steps. First, he had to take care of the opposition by Gaal and his brothers (vv. 25–41). Then he took the city, demolished it and killed its inhabitants (vv. 42–45); but apparently there was still a core of resistance left that needed to be suppressed. All three cases are introduced in the same way: by Abimelech being “reported” about the way people have turned against him (vv. 25, 42, 47). One may also note a certain development in the description of the hostilities, as it becomes ever more detailed: from a fight with many dead (vv. 39–40), to a fight with many dead and the destruction of the city (v. 45), to a description of the preparation of the siege, then a description of the fight and a reference to the number of the dead (v. 49). The “tower of Shechem” probably denotes the fortified centre of the city, perhaps the citadel. It can be compared to the tower of Penuel, mentioned in 8:9, as a symbol of power. Also, the temple of El Berith, “El or god of

288

Judges8:33–9:57

the covenant”, was located there. The “lords of the tower of Shechem” (who probably do not have to be distinguished from the previously mentioned “lords of Shechem”) are hiding in the “vault” (‫)צ ִר ַיח‬. ְ It is not clear what precisely was meant with this location. It must have been big, because it had room for thousand people. It seems to point to a location where you can hide sitting low (cf. 1 Sam. 13:6, where it mentioned among other hiding places like caves, thickets, rocks and pits). In general, it probably has to be interpreted as an indication of a closed-in space (cf. Jaroš 1976, 113–115) or a corridor between the inner and outer walls of the temple (cf. Stager 1999). Whether the god related to this temple was the same as Baal Berith in v. 4 is not certain (cf. the discussion by Lewis 1996), but it is possible when we consider that “El” can be used here as a general indication of a deity. It is clear that the bond between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem, sealed with the gift of money from the temple of Baal Berith (v. 4), is completely broken. Mount Zalmon is mentioned only here and cannot be located with certainty. What is clear, however, is that the name sounds ominous: “black mountain” (cf. Sasson 2014, 398, assuming a nickname “Mount Darkish”). It is the place where Abimelech and his people will get the wood required to burn down the tower of Shechem and the people hiding there. The cutting of the wood is described elaborately. It recalls the role of the trees in the fable of Jotham. What happens with Shechem also fulfils the prediction by Jotham that fire would go out from the thorn bush (v. 15). The description also contains wordplay, because the detail that he placed the wood “on his shoulder” (‫ל־שׁ ְכמוֹ‬ ִ ‫)ע‬ ַ seems to have been added primarily because of the association with the name of Shechem. There is also a parallel to the command by Abimelech (“What you see me do, quickly do like me”) with that of Gideon in 7:17. On the other hand, this parallel emphasizes the difference: whereas Gideon was giving a good example in preparation for the fight liberating the Israelites from Midian, Abimelech leads his people in the killing of other Israelites. 9:50–55 50 51

52 53

Abimelech went to Thebez. He encamped against Thebez and capturedit. Atowerwasthere,inthemiddleofthecity.Thereallthemenand womenandallthelordsofthecityfled.Theyshutthemselvesinand wentuptotheroofofthetower. Abimelechcameuptothetowerandfoughtagainstit.Heapproached theentranceofthetowertoburnitwithfire. OnewomanthrewanuppermillstoneontheheadofAbimelechand crushedhisskull.

Abimelech 54

55

289

Quicklyhecalledtotheboywhowascarryinghisweapons.Hesaid tohim:“Drawyourswordandputmetodeath,lesttheysayabout me:‘Awomanhaskilledhim’”.Hisboypiercedhimandhedied. The men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead. They went, each mantohisplace.

It is not clear why Abimelech also had to turn against the city of Thebez. We must assume that the people of Thebez had joined the Shechemites in opposing Abimelech. The location of Thebez is unknown. There is no reason to assume that the name was made up, as was suggested above, with regard to the name of Abimelech’s residence Aruma. In Hebrew, the name does not call up any relevant association. Moreover, the report of the special death of Abimelech at this place appears to be based on an old tradition, which is also mentioned in 2 Sam. 11:21. The only difference is that there Abimelech is called the son of Jerubbeshet, probably replacing the reference to the god Baal, in the second part of the name of his father Jerubbaal, with the Hebrew word for “shame”. As was pointed out in the introduction to chapters 6–8, the story explaining the name Jerubbaal in 6:32 and the identification of Jerubbaal with Gideon probably represent later stages in the history of the tradition. Like the stories about Gaal and the burning of Shechem, the story about Abimelech’s death at Thebez seems to belong to the old stories on which the author of the book of Judges based his retelling of the pre-monarchic period of the history of Israel. The story of the fight with Thebez has many parallels with the previous story about Shechem; they both tell of Abimelech capturing (‫ )לכד‬the city (vv. 45 and 50), the “lords of the city” fleeing to a tower, and Abimelech trying to burn down the tower. The difference is that the people of Thebez do not go into an enclosed space of the tower like the people of Shechem (cf. v. 46), but to the roof of the building, enabling them to fight back. From there, a woman manages to stop Abimelech by throwing down an upper millstone which crushes his skull. The Hebrew text emphasizes that it is just “one” woman through the uncommon used of ‫( אחד‬cf. JM § 137u). This links her to the “one man” in 9:2, who had killed his brothers on “one stone” (9:5). He is now killed by one woman with another stone (cf. Fokkelman 1992, 39; Sasson 2014, 399). In the history of interpretation, this millstone has often been misunderstood as one of the two big circular stones between which grain is ground as in a mill, for which one had to use livestock, like a donkey, to move it. We should think, however, of the much smaller upper millstone, which was used in every household to grind the daily grain (cf. Herr and Boyd 2002). It does not need “extraordinary strength” (as suggested by Block 1999, 333), or to cut it in two (Targum and Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B.37:5 refer to “half a

290

Judges8:33–9:57

millstone”) to pick it up and throw it down from a roof. Her “weapon” may be compared to the one used by another woman in a previous story; namely the peg and hammer used by Jael to kill Siserah (see on this and other connections between chapters 4 and 9 also Eder 2018, 77–79). This time it is the Israelite leader who suffers this humiliation. The fact that Abimelech’s death is caused (not completely but for the biggest part) by a stone object on his head is also the counterpart of the way Abimelech had killed his brothers, namely by beheading them on one stone (v. 5), although in the Hebrew text, different words are used (cf. Boogaart 1985; Janzen 1987; the comparison is also made in Tanhuma Buber Wayyera 4.28; cf. Assis 2005, 169, n. 65). Finally, one can note a parallel with the role of the boy (‫ )נַ ַער‬in the story of Gideon asking his youngest son to kill the two Midianite prisoners. His son does not do what he was told, “because he was only a boy” (8:20). The boy serving Abimelech did not flinch from killing his master. One might also compare the story about the death of Saul. Under attack of the Philistines Saul asks his armourbearer to draw his sword and pierce him, but eventually he must kill himself in order to take the opportunity from the enemy to boast over his death (1 Sam. 31:4). A Greek parallel can be found in the story by the Greek writer Plutarch about the death of Pyrrhus of Epirus, a general of Alexander the Great, during the attack against the city of Argos: a woman watching (from the roof) her son in combat with Pyrrhus, threw a tile on his head, wounding him so that he could be captured and decapitated (Pyrrhus 34; cf. O’Connor 1986, 288). The people surrounding Abimelech are not described anymore as the people (‫)עם‬ ַ with him (vv. 43–49) or the “lords of Shechem”, but are indicated more generally as “the men of Israel” (‫אישׁ־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ִ a collective, cf. JM § 150e). The same expression was used in 7:8 of the Israelites leaving the army of Gideon and, even more interestingly, in 8:22 of the people offering hereditary leadership to Gideon and his offspring. They now have learned their lesson, because they do not look for someone to succeed Abimelech. Apparently, there is no regret that there is no son of Abimelech to follow in the footsteps of his father. 9:56–57 56 57

GodreturnedtheevilofAbimelechthathehaddonetohisfather bykillinghisseventybrothers andalltheevilofthemenofShechemGodreturnedontheirhead. OverthemcamethecurseofJotham,thesonofJerubbaal.

In the concluding remarks, once-again all major players of the story are mentioned. It presents God (as in the rest of the story, the name of YHWH

Abimelech

291

is not used) as the one who steered everything, so that justice prevailed. The role of God is emphasized by the chiastic structure: the verb ‫ שׁוב‬+ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֱא‬ used at the beginning is repeated at the end, enclosing the “evil of Abimelech” and the “evil of the men of Shechem”. This conclusion shows that in fact God has acted as the judge who reacts against the evil of both Abimelech and the men of Shechem. In other stories, the sins of the Israelites are presented as “doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH”. In the story of Abimelech, it is presented as the evil that he, together with the Shechemites, has done to his father. God’s acts are presented as the power invoked by the curse of Jotham. His prediction in v. 20 was not explicitly called a curse, but the fact that it was spoken from mount Gerizim certainly evokes this association. As was remarked above, the Gerizim is known as the mount of blessing, as counterpart of Ebal as the mount of the curse. According to v. 19, Jotham left open the possibility that Abimelech would be a blessing to Shechem but it was clear from the outset that the opposite was true (cf. also the conclusion by Oeste 2011, 114: “the form of Jotham’s speech in Judg. 9:19–20 has similarities with the form of covenant blessings and curses. On this basis, the narrator of Judg. 9 may have proceeded to interpret Jotham’s speech as an implied curse”). We must assume that part of the curse is that Abimelech did not receive a proper burial, just as the men of Shechem, who had been burned to ashes by the one they had made their king. The other stories about saviours and judges all ended with a reference to a long period of rest for Israel (3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28). It appears that this had stopped after Gideon. Abimelech had not been able to bring about a period of rest for his people; quite the opposite! In this respect his story foreshadows those of Jephthah and Samson. The story of the migration of the tribe of Dan even describes the opposite situation: of Israelites disturbing the “quiet and secure” life of Laish (cf. 18:7, 27). The story of Abimelech is also part of the ongoing process of internal conflict. Gideon was able to prevent an inner-Israelite fight with the Ephraimites (8:1–3), but could not convince the cities of Succoth and Penuel to choose his side and punished them severely for that (8:4-17). Whereas Succoth and Penuel were located east of the Jordan, Abimelech’s conflict with the Shechemites brought civil war to the heartland of Israel, foreshadowing even worse things in the next chapters.

JUDGES 10:1–5

TOLA AND JAIR

TRANSLATION 1 2 3 4

5

AfterAbimelecharosetodeliverIsraelTola,thesonofPua,theson ofDodo,amanofIssachar.HedwelledinShamir,inmountEphraim. He judged Israel for twenty-three years. He died and was buried in Shamir. After him arose Jair, the Gileadite. He judged Israel for twenty-two years. He had thirty sons riding on thirty male donkeys. Thirty cities they had. Them they call villages of Jair until this day, which are in the landofGilead. JairdiedandwasburiedinCamon.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Alt, Die Ursprünge des Israelitischen Rechts, Leipzig 1934 (reprinted in: idem, KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsrael. Vol. 1, München 1953, 278–332); J.M.G. Barclay, Against Apion (Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary, vol. 10), Leiden 2007; B. Beem, “The Minor Judges: A Literary Reading of Some Very Short Stories”, in: K.L. Younger etal. (eds), TheBiblicalCanoninComparativePerspective:ScriptureinContextIV, Lewiston 1991, 147–172;C.T. Begg, “The Minor Judges according to Josephus in comparison with the Bible, Pseudo-Philo and the ‘Samaritan Chronicle No. II’”, BN 133 (2007), 9–22; F.C. Fensham, “The Judges and Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence”, OTWSAP 2 (1959), 15–22; O. Grether, “Die Bezeichnung ‘Richter’ für die charismatischen Helden der vorstaatlichen Zeit”, ZAW57(1939), 110–121; P. Guillaume, “From a Post-monarchical to the Pre-monarchical Period of the Judges”, BN 113 (2002), 12–17; A.J. Hauser, “The ‘Minor Judges’ – A Re-Evaluation”, JBL 94 (1975), 190–200; H.W. Hertzberg, “Die Entwicklung des Begriffes ‫ משפט‬im AT”, ZAW40 (1922), 256–287; 41 (1923), 16– 76; idem, “Die kleinen Richter”, ThLZ79 (1954), 285–290; J. Hollenberg, “Zur Textkritik des Buches Josua und des Buches der Richter”, ZAW1 (1881), 97–105; T. Ishida, “The Leaders of the Tribal Leagues ‘Israel’ in the Pre-Monarchic Period”, RB 80 (1973) 514–530 (slightly revised version in: idem, HistoryandHistoricalWritingin AncientIsrael.StudiesinBiblicalHistoriography, Leiden 1999, 36–56); N.P. Lemche, “The Judges – Once More”, BN20 (1983), 27–55; D.A. McKenzie, “The Judge of Israel”, VT 17 (1967), 118–121; P. Mommer, Samuel:GeschichteundÜberlieferung (WMANT 65), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991; J.C. de Moor, “Jerusalem: Nightmare and Daydream in Micah”, in: M.C.A. Korpel, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Open-Mindednessinthe BibleandBeyond(Fs Becking; LHB/OTS 616), London 2015, 191–213; N. Moskowitz,

TolaandJair

293

“Tola the Judge: A New Midrashic Analysis”, JBQ 43 (2015), 17–21; E. Th. Mullen, “The ‘Minor Judges’: Some Literary and Historical Considerations”, CBQ 44 (1982), 185–201; R.D. Nelson, “Ideology, Geography, and the List of Minor Judges”, JSOT 31 (2007), 347–364; M. Noth, “Das Amt des ‘Richters Israels’”, in: W. Baumgartner etal. (eds), FestschriftAlfredBertholet, Tübingen 1950, 404–417 (reprinted in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II, München 1969, 71–85); W. Richter, “Zu den ‘Richtern Israels’”, ZAW77 (1965), 40–72; H.N. Rösel, “Jephtah und das Problem der Richter”, Bib61 (1980), 251–255; “Die ‘Richter Israels’: Rückblick und neuer Ansatz”, BZ25 (1981), 180–203; A. Scherer, “Die ‘kleinen’ Richter und ihre Funktion’, ZAW 119 (2007), 190–200; K.-D. Schunck, “Die Richter Israels und ihr Amt”, in: G.W. Anderson etal. (eds), VolumeducongrèsGenève1965 (SVT 15), Leiden 1966, 252–262; “Falsche Richter im Richterbuch”, in: Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (Fs Herrmann), Stuttgart 1991, 364–370 (reprinted in: idem, AltesTestamentundHeiligesLand.GesammelteStudien, Frankfurt am Main 2002, 19–25); A. van Selms, “The Title ‘Judge’”, OTWSAP 2 (1959), 41–50; J.A Soggin, “Das Amt der ‘kleinen Richter’ in Israel”, VT 30 (1980), 245– 248; M. Tsevat, “Two Old Testament Stories and their Hittite Analogues”, JAOS103 (1983), 321–326; Z. Weisman, “Charismatic Leaders in the Era of the Judges”, ZAW 89 (1977), 399–411.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES Together with Ibsan, Elon and Abdon (12:8–15) and often also with Shamgar (3:31), Tola and Jair are usually referred to as the “minor judges”, because compared to the other judges (and saviours) they are given relatively little attention. This does not hold true for the retelling of the book of Judges in Pseudo-Philo’s L.A.B. The whole chapter 38 is devoted to a story about Jair building an altar for Baal and pressing the people to bring sacrifices there. Jair is punished by an angel who burns Jair. This contrasts sharply with the way Jair together with Tola is pictured in Judg. 10. After the period of bad leadership by Abimelech, lasting only a few years, but with much turmoil, now follows a long period in which judges apparently did their job well. As they stayed in their function and prospered in their personal life, so Israel must have had a time of well-being. Of Tola it is not only reported that he judged Israel but also that he delivered his people and that he did this after Abimelech. It underlines the contrast with his predecessor and relates him to Gideon. The basic information about Jair concerns his numerous offspring. This contrasts with the following story about Jephthah who only had one child.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS In modern research much attention is given to the question about the relation between the elaborate stories of “major judges” and the very little information given about “minor judges” (cf. the survey by Rösel 1981). There is

294

Judges10:1–5

hardly any doubt about it that this points to the use of different sources, but there is much difference of opinion when it comes to the relation of these sources and to the question about the historical reality behind these sources. For a long time it was communisopiniothat the lists of the “minor judges” in 10:1–5 and 12:8–15 were added in a late Deuteronomistic redaction to the original six “major judges” in order to make a full dozen and to create a fitting chronology (cf. Moore 1895, xxviii; Wellhausen 1899, 212–213; Burney 1920, xxxvii). A new element was brought in to the discussion by Alt who assumed a distinction between the charismatic leadership of the “major judges” and the institutional leadership of the “minor judges” (Alt 1934, 30–33). This was taken up by Noth in a study published in 1950, in which he tried to prove that the “minor judges”, including Jephthah, were officials of the amphictyony: a tribal league in the period before the monarchy united around a cultic centre. This would also mean that the tradition used by the Deuteronomistic author refers to a historical reality. The Deuteronomist must have combined the list with the stories of the charismatic leaders, turning them into judges as well. This was furthered by the fact that Jephthah figured in both traditions. In the history of research it was already early noted that Jephthah can be regarded both as a “major” and as a “minor” judge (because of the characteristic formulas of the “minor judges” at the close of his story in 12:7; cf. Moore 1895, xxix, referring to Kuenen). “Nun hat aber erst die Tatsache, daß die beiden von Dtr benutzten Überlieferungsreihen in der Person des Jephthah sich schnitten, diesem die Veranlassung gegeben, auch die im Mittelpunkt der großen Erzählungen stehenden Helden als ‘Richter’ zu bezeichnen” (Noth 1943, 49). The Deuteronomist would have done something similar with Samuel who is introduced in 1 Sam. 7:2–17 “als ‘Richter’ im Sinne des Richterbuches” (Noth 1943, 55). In line with Noth, Mommer states: “Der Grundbestand von 1 Sam 7,15-17a;25,1 gehörte einmal zu der Liste der sogenannten ‘kleinen Richter’, wie sie im Richterbuch überliefert ist” (Mommer 1991, 47). Although the theory of a tribal league was soon abandoned, the assumption of a distinction between charismatic and institutional leadership, more or less coinciding with the distinction between “major” and “minor judges” became dominant. It was also accepted by Herzberg, who nevertheless made an attempt to reconstruct a full list of twelve judges. This would have included, next to Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abon, and Jephthah, also Otniel, Deborah, Abimelech (later replaced by Shamgar), Gideon, Samuel, and probably also Eli (Herzberg 1953, 208–210; Hertzberg 1954). This suggests that the difference between these leaders would have been not so big after all. Much attention is paid to the meaning in this framework of the verb ‫שׁפט‬. Noth relates it to the way the work of an Israelite judge is described in Deut. 17:8–13: “Er hatte besonders schwierige Fälle der Rechtsfindung zu entscheiden, und zwar auch auf dem Gebiete alltäglicher Rechtsstreitigkeiten,

TolaandJair

295

das eben auch mit in den Bereich des israelitischen Gottesrecht hineingehörte” (Noth 1950, 417). Alt saw a parallel with the Islandic “Gesetzsprecher” mentioned in medieval histories “dessen eigentliche Aufgabe es war (…) der versammelten Volksgemeinde einen Teil des im Jahre 930 von Norwegen her übernommenen, allmählich umgebildeten Landrechts mündlich vorzutragen, und der außerdem je nach Bedarf in streitigen Rechtsfällen zur Auskunftserteilung herangezogen werden konnte” (Alt 1934, 32). Other scholars point to the possibility that ‫ שׁפט‬can also have the meaning of “to rule”. Hertzberg started his big study on the development of the term ‫משׁפט‬ in the Old Testament with the statement: “Für das Verbum ‫ שפט‬sind zwei Sinnmöglichkeiten als ursprünglich erkennbar. Die eine läßt sich am einfachsten kennzeichnen durch das Wort ‘regieren’” (Hertzberg 1922, 256). He refers here among others to the use of ‫ שׁפט‬in the book of Judges and assumes that judging was an element of the work of the rulers denoted with this word (Hertzberg 1922, 258). This was disputed by Grether (1939), who finds no conclusive evidence for the meaning “to rule” in Hebrew and related languages and is more convinced by Alt’s interpretation as “Gesetzsprecher”. Also McKenzie (1967) wants to stick to the judicial meaning. Meanwhile, however, Fensham (1959) had argued strongly in favour of the double meaning of ‫ שׁפט‬on the basis of the use of the related verb in Akkadian (especially in texts from Mari), Ugaritic, and Phoenician. This also led him to the conclusion that there was no basic difference between the function of the “major” and the “minor judges”. In an article published in the same volume, Van Selms agrees with Fensham with regard to the meaning of the verb. He emphasizes the parallel with the Phoenician functionaries called šfṭm in Tyre and later Carthage. He assumes that the writer of the book of Judges used this title “to describe a pre-kingship phenomenon (…) he made use of a word which in reality was only partly applicable on the situation he wanted to sketch, but which was clear to his readers because in their surroundings this title indicated an office which was to be distinguished from kingship” (Van Selms 1959, 49). This interpretation of ‫שׁפט‬, meaning both “to judge” and “to lead” was widely accepted (cf. Niehr, ThWATVIII, 408–428). Also Richter bases his interpretation of the verb mainly on this extrabiblical material. Contrary to Noth he does not connect the list of “minor judges” to a tribal league, but assumes that the function was more local: “Es sind aus der Stadt oder den Stämmen stammende, zur zivilen Verwaltung und Rechtsprechung über eine Stadt und einen entsprechenden Landbezirk von den (Stammes-)Ältesten eingesetzte Vertreter einer Ordnung im Übergang von der Tribal- zur Stadt-Verfassung” (Richter 1965, 71). Schunck assumes, following Noth, that the leaders described in the book of Judges had “die Funktion eines obersten Richters, der in letzter Instanz entschied” (Schunck 1966, 259) and also functioned as a military leader. He assumes a historical reality, although Otniel, Deborah, Tola, Jair, Samson, and Eli were

296

Judges10:1–5

probably “nur Füllfiguren in der Richterliste” (Schunck 1966, 257). More in line with Hertzberg and less with Noth, Schunck does not strictly distinguish between different functions for the “major” and “minor judges”. Similar views can be found in the studies of Kaufmann (in his commentary of 1968; cf. Rösel 1981, 187–189), Malamat (1976, 152–153), Ishida (1973 and 1999), and Hauser (1975). Weisman suggests “that the failure of Abimelech to establish a monarchy in Shechem (…) impelled the Israelites to look for an original political system corresponding to their need for greater centralization of power” (Weisman 1977, 410). Tola would have been the first functionary replacing the former charismatic saviours. Also Rösel is of the opinion that the roles of the “major” and “minor judges” are “grundsätzlich verschieden” (Rösel 1980, 254). He finds them combined with Jephthah. In his negotiations with the elders in 11:4–11, Jephthah asks not only to become their ‫רֹאשׁ‬, a military leader (v. 8), but next to that he also becomes their ‫ק ִצין‬,ָ their chief. According to Rösel the former must be related to the function of “major judges” and the latter to that of the “minor judges”. In recent studies there is a growing doubt about the historical reliability of the report about the “minor judges”. Soggin assumes that the details about these judges are trustworthy, because they can be compared to the chronology of the books of Kings and also to Mesopotamian eponyms and lists of Roman consuls (Soggin 1980, 247), but Lemche maintains “that it is irrational to believe that we in the Book of Judges find historical documents in the proper sense of the word” (Lemche 1983, 51). These narratives would not have been intended to write a history of Israel but to warn the people against the danger of venerating foreign gods. According to Mullen “the literary presentation of the ‘major’ judges and the ‘minor’ judges (…) reflect only a difference in literary purpose and not a difference in office” (Mullen 1982, 201). By framing the story of Jephthah, the lists of the “minor judges” focus the attention of the reader to this critical story as the centre of the book of Judges. According to Beem (1991) their literary function was to pave the way to regulated strong leadership. Guillaume assumes that the list of “minor judges” draws on ancient material, perhaps inspired by Hittite stories (cf. Tsevat 1983), that was used to invent “a kind of golden age rather than offering a realistic description of the political system in Israel during the pre-monarchical period” (Guillaume 2002, 13). Scherer (2007) agrees that within the present literary context the stories of the “minor judges” were intended to present the pre-monarchical period as time of order and prosperity, but he is more confident that they also go back to a historical reality and that this was probably best described in the way Samuel was pictured as a judge in 1 Sam. 7. This can, again, be contrasted to the view of Müller who assumes that the list of “minor judges” was composed by the redactor for its present context by analogy with the royal

TolaandJair

297

annals, thus presenting them as mighty and wealthy leaders. “Bei der Interpretation des Begriffes ‫ שפט‬im Rahmen der Richterliste muß v. a. vorschnelle Historisierung vermieden werden. Deutlich ist zunächst nur, daß das Bild der kleinen Richter in wesentlichen Punkten in Anlehnung an einige über das Alte Testament verstreute Züge des Königtums entworfen ist” (Müller 2004, 63). According to Müller it was meant to attribute to a positive view on kingship. Nelson (2007) is also of the opinion that the list of “minor judges” was a scribal construction, but he assumes an anti-monarchic motive. These judges would have been portrayed positively in order to show that for good leadership no kings were needed. The verb ‫ שׁפט‬would have been used to indicate that they ruled Israel but not reigned as king, avoiding the verb ‫ מלך‬and also ‫( משׁל‬denoting hereditary rule offered to Gideon in 8:22–23) and ‫( שׁרר‬used for Abimelech in 9:2, 22). According to Nelson the phrase that they “judged Israel”, “need not suggest any sort of intertribal league or national institution or office (cf. the ‘elders of Israel’ in 1 Sam. 4.3; 8.4). Notices about Deborah (Judg. 4.4–5) and Samuel (1 Sam. 7.15–17) suggest that early readers could picture someone judging ‘Israel’ while restricted to a narrow geographical area” (Nelson 2007, 353). Here Nelson distances himself from the theories of Alt and Noth. The reference to the use of the verb ‫ שׁפט‬in the stories of Deborah and Samuel is problematic. Elsewhere, Nelson notes that, on the basis of 1 Sam. 7:15–17; 25:1, Samuel may have been part of the list of the “minor judges” (Nelson 2007, 353, n. 8; Nelson 2017, 203). He also assumes that the Deuteronomistic author adopted the phrase “judged Israel” and also the concept of leadership from the list of “minor judges” and applied it to the other leaders mentioned in the book (Nelson 2017, 205). This means that within his theory the use of the verb ‫ שׁפט‬in 4:4–5 and 1 Sam. 7 is dependent on the use of the assumed list of “minor judges” and cannot be used as an argument in the explanation of the special meaning of this verb. This survey of recent research on the “minor judges” shows that little is left of the consensus which for some decades was built on the theory of Alt, elaborated by Noth and adapted by Richter. The suggestions by Nelson indicate that the key to the possible solution of the problems about the use of the verb ‫ שׁפט‬and the relation between the “minor judges” and the other leaders in this book may be found in the way the list of the “minor judges” is related to the description of Samuel in 1 Sam. 7. As was noted in the remarks above to the story of Deborah, the way she is presented in 4:4–5 seems to be inspired by the way Samuel is pictured in 1 Sam. 7. It is one of the many instances which indicate that the book of Judges in its present form seems to have been meant as an introduction to the stories of the kings in the books of Samuel and Kings. When it is said of Tola and the other “minor judges” that they “judged Israel”, this probably also has to be interpreted in the same way

298

Judges10:1–5

as this phrase is used of Samuel in 1 Sam. 7:6, 15–17. It is not likely, as suggested by Nelson, that 10:1–5 and 12:8–15 were made up by the author. The peculiar details rather point to an existing list of a sequence of judges. With Richter and Nelson many scholars assume a parallel with lists of kings. However, we do not have examples of such lists in the Hebrew Bible. An existing parallel may be found in the list of “mighty men” (‫ֵא ֶלּה ְשׁמוֹת‬ ‫)הגִּ בּ ִֹרים‬ ַ in 2 Sam. 23:8–39. Already in the comments to the short story about Shamgar in 3:31 it was suggested that information of this list may have been used by the author of the book of Judges. It is also remarkable and probably no coincidence that we find in both lists a reference to a “son of Dodo” (Judg. 10:1; 2 Sam. 23:9; cf. also v. 24). The enumeration of judges in 10:1–5 and 12:8–15 looks in more than one way related to the list in 2 Sam. 23. In both lists the different members are connected with the preposition ‫א ַחר‬, ַ “after” (2 Sam. 23:9, 11; Judg. 10:1, 3; 12:8, 11, 13). Both lists combine short personal information with short stories. In 2 Sam. 23 we also find longer stories, followed again by lapidary information. Something similar is found in the book of Judges where, after the few verses on Tola and Jair follows the elaborate story of Jephthah, which is followed again by the few verses on another three judges. This makes it all the more interesting that the story of Jephthah ends in the same way as the sections on the surrounding “minor” judges: with a note on his death and his burial (12:7). The original list, which seems to have been used by the author of the book of Judges, may have also contained more elaborate information about Jephthah. The play with names (see the remarks below on Shamir, Jair) and the returning notion of the increasing number of offspring (emphasizing the contrast to the lack thereof with Jephthah and Manoah) indicate that this list was adapted when it was incorporated within its present context. A parallel of a list of judges is found in Josephus’ description of the history of Tyre after the campaign of Nebukadnezzar (cf. Van Selms 1959, 46–47; Guillaume 2002, 13–14): I shall add the Phoenician records as well — for one must not pass over the abundance of proofs. The calculation of dates goes like this. In the reign of king Ithobalos, Naboukodrosoros besieged Tyre for 13 years. After him Baal reigned for 10 years. Thereafter judges were appointed: Ednibalos, son of Baslechos, was judge for 2 months, Chelbes, son of Abdaeos, for 10 months, Abbalos, the high-priest, for 3 months; Myttynos and Gerastartos, son of Abdelimos, were judges for 6 years, after whom Balatoros was king for 1 year. When he died they sent for Merbalos and summoned him from Babylon, and he reigned for 4 years; when he died they summoned his brother Eiromos, who reigned for 20 years. It was during his reign that Cyrus became ruler of the Persians. So the whole period is 54 years, with 3 months in addition (Josephus, Against Apion 1, 155–159; translation Barclay 2007, 89–90).

Not only do we find here a list of judges and the periods of their activity, we also come across the interesting element of their relation to kingship.

TolaandJair

299

Apparently, they were appointed to govern the city in the absence of a king. The same phenomenon can be observed in 2 Kgs 15:5, where it is told of Jotham that he replaced his father, king Azariah, as “judge of the people of the land.” Also the (according to Noth 1950, 404–405, incomprehensible) reference to “the judges of Israel” in Mic. 4:14, can be interpreted in this way: as a reference to king Pekah who was demoted by Tiglath-Pileser to the “status of a petty ruler” (cf. De Moor 2015, 195). Absalom’s aspirations to become king instead of his father David by acting as a good judge (2 Sam. 15:1–6), point in the same direction. All this fits well in the theory defended in this commentary that the judges are presented as foreshadowing the later kings. The date of the assumed Phoenician parallel and the fact that this information was still available to Josephus can be regarded as another argument in favour of dating the present form of the book of Judges in the Hellenistic period. It can be assumed that the author used sources like the list of mighty men in 2 Sam. 23 and a list of judges as the one from Tyre to sketch a situation before the first kings of Israel in which the heroes already performed the tasks of kings without having the status of a king. As was remarked in the comments on 9:2 also the reference to “the lords of Shechem” can be related to a Phoenician title of a functionary. The use of the verb ‫ שׁפט‬indicates that the leaders did their job well. It is exactly what the people asked Samuel for when they asked for a king “to judge us” (1 Sam. 8:5). This is also something a good king is praised for (Ps. 72:4) and what a good king is focussed on (1 Kgs 3:9). In the book of Judges the use of ‫ שׁפט‬was probably inspired by a list of judges and then used in strategic places in the rest of the book: in the introduction (2:16–19), with the first and ideal leader Otniel (3:10), with Deborah as the leader who looks most like Samuel (4:4), with the judges following the worst leader Abimelech, beginning with Tola (10:2) and ending with Samson (16:31). The author combined and probably also adapted his sources by relating them on thematic grounds. It is certainly no coincidence that after Jair with his thirty sons follows the story of Jephthah losing his only child and that the story of the childless Manoah (13:2) is preceded by the reference to Abdon who had forty sons and thirty grandsons. SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS 10:1–2 1 2

AfterAbimelecharosetodeliverIsraelTola,thesonofPua,theson ofDodo,amanofIssachar.HedwelledinShamir,inmountEphraim. He judged Israel for twenty-three years. He died and was buried in Shamir.

300

Judges10:1–5

What is told in the first verse fits almost exactly to the announcement made in 2:16, that YHWH would raise a judge to deliver Israel. The same words are used here, but with an important difference: there is no reference to an initiative by YHWH. The subject of the verb ‫ קום‬is not in the hiphil, but in the qal,with Tola as subject (the Lucianic version of the LXX suggests that also in 10:1 YHWH is the subject). Even more remarkable is the fact that no enemy is mentioned, nor any sinful action of the Israelites as the cause of the trouble the judge has to solve. This puts the introductory phrase “after Abimelech” in a very negative light. Abimelech can be seen as responsible for the fact that Tola has to act as a deliverer. This is further underlined by the fact that the next in line, Jair, is also introduced as coming “after” his predecessor, but without speaking of any kind of deliverance. Also in 3:31 the introduction of Shamgar was connected with the previous text by ‫וְ ַא ֲח ָריו‬, that is, without mentioning his predecessor Ehud by name. The difference in the use of the verb ‫קום‬, leaving out a reference to divine interference, points to a more institutional background of Tola and the following judges than the previous stories about saviours like Ehud and Gideon. As indicated in the introduction to the exegesis, it can be compared to the list of warriors (‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ )גּ‬mentioned in 2 Sam. 23:8–39. An existing list of judges seems to have been taken up and adapted. An important element of this adaptation probably was the emphasis on the theme of offspring. This is introduced here by the reference to the ancestry of Tola. This is the first time this happens in the book of Judges and so it catches the attention. Mentioning the three generations it looks backwards in time. In the description of the following judges the sight is reversed to the future: to the future generations (cf. Nelson 2007, 357). First the sons of Jair (10:3) and sons and daughters of Ibsan (12:9) and finally to the sons and grandsons of Abdon (12:14). The name Tola can be translated as “worm” and can be compared to other animal names in the book of Judges like Deborah, Jael, and Eglon. The word ‫תּוֹלע‬ ָ is used in Job 25:6; Ps. 22:7; Isa. 41:14 to denote man’s littleness. As such it stands in contrast with the name of Abimelech, “my father is king”. According to Midrashha-Gadol the name indicates that the members of the tribe of Issachar rely on the wisdom of their mouths, that is, their Torah scholarship, just as a worm only has its mouth and no limbs (Moskowitz 2015, 20). In the same midrash, the name of his father, Pua, is associated with a plant from which a red dye was obtained (cf. also Moore 1895, 273): just as this plant colours everything, so does the tribe of Issachar cover the world with Torah. The names Tola and Pua are also mentioned in connection with Issachar in Gen. 46:13 and Num. 26:23, be it as brothers and not as son and father. In Num. 26:23–24 they are mentioned together

TolaandJair

301

with Jashub and Shimron (cf. for the latter also Gen. 46:13). These names return indirectly in the verb and in the place-name in the phrase in Judg. 10:1 ‫וְ הוּא־י ֵֹשׁב ְבּ ָשׁ ִמיר‬, “he dwelt in Shamir”. It indicates that Judg. 10 is dependent here on the list in the book of Numbers. LXX translates ‫ ֶבּן־דּוֹדוֹ‬with υἱὸς πατραδέλφου, “son of his father’s brother”, relating the name Dodo to the word ‫דּוֹד‬, “father’s brother” (also in some Targumic reading; cf. Smelik 1995, 534). This suggests that the Greek translator may have taken Pua as the uncle of Abimelech (cf. Kabiersch etal. 2011, 685; Harlé 1999, 177–178, even translates the LXX here as “Phoua,fils del’onclepaternald’Abimelekh”). In the Lucianic recension this uncle is called by name: Kareah (cf. 2 Kgs 25:23; Jer. 40:8). According to Hollenberg 1881, 105, this represents the original text, because it is difficult to explain why this name would have been added by the translator. It is more likely, however, to see this (with BHQ, 81*) as an attempt by the translator to make sense of the reference in this verse to Issachar. This seems to be in contrast to Abimelech belonging to Manasseh. In the translation this problem is solved by replacing the reference to Issachar by a name which sounds like the last part of Issachar. The tribe of Issachar was mentioned favourably in 5:15 as the tribe that seems to have set an example to the other tribes in following Deborah and Barak in the battle against the Canaanites. As was remarked above the reference to a place called Shamir probably was inspired by Num. 26:24, which would also explain why it cannot be located. LXX (A) “solves” the problem by “translating” Samaria. Also the reference to “mount Ephraim” may have a special meaning here. This is not part of the territory of the tribe of Issachar which is located more to the north. It calls forth associations with other men coming from mount Ephraim, mentioned in the introduction to a new episode in the book of Judges, in 17:1 and 19:1. It was also mentioned in 2:9 as the region where Joshua was buried, in 3:27 as the place from which Ehud called up the Israelites, in 7:24 where Gideon did the same, and in 4:5 as the region where Deborah lived. It can, therefore, be regarded as the heart of the land of Israel in a period in which there was no capital. With Tola and the other “minor judges” only the years of tenure are mentioned and not, as with the “major judges” and saviours, years of oppression by the enemy and years of rest after the delivery from these enemies. The number twenty-three gives the impression that we are not dealing with a symbolic number as with Othniel, Ehud, Barak/Deborah, and Gideon, although it can be noted that the total number of years of the “minor judges”, except Jephthah, is 23 + 22 + 7 + 10 + 8 = 70 years (cf. Moore 1895, 271; Wellhausen 1899, 212). Within the present context such a play with numbers does not seem to make sense. It may have had a function, though, in the original

302

Judges10:1–5

list used by the author of the book. Note also the seventy asses owned by the descendants of Abdon (12:14) and the fact that the number thirty is used seven times in total in the stories of the “minor judges”: three times in 10:4, also three times in 12:9, and once in 12:14. This may be no coincidence (cf. Tsevat 1983, 324). 10:3–5 3 4

5

After him arose Jair, the Gileadite. He judged Israel for twenty-two years. He had thirty sons riding on thirty male donkeys. Thirty cities they had. Them they call villages of Jair until this day, which are in the landofGilead. JairdiedandwasburiedinCamon.

Jair is less explicitly connected to his predecessor, because Tola is not mentioned by name as was Abimelech in 10:1. Another difference compared to the information given about Tola is, that no attention is given to Jair’s ancestry. Instead, the emphasis is on his progeny: he has no less than thirty sons. This is in common with what will be told about Ibsan in 12:9, be it that there a next step is made in an ongoing line regarding the offspring, adding thirty daughters to the total number of children. As was mentioned above, the number thirty is used seven times in the texts about the “minor judges.” It returns in the story of Samson (14:11–13, 19) and also fits well to the repeated use of the numbers three and three hundred in the book of Judges and the apparent preference of the author, noted throughout this commentary, to describe things threefold (see introduction § 2.4). Jair is also connected to the next judge, Jephthah, because both are from Gilead. Next to this parallel there is also the contrast when it comes to the number of children, with Jephthah only having one daughter. There is a wordplay between the name of Jair (‫)יָ ִאיר‬, ‫עיָ ִרים‬, ֲ “male donkeys”, and ‫עיָ ִרים‬, ֲ “cities.” With regard to the latter, the unusual form of ‫ֲעיָ ִרים‬ instead of the regular plural ‫ ָע ִרים‬may be explained as the wish to emphasize this wordplay. In the added comment about these “villages of Jair” (‫)חוֹּת יָ ִאיר‬ ַ this wordplay is ignored. The best way to explain this tension is to assume that in Judg. 10 an older tradition about the “villages of Jair” is taken up. It can be found in Num. 32:41; Deut. 3:14; Josh. 13:10 (mentioning sixty villages); 1 Kgs 4:13; 1 Chron. 2:23 (twenty-three). As with Tola, the author seems have taken his information from a tradition as preserved in lists in the book of Numbers. The precise location of these villages, which must have represented the transition from nomadic to city life, is unknown, as is the location of Camon, the place where Jair was buried.

TolaandJair

303

The added information about Jair’s sons riding and probably also owning a donkey is an indication of his wealth and status, as with the royal family (2 Sam. 13:29; 1 Kgs 1:33, 38; cf. Nelson 2007, 355; Scherer 2007, 195). Sasson 2014, 410, 523, mentions parallels in the ancient Near East; Tsevat 1983, 325–326, points to a Hittite parallel, but his suggestion that the text in Judges depends on the Hittite text is not convincing (cf. Scherer 2007, 194–195). The unusual word for “male donkey” (‫;עיִ ר‬ ַ also in Gen. 32:16; Isa. 30:6, 24; Zech. 9:9) must have been chosen because of the possibility of wordplay and then in his turn influenced the use in 12:14.

JUDGES 10:6–12:7

JEPHTHAH

TRANSLATION 10:6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The children of Israel continued doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH.TheyservedtheBaalsandtheAstartesandthegodsofAram and the gods of Sidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the childrenofAmmonandthegodsofthePhilistines.Theyabandoned YHWHanddidnotservehim. TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstthechildrenofIsrael.Hesold themintothehandofthePhilistinesandintothehandofthechildren ofAmmon. They shattered and crushed the children of Israel in that year, eighteenyearsallthechildrenofIsraelwhowereacrosstheJordan inthelandoftheAmorites,whichisinGilead. ThechildrenofAmmoncrossedtheJordantowagewaralsowith Judah,withBenjamin,andwiththehouseofEphraim.Itwasvery distressingforIsrael. ThechildrenofIsraelcriedtoYHWHsaying:“Wehavesinnedagainst you,becausewehaveabandonedourgodandservedtheBaals”. YHWHsaidtothechildrenofIsrael:“WasitnotfromEgyptandfrom theAmoritesandfromthechildrenofAmmonandfromthePhilistines? TheSidonians,AmalekandMaonhaveoppressedyouandyoucried tomeandIdeliveredyoufromtheirhand. You,youhaveabandonedmeandservedothergods.ThereforeIwill notcontinuetodeliveryou. Goandcrytothegodswhomyouhavechosen.Letthemdeliveryou inthetimeofyourdistress”. ThechildrenofIsraelsaidtoYHWH:“Wehavesinned.You,doto usallthatisgoodinyoureyes.Only,rescueusthisday”. TheyremovedtheforeigngodsfromtheirmidstandservedYHWH. HissoulbecameimpatientwiththetroubleofIsrael. ThechildrenofAmmonweresummonedandcampedinGilead.The childrenofIsraelgatheredandcampedinMizpah. Theysaid,thepeople,thecommandersofGilead,amantohisfellow: “WhoisthemanthatwillbegintofightthechildrenofAmmon? HeshallbeheadofallwhohavesettledinGilead”.

Jephthah 11:1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8

9

10 11

12

13

14 15 16 17

305

JephthahtheGileaditewasamightywarrior.Hewasthesonofa prostitute.GileadbegotJephthah. The wife of Gilead bore him sons. The sons of this wife grew up. TheydroveJephthahaway.Theysaidtohim:“Youshallnotinheritin thehouseofourfather,becauseyouarethesonofanotherwoman”. Jephthahfledfromthefaceofhisbrothers.HesettledinthelandTob. RoundJephthahgatheredemptymenandtheywentoutwithhim. IthappenedaftersometimethatthechildrenofAmmonwagedwar withIsrael. It happened when the children of Ammon waged war with Israel thattheeldersofGileadwenttotakeJephthahfromthelandTob. TheysaidtoJephthah:“Comeandbechiefforusandwewillwage battlewiththechildrenofAmmon”. JephthahsaidtotheeldersofGilead:“Isitnotyouwhohatedme anddrovemeoutofthehouseofmyfather?Whyhaveyoucometo menow,whenyouareindistress?” TheeldersofGileadsaidtoJephthah:“Therefore,nowwehave returnedtoyou,thatyoumaygowithusandthatyouwagebattle withthechildrenofAmmon.Youshallbetheheadtous,toallwho settledinGilead”. JephthahsaidtotheeldersofGilead:“Ifyoubringmebacktowage warwiththechildrenofAmmonandYHWHgivesthembeforeme, Ishallbeaheadtoyou”. The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah: “YHWH shall be a hearer betweenus,ifwenotdoaccordingtoyourword”. JephthahwentwiththeeldersofGilead.Thepeoplesethimover them as head and as chief. Jephthah spoke all his words before YHWHinMizpah. Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon saying:“Whatistherebetweenmeandyouthatyouhavecometo metowagebattlewithmyland?” ThekingofthechildrenofAmmonsaidtothemessengersofJephthah: “BecauseIsraelhastakenmylandwhenitcameupfromEgypt,from theArnontotheJabbokandtotheJordan.Now,returnitinpeace”. Jephthah did it once again: he sent messengers to the king of the childrenofAmmon. Hesaidtohim:“ThussaysJephthah:Israelhasnottakentheland ofMoabandthelandofthechildrenofAmmon. Because,whenitcameupfromEgyptIsraelwentinthedesertuntil theSeaofReedsandcametoKadesh. Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom saying: ‘Let me cross throughyourland.’ButthekingofEdomdidnotlisten.Alsotothe

306

18

19

20 21

22 23 24

25 26

27

28 29

30 31

32

Judges10:6–12:7 king of Moab (Israel) sent (messengers), but he was not willing. IsraelstayedatKadesh. ItwentthroughthedesertandwentroundthelandofEdomandthe landofMoab.Itcamefromthe(sideofthe)sun-risetothelandof Moab.TheycampedacrosstheArnon.Theydidnotcomeintothe territoryofMoab,becausetheArnonistheborderofMoab. IsraelsentmessengerstoSihon,thekingoftheAmorites,theking ofHeshbon.Israelsaidtohim:‘Letuscrossthroughyourlandto myplace.’ SihondidnottrustIsraeltocrossthroughhisterritory.Sihongathered allhispeople,campedatJahazandwagedwarwithIsrael. YHWH,thegodofIsrael,gaveSihonandallhispeopleinthehand ofIsraelandtheystruckthem.Israeltookpossessionofalltheland oftheAmorites,thosewhohadsettledinthatland. They took possession of all the territory of the Amorites from the ArnontotheJabbokandfromthedeserttotheJordan. Now,YHWH,thegodofIsrael,hasdispossessedtheAmoritesbefore hispeopleIsrael;andyou,youwouldtakepossession(ofit)? Isitnot:whatdispossessesforyouChemosh,yourgod,youmaytake inpossessionandwhathasdispossessedYHWH,ourgod,beforeus thatwetakeinpossession. Now,areyoubetter,betterthanBalak,thesonofZippor,theking ofMoab?DidhestrivewithIsraelorwagebattlewiththem? WhenIsraelwassettledinHeshbonandinitsdaughter-townsandin Aroeranditsdaughter-townsandinallthecitiesthatarealongthe Arnon, for three hundred years, why did you not rescue (them) in thattime? Asforme,Ihavenotsinnedagainstyou.Youaredoingeviltomeby wagingwaragainstme.MayYHWH,thejudge,judgetodaybetween thechildrenofIsraelandthechildrenofAmmon”. The king of the children of Ammon did not listen to the words of Jephthah,whichhehadsenttohim. The spirit of YHWH was upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and ManassehandcrossedMizpehofGileadandfromMizpehofGilead hewasgoingtocross(to)thechildrenofAmmon. JephthahmadeavowtoYHWH.Hesaid:“Ifyouwillindeedgiveme thechildrenofAmmoninmyhand, itshallbethattheonewhogoesoutofthedoorsofmyhousetomeet me,whenIreturninpeacefromthechildrenofAmmon,shallbefor YHWHandIshallofferhimasanoffering”. JephthahcrossedovertothechildrenofAmmontowagewarwith themandYHWHgavetheminhishand.

Jephthah 33

34

35

36

37

38 39

40

12:1

2

3

4

5

307

HestruckthemfromAroertowhereyougotoMinnith,twentycities, andtoAbelCeramim,averybigblow.ThechildrenofAmmonwere humiliatedbeforethefaceofthechildrenofIsrael. Jephthah came to Mizpah, to his house. Look, his daughter was comingouttomeethimwithtimbrelsandwithdancing.Yetshewas hisonlychild,hehadbesidehersonnordaughter. Ithappenedwhenhesawher,thathetorehisgarmentsandsaid: “Alas,mydaughter,youhaveindeedcausedmetobowdown,you arewiththosewhotroubleme.Asforme,Ihaveopenedbymouth toYHWHandIcannotturnback”. She said to him: “My father, you have opened your mouth to YHWH.Dotomeasitcameoutofyourmouth.AfterwhatYHWH hasdoneforyou:vengeanceoveryouenemies,overthechildren ofAmmon”. Shesaidtoherfather:“Letthisthingbedoneforme:desistfrom mefortwomonthsandIshallgoandgodownuponthemountains andweepformyvirginity,Iandmycompanions”. Hesaid:“Go”.Hesentherofffortwomonths.Shewent,sheandher companionsandsheweptoverhervirginityinthemountains. Ithappened,attheendoftwomonthsthatshereturnedtoherfather. Hedidtoheraccordingtothevowthathehadmade.Shehadnot knownaman.ItwasaruleinIsrael. FromyeartoyearthedaughtersofIsraelgotorecountthedaughter ofJephthahtheGaleaditefourdaysayear. The men of Ephraim were mustered and crossed over to Zaphon. TheysaidtoJephthah:“Whydidyoucrossovertowagewarwith thechildrenofAmmonanddidnotcallustogowithyou?Yourhouse wewillburndownoveryouwithfire”. Jephthahsaidtothem:“AmanofstrifeIwas,Iandmypeopleand the children of Ammon, very much. I summoned you, but you did notdelivermefromtheirhand. Isawthatyouwerenotadeliverer.Iputmylifeinmypalm.Icrossed overtothechildrenofAmmonandYHWHgavethemintomyhand. Whyhaveyoucomeuptomethisdaytowagewarwithme?” Jephthah gathered all the men of Gilead and waged war against Ephraim.ThemenofGileadstruckEphraim,becausetheyhadsaid: “FugitivesofEphraimareyou,Gilead,inthemidstofEphraim,in themidstofManasseh”. GileadcapturedthefordsoftheJordanforEphraim.Itwaswhenthe fugitives of Ephraim said: “Let me cross over”, the men of Gilead wouldsaytohim:“AreyouanEphraimite?”,hewouldsay:“No”.

308 6

7

Judges10:6–12:7 Theywouldsay:“Sayshibbolet”.Wouldhesay“sibbolet”andcould notspeakright,theywouldgrabhimandslaughterhimatthefords oftheJordan.Atthattimefellforty-twothousandofEphraim. JephthahjudgedIsraelforsixyears.JephthahtheGileaditediedand hewasburiedinthecitiesofGilead.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY H. Almoía, “La tragedia de la hija de Jefté: Une interpretación de Jueces 11:29–40)”, Theologica 15 2000), 156–185; M. Álvarez Barredo, “Enfoques literarios de Jue 10,1–12,15”, Carthaginensia 18 (2002), 1–40; E. Assis, Self-InterestorCommunal Interest:AnIdeologyofLeadershipintheGideon,Abimelech,andJephthahNarratives(Judg6–12) (VTS 106), Leiden 2005; C. Baker, “Pseudo-Philo and the Transformation of Jephthah’s Daughter”, in: M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant.Counter-Reading Women’sLivesintheHebrewBible, Sheffield 1989, 195–209; R. Baker, “Double Trouble: Counting the Costs of Jephthah”, JBL 137 (2018), 29–50; M. Bal, “Between Altar and Wondering Rock: Toward a Feminist Philology”, in: M. Bal (ed.), AntiCovenant. Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield 1989, 211–231; R. Bartelmus, “Jephtha – Anmerkungen eines Exegeten zu G.F. Händels musikalisch-theologischer Deutung einer ‘entlegenen’ alttestamentlichen Tradition”, ThZ51 (1995), 106–127; J.R. Bartlett, “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Re-Examination”, JBL 97 (1978), 347–351; M. Bauks, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zur Namenlosigkeit von Jiftachs Tochter (Ri 11, 29–40)”, Lectiodifficilior (http://www.lectio.unibe.ch) 1 (2007); idem, JephtasTochter:Traditions-, religions-undrezeptiongeschichtlicheStudienzuRichter11,29–40(FAT 71), Tübingen 2010a; idem, “Überlegungen zum historischen Ort von Ri 11, 29–40: Ein Appendix anthologischen Charakters jenseits deuternomistischen Geschichtsdenkens?”, in: P. Mommer, A. Scherer (eds), GeschichteIsraelsunddeuteronomistischesGeschichtsdenken (Fs Thiel; AOAT 380), Münster 2010b, 22–42; idem, “Jephtas Gelübde und die Unabwendbarkeit seiner Einlösung”, in: K. De Troyer, A. Lange (eds), The QumranLegalTextsbetweentheHebrewBibleanditsInterpretation, Leuven 2011, 27–40;E. Baumgarten, “ ‘Remember that glorious girl’: Jephthah’s Daughter in Medieval Jewish Culture”, JQR97 (2007), 180–209;M.A. Beavis, “A Daughter in Israel: Celebrating Bat Jephthah (Judg. 11.39d–40), Feminist Theology 13 (2004), 11–25; idem, “The Resurrection of Jephthah’s Daughter: Judges 11:34– 40 and Mark 5:21–24, 35–43”, CBQ 72 (2010), 46–62; B. Becking, “Iphigeneia in Gilead: over het verstaan van Richteren 11:29–40”, Kerkentheologie 41 (1990), 192–205; C.T. Begg, “The Josephan Judge Jephthah”, SJOT 20 (2006), 161–188; K. van Bekkum, “ ‘Let YHWH, the Judge, Decide’: Reflections on the Historical, Literary and Theological Aspects of the Jephthah Narrative”, in: J. Dekker, G. Kwakkel (eds), ReadingandListening:MeetingOneGodinManyTexts(Fs Peels; ACEBT Sup. 16), Bergambacht 2018, 61–69; J.A. Berman, NarrativeAnalogyintheHebrew Bible:BattleStoriesandTheirEquivalentNon-battleNarratives, Leiden 2004; idem, “Medieval Monasticism and the Evolution of Jewish Interpretation to the Story of Jephthah’s Daughter”, JQR95 (2005), 228–256; J. Blau, PhonologyandMorphology ofBiblicalHebrew, Winona Lake 2010; E. Bloch-Smith, “A Stratified Account of Jephthah’s Negotiations and Battle: Judges 11:12–33 from an Archaeological

Jephthah

309

Perspective”, JBL 134 (2015), 291–311; D. Böhler, Jiftach und die Tora: Eine intertextuelleAuslegungvonRi10,6–12,7, Frankfurt am Main 2008; C.A Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women, Louisville 1992; C. Brown Tkacz, “Women as types of Christ: Susanna and Jephthah’s Daughter”, Gregorianum85 (2004), 281–314; E. Buchris, “Jephtah’s Daughter: A History of Alternating Musical Endings”, TheEuropeanLegacy17 (2012), 639– 657; W. Burkert, Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Cambridge 1998; S.B. Caroselli, “The Dissemination of Jephthah’s Daughter”, in: P.S. Hawkins, L. Cushing Stahlberg (eds), FromtheMargins1:WomenoftheHebrew BibleandtheirAfterlifes, Sheffield 2009, 86–101;T.W. Cartledge,VowsintheHebrew BibleandtheAncientNearEast, Sheffield 1992;R.B. Chisholm, “The Ethical Challenge of Jephthah’s Fulfilled Vow”, BS 167 (2010), 404–422; J.L. Claassens, “Notes on Characterisation in the Jephtah Narrative”, JNSL 22 (1996), 107–115; idem, “Theme and Function in the Jephthah Narrative”, JNSL23 (1997), 203–219; idem, “Female Resistance In Spite of Injustice: Human Dignity and the Daughter of Jephthah”, OTE 26 (2013), 607–622; I. Collenberg, A. Giercke, “Die Erzählkonzepte der Jiftacherzählung Ri 10,6–12,7”, BN 135 (2007), 11–34; V.C. Cooper, “Some Place to Cry: Jephthah’s Daughter and the Double Dilemma of Black Women in America”, in: C.A. Kirk-Duggan (ed.), PregnantPassion:Gender,Sex,andViolencein theBible, Atlanta 2003, 181–191; K.M. Craig, “Bargaining in Tov (Judges 11,4–11): The Many Directions of So-called Direct Speech”, Bib 79 (1998), 76–85;E.G. Dafni, “Isaak, die Tochter Jephthas und Iphigenie, Menschenopfer im Alten Testament und im Alten Griechenland: Kulturkritische Beobachtungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Septuaginta”, in: R.X. Gauthier etal. (eds), Septuagint,Sagesand Scripture (Fs Cook, SVT 172), Leiden 2016, 1–30; T.S. Davis, “The Condemnation of Jephthah”, TynB 64 (2013), 1–16; P.L. Day, “From the Child is Born the Woman: the Story of Jephthah’s Daughter”, in: P.L. Day (ed.), GenderandDifferenceinAncientIsrael, Minneapolis 1989, 58–74; idem, “Jephthah’s Daughter”, DDD (Leiden 21999), 465–466; R.E. DeMaris, C.S. Leeb, “Judges – (Dis)Honor and Ritual Enactment. The Jephthah Story: Judges 10:16–12:1”, in: P.F. Esler (ed.), AncientIsrael.TheOldTestamentinitsSocialContext, London 2005, 177–190; R. Egger-Wenzel, “Jiftachs Tochter (Ri 11,29–40) – Die Töchter von Schilo (Ri 21, 19–25)”, BN 129 (2006) 5–16; J. Eichler-Levine, SuffertheLittleChildren:Uses ofthePastinJewishandAfricanAmericanChildren’sLiterature, New York 2014; J.A. Emerton, “Some Comments on the Shibboleth Incident (Judges XII 6)”, in: A. Caquot etal. (eds), Melangesbibliquesetorientauxenl’honneurdeM.Mathias Delcor, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, 149–157 (reprinted in: G. Davies, R. Gordon [eds], StudiesontheLanguageandLiteratureoftheBible, Leiden 2015, 250–257); M. Ephraim, “Jephthah’s Kin: The Sacrificing Father in the Merchant of Venice”, Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 5/2 (2005), 71–93; D. Erbele-Küster, “Stemmen gesmoord door oorlog en geweld: Jefta’s dochter aan het woord (Rechters 11:29– 40)”, in: EuropeBetweenWars.Bonhoeffer,theStruggleforPeace,andtheCultural Heritage (Fs Wiersma), Brussel 2008, 104–113; J.C. Exum, “The Tragic Vision and Biblical Narrative: The Case of Jephthah”, in: J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs andWonders:BiblicalTextsinLiteraryFocus, Atlanta 1989, 59–96; idem, “On Judges 11”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), AFeministCompaniontoJudges, Sheffield 1993, 131–145; Y.S. Feldman, “Israeli Gnosticism: Amos Oz’s Gospel according to Jephthah”, EJJS2 (2009), 259–268; N. Fernández Marcos, “Jephthah’s Daughter in the Old Greek (Judges 11:29–40)”, in: W. Kraus, M. Karrer (eds), DieSeptuaginta–Texte,Theologien,Einflüsse, Tübingen 2010, 478–488;I. Finkelstein etal.,

310

Judges10:6–12:7

“The Biblical Gilead: Observations on Identifications, Geographic Divisions and Territorial History”, UF 43 (2011), 131–159; idem, “The Old Jephthah Tale in Judges: Geographical and Historical Considerations”, Bib 97 (2016), 1–15; idem, T. Römer, “Early North Israelite ‘Memories’ of Moab”, in: J.C. Gertz etal. (eds), The Formation of the Pentateuch, Tübingen 2016, 711–727; J. Fleishman, “An Undone Evil in the Book of Judges” (Hebrew), BetM153 (1998), 129–141, 199– 200; J.G. Frazer, Apollodorus. The Library, vol. II (The Loeb Classical Library), London 1921; E. Fuchs, “Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter”, JournalofFeministStudiesinReligion 5 (1989), 35–45; idem, “Jephthah’s Daughter: A Feminist Postcolonial Approach”, in: Feminist TheoryandtheBible:InterrogatingtheSources, Lanham 2016, 71–94;C. GarcíaAlfonso, Resolviendo.NarrativesofSurvivalintheHebrewBibleandinCubaToday, New York 2010; E. Gaß, “Maon – Meuniter –Meïniter – Minäer?”, in: W. Groß, E. Gaß, StudienzumRichterbuchundseinenVölkernamen, Stuttgart 2012, 257–286; B. Gerstein, “A Ritual Processed: A Look at Judges 11.40”, in: M. Bal (ed.), AntiCovenant. Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield 1989, 175–193; S. Grätz, “Jiftach und seine Tochter”, in: P. Mommer, A. Scherer (eds), GeschichteIsraelsunddeuteronomistischesGeschichtsdenken (Fs W. Thiel), Münster 2010, 119–134; A.M. Greves, “Daughter of Courage: Reading Judges 11 with a Feminist Pentecostal Hermeneutic”, JournalofPentecostalTheology25 (2016), 151–167; W. Groß, “Jiftachs Tochter”, in: F.-L. Hossfeldt, L. SchwienhorstSchönberger (eds), DasMannafälltauchheutenoch.BeiträgezurGeschichteund TheologiedesAlten,ErstenTestaments (Fs Zenger), Freiburg 2004, 271–293; idem, “Jiftachs Rolle in der Erzählung von seinem Gelübde. Elemente der Rezeptionsund Auslegungsgeschichte”, in: J. Luchsinger e.a. (eds), “…derseineLusthatam WortdesHerrn!”(Fs Jenni), Münster 2007, 60–92; D.M. Gunn, “Cultural Criticism: Viewing the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter”, in: G.A. Yee (ed.), Judges & Method:NewApproachesinBiblicalStudies(SecondEdition), Minneapolis 2007, 202–236; R. Hendel, “Sibilants and shibbolet (Judges 12:6)”, BASOR 301 (1996), 69–75; C. Houtman, “Die Bewertung eines Menschenopfers. Die Geschichte von Jefta und seiner Tochter in früher Auslegung”, BN 117 (2003), 59–70; idem, “Rewriting a Dramatic Old Testament Story: The Story of Jephthah and his Daughter – Some Examples of Christian Devotional Literature”, BibInt 13 (2005), 167–190; idem, K. Spronk, Jefta und seine Tochter: Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter, 11,29–40, Zürich 2007; U. Hübner, “Hermeneutische Möglichkeiten: Zur frühen Rezeptionsgeschichte der Jefta-Tradition”, in: E. Blum etal. (eds), DieHebräische BibleundihrezweifacheNachgeschichte(Fs Rendtorff), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 489–501; P. Hugo, “ ‘J’ai ouvert la bouche pour YHWH’ (Jg 11,36). Parole et identité dans le voeu de Jephté”, in: D. Böhler etal. (eds), L’Ecritetl’Esprit(Fs Schenker), Fribourg 2005, 112–127; T. Ilan, “Flavius Josephus and Biblical Women”, in: E. Schuller, M.-Th. Wacker (eds), EarlyJewishWritings(The Bible and Women 3.1), Atlanta 2017, 167–185; D. Janzen, “Why the Deuteronomist Told about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter”, JSOT 29 (2005), 339–357; D. Kamrada, “‘Strangers to One Another’: The Motif of Strangeness in the Jephthah-Cycle”, in: G.G. Xeravits, J. Dušek (eds), TheStrangerinAncientandMediaevalJewishTradition, Berlin 2010, 16–35; idem, “The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter and the Notion of Ḥērem (A Problematic Narrative against its Biblical Background”, in: K.D. Dobos, M. Kőszeghy (eds), WithWisdomasaRobe.QumranandOtherJewishStudies(Fs Fröhlich), Sheffield 2009, 57–85; P. Kaswalder, “Gdc 11,20a: problemi testuali e grammaticali”, BeO 26 (1984[a]), 129–142; idem, “Aroer e Iazer nella disputa diplomatica di

Jephthah

311

Gdc 11,12-28”, LA 34 (1984[b]), 25–42; idem, La disputa diplomatica di Iefte (Gdc 11,12-28): La ricerca archeologica in Giordania e il problema della conquista, Jerusalem 1990; K.H. Keukens, “Richter 11, 37f. Rite de passage und Übersetzungsprobleme”, BN19 (1982), 41–42; M.J. Kietzman, TheBiblicalCovenant inShakespeare, Cham 2018; U.Y. Kim, “Is There an ‘Anticonquest’ Ideology in the Book of Judges?”, in: R. Boer (ed.), PostcolonialismandtheHebrewBible: The Next Step, Atlanta 2013, 109–128; A. Kunz-Lübcke, “Interkulturell lesen! Die Geschichte von Jiftach und seiner Tochter in Jdc 11,30–40 in textsemantischer Perspektive”, in: L. Morenz, S. Schorch (Eds): WasisteinText?–Ägyptologische, altorientalistischeundalttestamentlichePerspektiven, Berlin 2007, 258–283; J. Larson, GreekHeroineCults, Madison 1995; S. Landers, “Did Jephthah Kill His Daughter?”, BibleReview 7/ 4 (1991), 28–31,42; A. Linton, “Sacrificed or Spared? The Fate of Jephthah’s Daughter in Early Modern Theological and Literary Texts”, GermanLife andLetters57 (2004), 237–255; idem, “Virgin Sacrifices: Iphigenia and Jephthah’s Daughter”, in: H. Fronius, A. Linton (eds), WomenandDeath:Representationsof FemaleVictimsandPerpetratorsinGermanCulture1500–2000, New York 2008, 43–59; A. Logan, “Rehabilitating Jephthah”, JBL 128 (2009), 665–685; V. Lovelace, “ ‘We Don’t Give Birth to Thugs’: Family Values, Respectability Politics, and Jephthah’s Mother”, in: G.L. Byron, V. Lovelace (eds), WomanistInterpretations: ExpandingtheDiscourse, Atlanta 2016, 239-262; R. Lux, “Die Tochter Jiftachs – eine Hebräische Iphigenie? Richter 10,6–12,7 und die Frage nach dem Tragischen im Alten Testament”, in: P. Verebics etal. (eds), EinPrallesLeben(Fs Hausmann), Leipzig 2017, 236–255; J. Malmes, “Die Erzählung von Jiftach und seiner Tochter (Ri 11,29–40): Eine empirische Lesestudie”, ProtokollezurBibel18 (2009), 1–30; D. Marcus, JephthahandhisVow, Lubbock 1986; idem, “The Bargaining between Jephthah and the Elders (Judges 11:4–11), JANES19 (1989), 95–100; idem, “The Legal Dispute between Jephthah and the Elders”, HAR12 (1990), 105–114; idem, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites: The Shibboleth Incident (12:6), Maarav 8 (1992), 95– 105;L.R. Martin, “God at Risk: Divine Vulnerability in Judges 10:6–16”, OTE 18 (2005), 722–740; C. Meredith, “Civic Bible as Civil Breach: Reading Doris Salcedo’s Shibboleth”, Biblical Reception 3 (2014), 161–172; A. Michel, Gott und Gewalt gegenKinderimAltenTestament(FAT 37), Tübingen 2003; S. Mittmann, “Aroer, Minnith und Abel Keramim”, ZDPV 85 (1969), 63–75; H.-D. Neef, “Jephta und seine Tochter (Jdc. XI 29–40)”, VT49 (1999), 206–217; M. Nyquist, “The Plight of Buchanan’s Jephtha: Sacrifice, Sovereignty, and Paternal Power”, Comparative Literature60(2008), 331–354; A. Penna, “The Vow of Jephthah in the Interpretation of St. Jerome”, in: F.L. Cross (ed.), StudiaPatristicaVol.IV, Berlin 1961, 162–170; A. Ostriker, “Fathers and Daughters: The Jephthah Issue and the Scream”, in: D.W. Rooke (ed.), EmbroideredGarments:PriestsandGenderinBiblicalIsrael, Sheffield 2009, 151–159; S. Park, “Crossings, Transgressions, and Movement in the Jephthah Cycle”, in: J.J. Collins etal. (eds), Worship,Women,andWar (Fs Niditch), Providence 2015, 243–262; P.T. Reis, “Spoiled Child: A Fresh Look at Jephthah’s Daughter”, Prooftexts17/2 (2002) (also published in P.T. Reis, ReadingtheLines: AFreshLookattheHebrewBible, New York 2002, 105–130); M. Reiss, “The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter: Jewish and Christian Perspectives”, LouvainStudies 36 (2012), 321–336; W. Richter, “Die Überlieferungen um Jephtah Ri 10,17–12,6”, Bib47 (1966), 485–556; B.P. Robinson, “The Story of Jephthah and his Daughter: Then and Now”, Bib 85 (2004), 331–348; T.C. Römer, “Why Would the Deuteronomists Tell About the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter?”, JSOT 77 (1998), 22–38; idem, “La fille de Jephté entre Jérusalem et Athènes. Réflexions à partir d’une triple

312

Judges10:6–12:7

intertextualité en Juges 11”, in: D. Marguerat, A. Curtis (eds), Intertextualités:La Bibleenéchos, Genève 2000, 30–42; idem etal., “Jephthah’s Daughter”, EBR13 (2016), 889–901; H. Rösel, “Jephtah und das Problem der Richter”, Bib61 (1980), 251–255; idem, “Zur Lokalisierung der Stadt Zaphon”, BN 100 (1999), 27–33; D.W. Rooke, “Sex and Death, or, the Death of Sex: Three Versions of Jephthah’s Daughter ( Judges 11:29–40)”, in: C. Hempel, J.M. Lieu (eds), Biblicaltraditions in transmission, Leiden 2006, 249–271 (also published in D.W. Rooke, Handel’s Israelite Oratorio Libretti: Sacred Drama and Biblical Exegesis, Oxford 2012, 207–226); A. & D.U. Rottzoll, “Die Erzählung von Jiftach und seiner Tochter (Jdc 11,30–40) in der mittelalterlich-jüdischen und historisch-kritischen Bibelexegese”, ZAW 115 (2003), 210–230; J. Roux, “La danse de la fille de Jephté (Jg 11, 29–40) ou L’enfantement de la vengeance”, SemiticaetClassica5 (2012), 29–42; J.M. Sasson, “Jephthah: Chutzpah and Overreach in a Hebrew Judge”, in: D.S. Vanderhooft, A. Winitzer (eds), LiteratureasPolitics,PoliticsasLiterature (Fs Machinist), Winona Lake 2013, 405–420; J.A. Schroeder, “Envying Jephthah’s Daughter: Judges 11 in the Thought of Arcangela Tarabotti (1604–1652)”, in: N. Calvert-Koyzis, H.E. Weir (eds), StrangelyFamiliar:ProtofeministInterpretationsofPatriarchalBiblicalTexts, Atlanta 2009, 75–91; H. Schulte, “Beobachtungen zum Begriff der Zônâ im Alten Testament”, ZAW 104 (1992), 255–262; Y. Shemesh, “Jephthah – Victimizer and Victim: A Comparison of Jephthah and Characters in Genesis”, JANES 32 (2011), 117–131; A. Shveka, “ ‘‫’וַ ִתּ ְק ַצר נַ ְפשׁוֹ ַבּ ֲע ַמל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, (Jud 10:16): A New Understanding”, BetM48 (2002), 77–86 (Hebr.); P. Silverman Kramer, “Jephthah’s Daughter: a Thematic Approach to the Narrative as Seen in Selected Rabbinic Exegesis and in Artwork”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), Judges.AFeministCompaniontotheBible(Second Series), Sheffield 1999, 67–92; M. Sjöberg, “Jephthah’s Daughter as Object of Desire or Feminist Icon”, BibInt 15 (2007), 377–394. M.J. Smith, “The Failure of the Family in Judges, Part 1: Jephthah”, BS162 (2005), 279–298; M.S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World, Grand Rapids 2008; K. Spronk, “The Daughter of Jephthah: Changing Views on God, Man, And Violence in Plays and Oratorios since George Buchanan”, in: J. Bekkenkamp, Y. Sherwood (eds), SanctifiedAggression.LegaciesofBiblicaland PostBiblicalVocabulariesofViolence, London 2003, 10–21. idem, “Judging Jephthah: The Contribution of Syntactic Analysis to the Interpretation of Judges 11:29–40”, in: W.Th. van Peursen, J.W. Dyk (eds), TraditionandInnovationinBiblicalInterpretation(Fs Talstra; SSN 57), Leiden 2011, 299–315; idem etal., “Jephthah”, EBR13 (2016), 885-888; idem, “Jephthah and Saul: An Intertextual Reading of Judges 11:2940 in Comparison with Rabbinic Exegesis”, in: K. Spronk, E. van Staalduine-Sulman (eds), HebrewTextsinJewish,ChristianandMuslimSurroundings (Fs A. Houtman; SSN 69), Leiden 2018, 23–35; 20; K. Steenbergh, “Gender Studies – Emotions in Jeptha (1659)”, in: J. Bloemendal, F.-W. Korsten (eds), JoostvandenVondel(1587– 1679):DutchPlaywrightintheGoldenAge, Leiden 2012, 407–426; N. Steinberg, “The Problem of Human Sacrifice in War: An Analysis of Judges 11”, in: S.L. Cook, C.S. Winter (eds), OntheWaytoNineveh (Fs Landes) Atlanta 1999, 114–135; J. Stiebert, Fathers & Daughters in the Hebrew Bible, Oxford 2013; K. Stone, “Animal Difference, Sexual Difference, and the Daughter of Jephthah”, BibInt 24 (2016), 1–16; W.O. Sypherd, JephthahandhisDaughter:AStudyinComparative Literature, Newark 1948; M. Taylor, “The Resurrection of Jephthah’s Daughter: Reading Judges 11 with Nineteenth-Century Women”, in: N. Calvert-Koyzis, H.E. Weir (eds), Strangely Familiar: Protofeminist Interpretations of Patriarchal Biblical Texts, Atlanta 2009, 57–73; J.L. Thompson, “Preaching Texts of Terror in the Book

Jephthah

313

of Judges: How Does the History of Interpretation Help?”, CTJ37 (2002), 49–61; P. Trible, “A Meditation in Mourning: The Sacrifice of the Daughter of Jephthah”, UnionSeminaryQuarterlyReview36 (1981), 59–73; idem, TextsofTerror:LiteraryfeministReadingsofBiblicalNarratives, Philadelphia 1984; S. Valler, “The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter in the Midrash”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), Judges.AFeminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series), Sheffield 1999, 48–66; idem, “Strong Women Confront Helpless Men: Deborah and Jephthah’s Daughter in the Midrash”, in: A. Brenner, F.H. Polak (eds), Words,Ideas,Worlds(Fs Amit), Sheffield 2012, 236–254; J. Van Seters, “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination”, JBL 91 (1972), 182–197; idem, “Once Again: The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom”, JBL 99 (1980), 117–119; B.G. Webb, “The Theme of the Jephthah Story”, ReformedTheologicalReview 45 (1986), 34–43; G. West, “The Bible and the female body in Ibandla lamaNazaretha: Isaiah Shembe and Jephthah’s daughter”, OTE20 (2007), 489–509; F. Willesen, “The ‫ אפרתי‬of the Shibboleth Incident”, VT 8 (1958), 97–98; T.M. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority”, CBQ 59 (1997), 33–44; R. Woodhouse, “The Biblical Shibboleth Story in the Light of Late Egyptian Perceptions of Semitic Sibilants: Reconciling Divergent Views”, JAOS 123 (2003), 271–289; J.L. Wright, “Military Valor and Kingship: A Book-Oriented Approach to the Study of a Major War Theme”, in: B.E. Kelle, F.R. Ames (eds), Writing andReadingWar:Rhetoric,Gender,andEthicsinBiblicalandModernContexts, Atlanta 2008, 33–56; M. Wüst, “Die Einschaltung in die Jiftachgeschichte Ri. 11:13– 26”, Bib 56 (1975), 464–479; F.M. Yamada, “Shibboleth and the Ma(r)king of Culture: Judges 12 and the Monolingualism of the Other”, in: Y. Sherwood (ed.), Derrida’sBible:ReadingaPageofScripturewithaLittleHelpfromDerrida, New York 2004, 117–134; I. Young, R.Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. Volume1, London 2008.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES The story of Jephthah takes up the central themes of the previous stories and introduces some new elements which will return in the following stories. In this way it takes a central place in the book of Judges. It starts with the Israelites doing again what is evil in the eyes of YHWH. This was told many times before, but not in the three foregoing episodes, about Abimelech, Tola, and Jair. Now it returns and in an extreme form: the number of idols is bigger than ever. The punishment is in keeping with this, because now for the first times the enemies sent by YHWH, the Philistines and the Ammonites, occupy and terrorize the Israelite territory both east and west of the Jordan. When the Israelites cry out to YHWH, he reacts not by sending immediately a deliverer. Like in 2:1–5, when he sent a messenger, and in 6:7–10, when he sent a prophet, YHWH first reminds the Israelites of the past. Again, this is taken a step further, because it is now YHWH himself speaking directly to the people. Also YHWH’s reaction is more extreme. First, he threatens to stop helping his people, then in an emotional way he reconsiders this decision.

314

Judges10:6–12:7

Jephthah’s road to leadership combines elements of the previous stories of Gideon and Abimelech. He is not raised as saviour right away, like Othniel or Ehud. It is preceded by deliberations between the elders of Gilead and Jephthah, which can be compared to the story of Abimelech, be it that the initiative is now with the elders. They see in Jephthah the “mighty warrior” that can free them from the Ammonites. This is precisely how the messenger of YHWH addressed Gideon when he called him to deliver his people from the Midianites (6:12). Jephthah also has much in common with Abimelech. Whereas Abimelech was the son of a concubine, Jephthah’s mother was a prostitute. They both had their problems with their half-brothers and they both surrounded themselves with “empty men”. Like Othniel and Gideon, Jephthah receives the spirit of YHWH, and like Ehud, Jephthah first negotiates with his opponent. With Jephthah these negotiations are typical of his actions. First he bargains with the elders about his status, and then he tries to convince the king of Ammon to end their conflict. Next in line is YHWH, with whom Jephthah makes a deal to secure success in battle, and finally he has to respond to the accusations of the Ephraimites. Although Jephthah is successful in the first negotiations, he is not able to repeat this success in the following situations. The period of Jephthah’s leadership ends with civil war. Compared to the previous stories there is clearly a downward tendency. Whereas Gideon was able to temper the indignation of the Ephraimites, Jephthah sees no other solution than to slaughter them. This negative line will be continued in the next stories about the bloody conflict between Benjamin and the other tribes. When it comes to the foreign enemies, it can be observed that Jephthah did not succeed in fully defeating the Ammonites. In fact, this is already announced in the beginning of the story, when the commanders of Gilead ask: “who will begin to fight the Ammonites?” (10:18). Apparently, they do not expect that the hostilities will be ended soon. Something similar can be noticed later in the announcement of the birth of Samson, who is said “to begin with the liberation from the Philistines” (13:5). Unlike the previous judges and saviours they did not end the foreign threat. The Israelites have to wait for king Saul and king David to deliver the Israelites from the Ammonites and Philistines once and for all. With the story about Samson the story of Jephthah also shares the element of parents having only one child, in stark contrast with most “minor” judges with dozens of children. This gets extra emphasis in Jephthah losing his only child because of his vow. It also gets a sad follow up in chapter 19 in the story of a father offering his daughter to men threatening his guests and a man giving his concubine to these men to be raped and killed. Within the story of Jephthah one can also note a decline in the contact with YHWH. As was remarked above, in the introduction YHWH is very present.

Jephthah

315

He is addressing the people himself and also clearly reacts to the positive way in which his warnings are taken up. In the rest of the story the name of YHWH is mentioned again by the elders and by Jephthah, especially in his negotiations with the king of Ammon. YHWH reacts by sending his spirit, but in the rest of the story YHWH is hardly mentioned anymore. He does not react to Jephthah’s vow. He does give the victory over the Ammonites, but in the concluding story about the conflict with the Ephraimites any reference to YHWH is lacking. He is not mentioned by Jephthah and it is not told that YHWH plays a role in the fight. The story of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter is often compared to the story of the binding of Isaac in Gen. 22. Within the Hebrew Bible there is an even closer relation to the story in 1 Sam. 14 of Saul at the brink of killing his son Jonathan, who unknowingly broke his father’s vow of fasting by eating honey. In line with the many other examples of persons and events foreshadowing what is found in the books of Samuel and Kings, Jephthah can be regarded as prefiguring king Saul as someone overcome by the consequences of his own unlucky decisions. The sacrifice of his daughter also has clear parallels in Greco-Roman literature. The author of the book of Judges may have been inspired by the work of Euripides, especially in the way he pictured Jephthah’s daughter. The story of Jephthah and the way it is told leaves much room for theological considerations and for speculation, filling in the gaps left by the story teller. In the often described history of interpretation (cf. Penna 1961; Hübner 1990; Houtman & Spronk 1999; Thompson 2002; Rottzoll 2003; Robinson 2004, 345–346; Gunn 2005, 133–169; Baumgarten 2007, 182–192; Gunn 2007; Groß 2009, 624–632; Bauks 2010a, 83–154; Reiss 2012; Römer etal. 2016; Spronk etal. 2016) most attention is given to the episode about Jephthah’s daughter: to the evaluation of Jephthah’s vow and to the question about its precise execution. In both cases the text leaves room for different interpretations, because it does not explicitly condemn Jephthah’s action nor gives precise information about what happened to his daughter. It gives interpreters who want to understand why Jephthah is presented positively in Hebr. 11:32 as a hero of faith the opportunity to praise Jephthah as a man who keeps to his promise. Also the consequences of his vow can be toned down by assuming that eventually he did not kill his daughter but ordered her to live the rest of her life in recluse, safeguarding her virginity. This nonsacrificial approach is found first in the writings of the Qaraate philosopher Yaqub al-Qirqisani in the 10th century (cf. Berman 2005, 231) and taken over in the 12th century by Joseph Qimchi and Ibn Ezra. David Qimchi (the son of Joseph) explains v. 39 in this way that Jephthah did not perform an act upon his daughter, but that he built a cell for her, to live there the rest of her life in seclusion. This interpretation may have been influenced by the

316

Judges10:6–12:7

growing impact of monasticism in Latin Christianity, which in return led to fierce criticism on this interpretation by other rabbinic scholars, like Ramban (cf. Berman 2005, 256; Gunn 2005, 141). A grammatical argument often used in the discussion is the meaning of the connective in 11:31. According to Qimchi it should not be interpreted as the conjunctive “and” but as the disjunctive “or”. This leaves open the possibility that if the one coming out of the house would be human, he/she would not be sacrificed. In the history of research interpreters have also used the open spaces in the text to create a picture of the daughter of Jephthah in their own image: as an example of the obedient daughter or as the woman who in the end is stronger than her unwise father. In some retellings she is also given a name. As a result, the history of interpretation of this part of the book of Judges in most cases tells more about the interpreters than that it helps to get a better understanding of the story. This is well illustrated by the way the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, when taken literally, has been pictured in the course of time. Many examples of this can be found up until the late Middle Ages, but in the Renaissance and after they become less frequent (Caroselli 2009). These kinds of pictures completely disappear in the mid-19th century, just in a period when books with illustrations of Bible stories were very popular. This can be explained by the changing attitudes towards the pedagogic value of public executions (Gunn 2007, 234). The retellings by Josephus and Pseudo-Philo (cf. Brown 1992, 93-139; Murphy 1993, 162–169; Feldman 1998, 177–192; Begg 2006; Ilan 2017, 174–178) are exemplary of the different ways the story of Jephthah has been explained and judged in the history of interpretation, especially when it comes to the roles of YHWH and of Jephthah’s daughter. Josephus abridges the relatively long introduction in 10:6–16. He does not mention the long catalogue of other deities to which the Israelites had turned and he also omits a reference to YHWH’s emotions, first his anger and then his compassion. It is not explicitly told that the Ammonites are sent as punishment by God, but the deliverance is presented as due to the Israelites turning back to their god, who “being prompted to a greater moderation, was now about to help them” (Ant. 5.256). Again, both the references to the spirit of YHWH given to Jephthah (11:29) and the victory over the Ammonites as given by YHWH (11:32) are left out. Also in the scene of the vow Josephus seems to downplay the role of YHWH. He simply notes that Jephthah prayed for victory and made his vow (5.263), leaving out that he addressed it to YHWH, as stated explicitly in 11:30. He also does not mention the reference to YHWH in the answer of his daughter on his return. Jephthah is presented on the one hand as more positive and on the other hand his vow is criticized. Josephus avoids the biblical reference to Jephthah’s mother as a prostitute and to the men he had gathered around him as “empty men”. Instead, he is introduced

Jephthah

317

as “powerful both in virtue of his ancestral valour and his maintenance of a personal force of mercenaries” (5.257). His origin is euphemistically described in explaining the difference between Jephthah and his half-brothers as “imposed upon them by their father as the outcome of erotic desire” (5.259). Josephus calls the consequences of Jephthah’s vow “a misfortune that was not at all like his achievements” (5.264) and he lets there be no mistake about the fate of his daughter: “he sacrificed the child as a holocaust” (5.266). To this he adds, however, that this sacrifice was “neither lawful nor pleasing to God; for he did not carefully weigh through reason what would happen nor how his deed would appear to those who heard of it” (5.266). Contrary to Josephus, Pseudo-Philo is more critical towards Jephthah. He also leaves out most of the introduction given in 10:6–16 and a reference to the status of Jephthah’s mother, but contrary to Josephus he pays much attention to Jephthah’s daughter (cf. Baker 1989) and is also more explicit about the role of YHWH and about how Jephthah’s vow has to be judged. According to Pseudo-Philo his brothers had driven him out of the house because they envied his strength as a warrior (L.A.B.39.2–5). Extra attention is paid to the attempts to persuade Jephthah to become commander. The people ask to forgive them and to free them, just as God freed Israel in the past in spite of their sins. When Jephthah stays reluctant, the people say: “Let the dove to which Israel has been compared instruct you, because when her young are taken from her, still she does not depart from her place, but she puts away the injury done her and forgets it as if it were in the depths of the deep” (39.5; perhaps relating it to Mic. 7:19; cf. Jacobson 1996, 950). Jephthah gives in and before his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites, who is named Getal, he admonishes his people to “set their hearts in the law of the Lord their god”. The people follow his advice and pray to the Lord, who then “repents of his anger and strengthens the spirit of Jephthah” (39.8). Contrary to the biblical account Pseudo-Philo places the negotiations with the king of Ammon after the reference to the giving of the spirit. The vow follows after it has become clear that a fight is unavoidable. Jephthah vows: “When the children of Ammon have been delivered into my hands and I have returned, whoever meets me first shall be a burnt offering to the Lord” (39.10). Whereas YHWH is silent according to the biblical text, he is said to have become angry in L.A.B.39.11. It instead of speaking like Josephus of “a misfortune”, Pseudo-Philo explains what happens next as God’s punishment: God grew angry and said, “Behold Jephthah has vowed that he will offer to me whatever meets him first. Now if a dog should meet Jephthah first, will the dog be offered to me? Now let Jephthah’s vow be accomplished upon his own first-born, that is, upon the fruit of his own belly, and let his request be upon his only-begotten daughter. I however will free my people at this time, not on his account but because of the prayer that Israel prayed”.

318

Judges10:6–12:7

Pseudo-Philo gives the daughter a name, Seila, and much text, in which she present herself as courageous and wise. She realizes that her sacrifice is uncommon and uses the time given to her by her father to discuss things with the wise men. Only after it is clear that they can bring no solution, she is willing to make the sacrifice. She is praised for that by God: Behold now I have shut up the tongue of the wise men of my people in this generation so that they cannot respond to the word of Jephthah’s daughter, in order that my word be fulfilled and my plan that I thought out not be foiled. I have seen that she is wiser than her father and that the virgin is smarter than all the wise men who are here. Now let her soul be given up in accord with her request, and her death will be precious before me always, and she will go and depart into the bosom of her mothers. (L.A.B.40.4)

Seila does lament that “the underworld will become her bridal chamber” and asks the trees and the beasts of the forests to weep with her and bewail her virginity, before her father “does everything that he had vowed”. In the end Pseudo-Philo stops expanding on the biblical text and even leaves out the story of the fight with the Ephraimites. This underlines the emphasis on the positive role of YHWH and of Seila in his version of the story and the negative perspective on Jephthah, taking him his also his final military victory. Many of the elements in the different approaches by Josephus and PseudoPhilo return in the later history of interpretation, with ever changing views on the roles of Jephthah, his daughter, and YHWH. In Rabbinic literature much attention is paid to the validity of the vow in relation to the Law of Moses. In the Targum it is added to v. 39: And it became a decree in Israel that no one may offer up his son or his daughter for a burnt offering, as Jephthah the Gileadite did, who did not ask Phinehas the priest. For if he had asked Phinehas the priest, he would have rescued her with a monetary consecration.

In one of the manuscripts of the Targum this argument returns in a marginal note to the end of the story, explaining how Jephthah could have been buried in different places: And Jephthah judged Israel for six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died from mortal wounds because he had not spared his daughter and had not gone to appease Phinehas the priest who could have undone his vow for him. And his limbs fell from him and his limbs were buried in the cities of Gilead (cf. Smelik 1995, 555–556).

In b. Ta῾an. 4a Jephthah’s vow is mentioned next to the requests by Eliezer (Gen. 24:24) and Saul (1 Sam. 17:25) as “haphazard” because of the risk of an unacceptable outcome. With regard to the promised sacrifice it is stated: “It might have been an unclean thing. He, however, was fortunate in that it so happened that his own daughter came to meet him”. In Gen.Rab. 60:3 it is suggested that this was arranged by YHWH:

Jephthah

319

Jephthah asked in an unfitting manner, and God answered him in an unfitting manner. He asked in an unfitting manner, as it says, “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said: Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth . . . it shall be the Lord’s and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering”. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him: “Then had a camel or an ass or a dog come forth, thou wouldst have offered it up for a burnt-offering!” What did the Lord do? He answered him unfittingly and prepared his daughter for him, as it says, “And Jephthah came . . . and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him” (transl. Freedman)

Midrash Tanhuma Buber Behuqqotay 10 also indicates that God “summoned his daughter to him” and adds that the daughter is far more versed in rabbinic logic than her father who “was not a Torah scholar” (he is also called “poor in the Torah” and compared to a “sycamore shoot”) by telling how she tries to convince her father that his vow was improper. His daughter said to him: My father, is it ever written in the Torah: They offer the lives of their sons upon the altar? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2): “When one of you present an offering to the Lord from the cattle, you shall present your offering from the herd or from the flock”, (i.e.) from the cattle and not from the children of Adam? He said to her: My daughter, I made a vow: “then it shall be that whatever comes forth …” (She said to him:) When our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22): “And of all that you give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for you”, and when the Holy One gave him twelve tribes, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? Moreover, does not Hannah (do likewise), when she makes a vow and says (in I Sam. 1:11): “Then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life”. Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One? All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. (transl. Townsend)

According to the same Midrash God reacts negatively to Jephthah’s sacrifice, indicating that this is not his will, as illustrated by the story of Abraham and Isaac: When they did not find (a loophole) for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One. The the Holy Spirit proclaimed: Did I desire you to sacrifice lives to me (according to Jer. 19:5), “which I never commanded, never spoke for, and which never entered by mind. Which I never commanded Abraham, that he slaughter his son. (…) Who caused Jephthah to forfeit his daughter? (He himself), because he had not studied the Torah; for if he had studied the Torah, he would not had forfeited his daughter, since it is written (in Lev. 27: 2, 4): “When anyone explicitly vows (to the Lord the value of humans beings) …”

Also Theodoret of Cyrus praises Jephthah’s daughter as being better than her father (QuestionesinOctateuchum303–304; cf. Fernández Marcos 2010, 478). In medieval Christian literature Jephthah’s daughter was considered a prototype of the Virgin Mary (cf. Brown Tkacz 2004; Baumgarten 2007, 188–189) and sometimes also of Christ (cf. Robinson 2004, 345; Römer et al. 2016, 893).

320

Judges10:6–12:7

In many modern studies the role of the daughter has changed into the victim of a patriarchal society or the woman who stands up against male dominance (cf. especially Trible 1981 and 1984; the survey by Houtman, Spronk 2007, 19–25; and the recent studies by Reis 2002; Cooper 2003; Beavis 2004 and 2010; Lanoir 2005, 149–170; Egger-Wenzel 2006; Jost 2006, 164–207; West 2007; Erbele-Küster 2008; Ostriker 2009; Schroeder 2009; Taylor 2009; Bauks 2010; Valler 2012; Claassens 2013; Stiebert 2013, 72–101; Fuchs 2016; Greves 2016; Lovelace 2016). In this regard Pseudo-Philo can be seen as a feminist interpreter “avant la lettre”. The story of Jephthah’s daughter is an ongoing source of inspiration for artists in all kinds of disciplines (cf. Syphard 1948; Bartelmus 1995; Linton 2004 and 2008; Ephraim 2005; Rooke 2006; Houtman, Spronk 2007, 77– 181; Sjöberg 2007; Nyquist 2008; Feldman 2009; Buchris 2012; Steenbergh 2012; Eichler-Levine 2013, 93–160; Römer etal. 2016, 894–901; Kietzman 2018, 133–136). The gaps in the storyline and its ambiguity leaves room for different interpretations and ways of identification with either Jephthah or his daughter, as is demonstrated by Malmes 2009 describing the “Erstlektüre” of modern readers.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(I): INTRODUCTION TO THE

EXEGESIS

The story about Jephthah consists of six different parts: the conflict between the Israelites and YHWH and its settlement (10:6–16), the appointment of Jephthah as “head and chief” of Israel (10:17–11:11), Jephthah’s negotiations with the king of Ammon (11:12–18), Jephthah’s victory over Ammon and the loss of his daughter (11:29–40), the conflict with the Ephraimites (12:1–6), and a note about his period as a judge, his death and burial (12:7). In modern research a number of tensions between these parts have been noted and interpreted as indications of redactional activity (an exhausting list is given by Richter 1966, 487–492). The clearest examples of this are the fact that the reference in 10:17 to the mustering of an Ammonite army does not fit in with the actions of this army described in 10:8, whereas the reference in 11:4 to the Ammonites waging war against Israel is unnecessary information. The topographical information is also confusing. Apparently, Jephthah moved from Tob to Mizpah (11:34), but how does this relate to Mizpeh in Gilead (11:29)? Another problem is the fact that in his negotiations with the king of Ammon Jephthah refers to Moab and to Kemosh, the god of the Moabites. Arguments for a reconstruction of the way the story of Jephthah got its shape within the present context can also be derived from looking at the connections with other parts of the book of Judges. The introduction in 10:6–16,

Jephthah

321

reminding the Israelites of YHWH’s acts of deliverance in the past, is in line with the words of the messenger of YHWH in 2:1–5 and the prophet in 6:7–10. The conflict with the Ephraimites (12:1–6) has a parallel in the story of Gideon (8:1–3). The way Jephthah’s story ends in 12:7 matches the preceding and following reports about the “minor judges” in 10:1–5 and 12:9–15. In this connection one inevitably also notes the hardly coincidental contrast between the many children of these “minor judges” and the only child of Jephthah. Attempts to explain the present text on the basis of a diachronic analysis has not yet led to convincing results (cf. Richter 1966, 485–487, for an overview of the older research). According to Groß (2009, 550) there is only consensus about 11:12–28 (the story of the negotiations with the king of Ammon) being added to its present context, 11:1–11* (introducing Jephthah) as the oldest part of the story, 11:30, 31, 34–40 (about the vow) as an originally separate story, and 12:1–6 (about the civil war) as a later addition. “Alles weitere ist heftig umstritten”. This will be illustrated by the following overview of recent diachronic analyses. According to Richter (1966, 553–556) most parts of the original story of Jephthah are found in 11:1–11, 30–31, about his appointment to a leader and his vow. It would have been edited in the early period of the kings by combining it with originally separate texts about the difference between Ephraimites and Gileadites (12:5–6a), the custom of Israelite girls (11:37–40), and the argument with Moab (11:15*, 16–26). The texts were combined first by adding 11:34–35, relating the tradition about the girls to the story of Jephthah. Later 11:12-15*, 27–28; 12:1–4a would have been added, relating the stories about the negotiations and the conflict with the Ephraimites to the story of Jephthah. Richter assumes a second edition adding 10:17–18; 11:11b, 29, 32–33, and many minor elements relating the story of Jephthah to a “Retterbuch” comprising most of Judg. 3–9. This version of the story of Jephthah would have been taken up by the Deuteronomist, who added the 10:1–5 and 12:7–15, putting Jephthah into the scheme of the “minor judges”. He would also have been responsible for the second introduction in 10:6–16. Later additions can be found in 11:1b, 2a; 12:4b, 6b. In his diachronic analysis of the story of Jephthah’s vow Römer (1998, 28–30) comes to different conclusions. In his opinion 11:30–31, 34–40 belong to another literary level than the war account in 11;29, 33. The repeated reference to the vow in v. 30 and v. 39a function as an inclusio, indicating that also vv. 39b and 40 are added to the story. According to Römer the story was composed by a redactor, who related it to the story of the war against the Ammonites by repeating in v. 32 the reference to this war in v. 29b. Because of the parallel with the Greek story about Iphigenia, he dates it in the end of the Persian or beginning of the Hellenistic period (cf. also Bauks 2010a,

322

Judges10:6–12:7

161; 2010b, 39). A similar analysis can be found with Neef (1999, 216– 217) who assumes that 11:29–31, 34–40 is a late Deuteronomistic addition to the story of Jephthah. Against this Janzen claims that the sacrifice of the daughter fits well into the whole story of Jephthah as a story of decline. In his opinion it is “a sign of Israel’s foreignness” (Janzen 2005, 349), just like the fact that in the preceding part of the story Jephthah is portrayed as the only judge who negotiated with a foreign state and in the following part the Ephraimites are portrayed “as foreigners unmasked by foreign accents” (p. 353). According to Groß (2009, 550–567) the oldest story about Jephthah can be found in 11:1–9*, 11b. Together with originally separate texts about the vow in 11:30–40*, the war in 10:17–18 and some minor fragments the Deuteronomist would have integrated this into an all Israelite story as part of the book of Judges. First additions can be found in 10:6d, 10b–11a, 16*; 11:12–28, 29*; 12:1–6*, and later additions amongst others in 10:6b, 7b (the reference to the Philistines) 11b, 12a; 11:9c, 33a. Recently, Finkelstein (2016, 3–4) based his geographical and historical considerations on a reconstructed old tale, which he finds in 11:4–5a, 29a, 33a and possibly 12:1–6. In his opinion the Deuteronomist would have added 10:6–16; 11:1–2, 7–10, 11b, 29a, 32b; 12:7. A post-Deuteronomistic label is attached to parts of 10:6–8, 11b–12; 11:1–2, 11b, 12–28, 30–31, 34–40. As was noted by Richter and illustrated by the different attempts in the diachronic analyses summarized above, it is impossible to draw clear lines between existing older stories and later redactional texts. This supports – or at least does not contradict – the assumption that the present text was composed relatively late as a coherent story. The author clearly used existing traditions, but it is difficult to prove that there ever existed earlier editions of something like the book of Judges. However, many of these observations can also be used as arguments to support the hypothesis of the book of Judges as a late construction. The author could have used old stories about clashes between Israelites and Ammonites in Transjordan in the 10th century BCE (cf. Finkelstein 2016, 13–15). When he gave them their place within the overall story about the period between Joshua and Saul, he added an introduction (10:6–16). Just as with the stories about Gideon and Samson this introduction emphasizes the role of YHWH and the problematic relation between Israel and its god. He also added the second speech of Jephthah in the story about the negotiations with the king of Ammon (11:14–27), adapting traditions we also know from Num. 21–22 and Deut. 2. In this way he emphasized the character of Jephthah as a negotiator, first with the elders of Gilead and then with the king of Ammon. For the same reason he added the story of the vow (11:30–40), as another example of Jephthah trying to keep control

Jephthah

323

by negotiating. It is very well possible that he produced the story himself, bringing together elements from Gen. 22, Num. 21 and 1 Sam. 14, and combining them with elements from Greek literature. From his description of Jephthah one can derive that the author wanted to present him – just as he did with his Abimelech – as prefiguring later kings like Saul (cf. Claassens 1997, 213-215: Jephthah as “a rising king” and Böhler 2008, 368: “Jiftach ist so ein Vorausbild der künftigen Führer und Könige Israel, die die Landnahme letztlich scheitern lassen”). The author also related Jephthah to Gideon, describing how both tried to find security by making a deal with YHWH. A similar connection with the previous story about Gideon can be assumed in the way the story about the conflict with the Ephraimites is told: whereas Gideon could solve the problem by diplomacy, Jephthah fails to make a deal. Finally, the author gave the story of Jephthah its place between the “minor judges”. Again, there is a good reason that this was done on thematic grounds: because of the contrast between the many children of these “minor judges” and the one and only child of Jephthah (cf. Álvarez Barredo 2002, 2; Shemesh 2011, 131). The relation between these stories is formally underlined by the chiastic arrangement of some remarkable numbers of children and their property (cf. Smith 2005, 289): 70 sons of Gideon (8:30; 9:2, 5) 30 sons + 30 donkeys + 30 cities of Jair (10:4) 1 child of Jephthah (11:34) 30 sons + 30 daughters + 30 daughters in law of Ibsan (12:9) 70 donkeys for the 40 sons and 30 grandsons of Abdon (12:14)

One can also include the story of Samson in this sequence, because as the one child of Jephthah comes after the seventy of Gideon, the one child of Manoah comes after the seventy sons and grandsons of Abdon. The coherence of the present text is also indicated by other thematic threads in the story, supported by more formal aspects (cf. Webb 1987, 41–76). As was already noted, Jephthah constantly acts as a negotiator. More generally, his story can be seen as a series of dialogues (cf. Webb 1986): • • • • •

Between Between Between Between Between

Israel and YHWH (10:6–16; esp. vv. 10–15) the elders and Jephthah (10:17–11:11; esp. vv. 5–11) Jephthah and the Ammonite king (11:12–28) Jephthah and his daughter (11:29–40; esp. vv. 34–38) Jephthah and the Ephraimites (12:1–7; esp. vv. 1–3).

It can be noted that the trend is set in the first part and that Jephthah’s reluctant reaction to the proposal by the elders has a clear parallel in the way YHWH reacts to the call for help by the Israelites (cf. Berman 2004, 85–114). A common element of the following dialogues is that they begin with a question:

324

Judges10:6–12:7

• “Who is the man that will begin to fight the children of Ammon?” (10:18); • “What is there between me and you that you have come to me to wage battle with my land?” (11:12); • “If you will indeed give me the children of Ammon in my hand” (11:30); • “Why did you cross over to wage war with the children of Ammon and did not call us to go with you?” (12:1). One could say that the problems between Israel and YHWH at the beginning were caused by the fact that in all this precisely the question of the Israelites asking for YHWH’s advice, as was found in the beginning of the book, is missing. The first two dialogues are connected through a chiastic structure, with the introduction of Jephthah as its centre (cf. Wright 2008, 44): Negotiations between Israel and YHWH (10:10–16) War with the Ammonites (10:17) Introduction of Jephthah (10:18–11:3) War with the Ammonites (11:4) Negotiations between Israelite leaders and Jephthah (11:5–10)

Also his daughter is introduced in 11:34–40 between two corresponding parts describing negotiations and war: Negotiations between Jephthah and the Ammonite king (11:12–28) War with the Ammonites (11:29–33) Story of Jephthah’s daughter (11:34–40) Negotiations between Jephthah and the Ephraimites (12:1–3) War with the Ephraimites (12:4–6)

A chiastic structure can also be noted in the first part of the story (cf. Neef 2016, 116): Israel’s sins and the punishment by YHWH (vv. 6–9) Israel crying to YHWH (v. 10) YHWH’s answer (vv. 11–14) Israel’s answer (v. 15) Israel doing the right thing and YHWH positive reaction (v. 16)

Another formal element which stands out in these chapters is the repetition of the root ‫ עבר‬in 10:8, 9; 11:17, 18, 19 ,20, 29 (3×), 32; 12:1 (2×). 3, 5 (2×), 6. It can be regarded as a “Leitmotif” (Römer 1998, 29; cf. also Boling 1975, 75, who points to the use of this verb in 2:20; 3:26; 8:4; 9:26), emphasizing the fact that in contrast to most of the other stories in the book of Judges the actions take place on the other side of the river Jordan. Coherence of the story can also be noted in the way both Jephthah and YHWH are pictured (cf. Spronk 2011). Jephthah is introduced only gradually. After he has assumed the leading role, he becomes dominant as the one

Jephthah

325

speaking and acting, but this changes after his daughter is introduced. In the speech the girl is dominant. In the final part of the story the initiative is taken over by the Gileadites. In the confrontation with his daughter and with the Ephraimites Jephthah loses control. This goes together with the distribution of the references to YHWH. In the first part of the text, YHWH is a leading character of the story as one of the speakers. In the conversation between the leaders of Gilead and Jephthah, YHWH is only mentioned at the end as a witness to their agreement. In the conversation between Jephthah and the king of Ammon, YHWH is again referred to as the authority on which Jephthah bases his claims to the land. In the conversation between Jephthah and his daughter, YHWH is mentioned by both father and daughter, but at the end of that part of the story references to YHWH are missing. The same tendency can be noted in the story of Gideon and also more general in the book of Judges as a whole: as of the story progresses the communication with YHWH becomes more and more problematic.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

(II): EXEGESIS

10:6–7 6

7

The children of Israel continued doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH.TheyservedtheBaalsandtheAstartesandthegodsofAram and the gods of Sidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the childrenofAmmonandthegodsofthePhilistines.Theyabandoned YHWHanddidnotservehim. TheangerofYHWHflaredupagainstthechildrenofIsrael.Hesold themintothehandofthePhilistinesandintothehandofthechildren ofAmmon.

After the short texts on the judges Tola and Jair now follows a lengthy introduction to another extended story about deliverance, following the customary sequel of sin, punishment, and the calling of a deliverer. The opening line, stating that “the children of Israel continued doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH” was used before in the introduction to the stories about Ehud (3:12), Deborah and Barak (4:1), and will also return in the story introducing Samson (13:1). Compared to the previous texts the present introduction is more elaborate. The usual reference to serving the Baals (2:11) and the Baals and Asherahs (3:7) is now extended to no less than seven groups of idols (the same number as the group of enemies mentioned in vv. 11–12). In LXX (A) the reference to Aram is missing, in LXX (B) it is replaced by Arad (see on this and other variants in the LXX versions in vv. 6–7 Kreuzer 2001). The extra idols are specified according to Israel’s enemies, following broadly

326

Judges10:6–12:7

speaking, the order in which they are referred to in the book of Judges. Aram was mentioned in 3:10 as the home of Kushan Rishataim, Moab is the land of Eglon (3:12), Ammon will figure in the present chapter, and the Philistines will play their role in the following story of Samson. The people of Sidon, mentioned here between Aram and Moab, were part of the list of peoples who according to 3:4 were left to test Israel. There it was already announced that the Israelites would serve their gods (3:6). YHWH’s reaction comes as no surprise as well. Also 2:14 and 3:8 speak of his anger flaring up and of “selling” the Israelites in the hand of enemies (cf. also 4:2). It is remarkable that here the Philistines are mentioned next to the Ammonites. Apparently, this text also functions as an introduction to the story of Samson, who is going to fight the Philistines. Another element shared by the stories of Jephthah and Samson is that it is said of both Jephthah and Samson that they “will begin” the fight against respectively the Ammonites and the Philistines (10:18; 13:5). It indicates that their stories have to be read as introduction to the history of kings Saul and David, who will continue and eventually end the wars against these enemies. 10:8–9 8

9

They shattered and crushed the children of Israel in that year, eighteenyearsallthechildrenofIsraelwhowereacrosstheJordan inthelandoftheAmorites,whichisinGilead. ThechildrenofAmmoncrossedtheJordantowagewaralsowith Judah,withBenjamin,andwiththehouseofEphraim.Itwasvery distressingforIsrael.

As in the story of Gideon (6:2–6) much attention is given to the description of the heavy burden of the oppression by the enemy. This is done in a wellconsidered literary way. It starts with wordplay, with two verbs related through alliteration: ‫וַ יִּ ְר ֲעצוּ וַ יְ ר ְֹצצוּ‬, “they shattered and crushed” (other attempts to reproduce it in the translation are given by Butler 2009, 266: “extinguished and exterminated”, Fox 2014, 195: “shattered and battered”, and Guest 2019, 112, following Alter 2013: “shattered and smashed”) The wordplay is taken up, using the same letters again, in the final verb of v. 9: ‫וַ ֵתּ ֶצר‬, “it was distressing”. This inclusio is complemented by the repetition of the name of Israel at the beginning of v. 8 and the end of v. 9. In between we find the opposition between “the children of Israel” and “the children of Ammon”, both followed by a reference to the crossing (using the root ‫ )עבר‬of the Jordan. The two references to time, “in that year, eighteen years” seem to have troubled some translators (cf. BHQ, 81*–82*). In some of the manuscripts

Jephthah

327

of the LXX, the Vulgate, and possibly also the fragment 1Q6 (cf. Trebolle Barrera 2014, 53) the first reference is left out. The dividing accent atnach in ‫ ַה ִ ֑היא‬suggests that they have a different function. The first relates the description of the oppression to the previous remarks, perhaps also to the previous story of Jair, the second to the length of the oppression. In this story Gilead is the name of a region and also of a person (11:1). Within the Hebrew Bible it is also the name of a city (cf. Hos. 6:8), which is located in Transjordan, south of the river Jabbok (cf. Finkelstein etal. 2011). The reference to “the cities of Gilead” (Josh. 13:25) indicates that the name was used to denote the surrounding region as well. As in the other stories in the book of Judges we find a combination of Israel being presented as one people next to the concentration on one or more tribes (cf. Collenberg & Giercke 2007). In the introduction to a story about the tribes of Gilead and Ephraim the reference to Judah and Benjamin next to Ephraim in v. 9 is remarkable. Like the Philistines mentioned in v. 7 these tribes will only play a role in the following stories and not in the story of Jephthah. Within the present context it underlines that the following story is not just a local conflict, but something that concerns Israel as a whole. Together with the repeated references to Israel’s sins and YHWH’s reaction it attributes to the coherence of the book of Judges. There is a tension with the argument used by king of Ammon in 11:13, which suggests that he had not crossed the Jordan. A possible explanation would be that the inclusion of Judah and Benjamin was added by the author to the original story to turn it from a local into a national history. 10:10–12 10 11 12

ThechildrenofIsraelcriedtoYHWHsaying:“Wehavesinnedagainst you,becausewehaveabandonedourgodandservedtheBaals”. YHWHsaidtothechildrenofIsrael:“WasitnotfromEgyptandfrom theAmoritesandfromthechildrenofAmmonandfromthePhilistines? TheSidonians,AmalekandMaonhaveoppressedyouandyoucried tomeandIdeliveredyoufromtheirhand.

When we compare the communication between Israel and YHWH to that in previous stories, the present dialogue is more intense, both from the side of Israel and of YHWH. As in 3:9, 15; and 6:6, Israel cries out to YHWH, but it now also adds a confession of sin. According to 3:9, 15 YHWH reacted directly by calling up a deliverer. In line with 6:7–10 YHWH teaches the Israelites a lesson first, but instead of sending a prophet he speaks directly to the people. As in 2:1 and 6:8–9 Israel is remembered of YHWH leading them out of Egypt. To this is added the delivery from six other peoples. The words

328

Judges10:6–12:7

ascribed to YHWH have the form of an anacoluthon. According to Fernández Marcos (BHQ, 82*) the variants in the versions correcting this are no reason to emend the text (cf. also O’Connell 1996, 469–470). It can be compared to the strained combination of sentences at the beginning of the speech by Jotham (9:16), fitting to the anger of the speaker (cf. Sasson 2014, 412). The total of seven enemies matches the number of idols mentioned in v. 6. In the list the name of Maon stands out. In the ancient Greek translations it replaced by Canaan or Midian. LXX (A) also adds Moab in v. 11 after Ammon (see the survey in BHQ, 82*, of the many variants in the different versions). It is not likely, however, that in the transmission of the text a wellknown name was replaced by the enigmatic Maon (cf. the survey of the relevant data by Gaß 2012). Apparently, we are dealing here with the people mentioned in 2 Chron. 20:1 and 26:7, together with the Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines and Arabs. The parallel with the late book of Chronicles can be used as an argument for the relatively late date of the book of Judges, as assumed in the present commentary. Gaß 2012, 281, assumes that vv. 11–12 are added to the story in the 4th or 3rd century BCE. From a geographical point of view it can be noted that these seven peoples form a circle around Israel: from Egypt in the south-west, to Sidon in the north, to Amalek and Maon in the east. 10:13–16 13 14 15 16

You,youhaveabandonedmeandservedothergods.ThereforeIwill notcontinuetodeliveryou. Goandcrytothegodswhomyouhavechosen.Letthemdeliveryou inthetimeofyourdistress”. ThechildrenofIsraelsaidtoYHWH:“Wehavesinned.You,doto usallthatisgoodinyoureyes.Only,rescueusthisday”. TheyremovedtheforeigngodsfromtheirmidstandservedYHWH. HissoulbecameimpatientwiththetroubleofIsrael.

YHWH’s reaction is reminiscent of the way Joshua countered the people when they declared that they would turn down the idols and serve YHWH (Josh. 24:16–21). YHWH goes one step further when he suggests that Israel should go on serving the other gods and see if they will deliver them. The same tactic was used by Joash in his reaction to the people of the village blaming his son Gideon of the destruction of Baal’s altar (6:31): let Baal prove that he deserves to be venerated as a god. When the Israelites stick to their intention and suit the action to the word by removing the foreign gods, YHWH gives in. This is formulated in a special way: ‫וַ ִתּ ְק ַצר נַ ְפשׁוֹ‬, which translates literally with “his soul was short”. The same phrase is used in 16:16 describing how finally Samson could not resist any longer the pressure

Jephthah

329

Delilah put on him to reveal his secret. It makes YHWH look human. For this reason these words are left untranslated in the Targum (cf. Smelik 1995, 538– 541). The text leaves open the possibility to interpret this reaction positively or negatively (cf. Berman 2004, 93–95). It depends on the meaning given to ‫ע ָמל‬: ָ it can refer to trouble, as in the comparable context of Deut. 26:7, but also to deceit, as in Ps. 10:7 where it is mentioned as one of the forms of injustice (cf. Guest 2019, 113, n. 16, who refers to “the dual connotations of the Hebrew”). According to Shveka (2002) we have to think of the latter here: YHWH considers their returning to worship him as not trustworthy. Polzin (1980, 178) speaks of “Israel’s impertinent, even presumptuous request”. Sasson (2014, 414) translates more generally “he lost patience with Israel’s behaviour”. With Groß (2009, 578–579); he translates “Da wurde er ungehalten über die Mühsal Israels”), we take it positively. This is more in line with his actions in the rest of the story. That does not alter the fact, however, that the relation between YHWH and Israel is deteriorating. It takes more effort to come together again, both from the side of Israel and from the side of YHWH. Berman (2004, 95), rightly remarks: “When Israel appeals a second time, God yields reluctantly. Tired of their appeals, He brings about salvation in a manner less direct and less full than in any of the previous salvation episodes in the book”. 10:17–18 17 18

ThechildrenofAmmonweresummonedandcampedinGilead.The childrenofIsraelgatheredandcampedinMizpah. Theysaid,thepeople,thecommandersofGilead,amantohisfellow: “WhoisthemanthatwillbegintofightthechildrenofAmmon? HeshallbeheadofallwhohavesettledinGilead”.

The situation described here is not in line with the situation pictured in vv. 8–9, which suggests a continuous suppression by the Ammonites without the Israelites being able to resist. In v. 17 we get the impression of the preparation for a “normal” battle between regular armies. In Israel this army still had to be built up. It not even has a leader. Whereas v. 17 refers to the Israelites, the following deliberations about who would lead the army are a matter of the people of Gilead. Within the story as a whole these differences have a function in the way the story is built up: together with the third repetition of the reference to the advancing Ammonite army in 11:4–5 they form a pattern, zooming in on Gilead and Jephthah. The two lines of v. 17 are similarly structured: “the children of Ammon were called together and camped in Gilead // the children of Israel gathered and camped in Mizpah”. The difference is that the Ammonites are “called together” and the Israelites are “gathered”. The same combination of the

330

Judges10:6–12:7

verbs ‫ צעק‬and ‫ אסף‬is found in 6:33–34, where the roles are reversed: the Midianites are “gathered” and the tribes are “called together” by Gideon, and in 1 Sam. 13:4–5 with the Philistines “gathered” and the Israelites “called together” by Saul. Comparing these texts it catches the eye that in Judg. 10:17 there is no leader mentioned who calls the Israelites together. Mizpah is mentioned in 11:11, 34 as the home town of Jephthah. It most probably is the same as the slightly differently vocalized Mizpeh of Gilead mentioned in 11:29 and has to be located not far from the border with Ammon, north of the river Jabbok (cf. Finkelstein etal. 2011, 141–143) or to its south (cf. Gaß 2005, 481–484, 500–502). The remark by the commanders of Gilead that they are looking for a man “who will begin to fight the Ammonites” has to be seen in the broader framework of the book of Judges as a prologue to the stories of the kings. One would expect the more optimistic wish for someone who would free them definitively from this foreign threat. The same phrase is used in the story announcing Samson as the one who would fight the Philistines. The messenger of YHWH promises that “he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines” (13:5). It relates both the stories of Jephthah and of Samson to the wars that still have to be fought against the Ammonites by Saul (cf. Müller 2004, 65) and also by David. It is important to note that the commanders of Gilead ask questions among themselves (“a man to his fellow”). The questions look like the one asked at the beginning of the book about who will lead the Israelites against the Canaanites. There is, however, one basic difference. Whereas according to 1:1 the Israelites are addressing YHWH, they seem to be ignoring him here. 11:1–3 1 2

3

JephthahtheGileaditewasamightywarrior.Hewasthesonofa prostitute.GileadbegotJephthah. The wife of Gilead bore him sons. The sons of this wife grew up. TheydroveJephthahaway.Theysaidtohim:“Youshallnotinheritin thehouseofourfather,becauseyouarethesonofanotherwoman”. Jephthahfledfromthefaceofhisbrothers.HesettledinthelandTob. RoundJephthahgatheredemptymenandtheywentoutwithhim.

When looking for a leader, Jephthah seems at first sight to be the ideal candidate: he is a ‫גִּ בּוֹר ַחיִ ל‬, “a mighty warrior”. According to 6:12 Gideon was greeted by the messenger of YHWH with almost the same words: ‫גִּ בּוֹר ֶה ָחיִ ל‬. In the situation of Gideon, who was hiding for the enemy, one could suspect some irony and have doubts about his qualities as a leader. The problem with Jephthah’s possible leadership is his descent. Being the son of a prostitute he looks more like Abimelech, who also had a mother of a low status. Although a concubine is less despised than a prostitute, in both cases it led

Jephthah

331

to a conflict with the sons of the lawful or first wife(s). A basic difference is that Abimelech took the initiative in a very violent conflict with his halfbrothers, whereas Jephthah was the victim of his half-brothers who were not willing to share. They must have been motivated by greed, because the disinheriting could not be legally based on the fact that Jephthah was the son of a prostitute (cf. Marcus 1990 and Fleishman 1998). Another remarkable parallel with Abimelech is that Jephthah becomes the leader of a group of outcasts, referred to as “empty men” (‫יקים‬ ִ ‫;אנָ ִשׁים ֵר‬ ֲ cf. 9:4), be it that the men gathered by Abimelech are also called reckless. Moreover, they were hired by Abimelech, whereas the men around Jephthah are presented as his companions. Therefore, they probably can be better compared to the band of marginalised people gathering around David according to 1 Sam. 22:2 and around Rezon of Damascus according to 1 Kgs 11:24 (cf. Claassens 1997, 213–214; Nelson 2017, 212). All in all, it is clear that in the way Jephthah is presented here he is compared to Gideon and Abimelech and that at this moment a comparison turns out in his advantage. Jephthah is a Gileadite in more than one way. He is not only from the tribe of Gilead, his father is also called Gilead. We have to assume that his father was named after the eponym of the tribe: the grandson of Manasseh (Num. 26:29). His mother is called a ‫א ָשּׁה זוֹנָ ה‬, ִ which puts her in the same category as Rahab in Jericho (Josh. 2:1), the woman Samson met in Gazah (Judg. 16:1), and the two women appearing before king Solomon (1 Kgs 3: 16). Within the book of Judges one can also associate it with the sinful behaviour of the Israelites “whoring after other gods” (2:1; 8:27, 33). The attempt of Schulte to prove that originally the word ‫ זוֹנָ ה‬referred to “die selbständige lebende Frau der matrilineare Famile” and that only later it got the meaning of “prostitute” (Schulte 1990, 262) has found little consent. Within the book of Judges it clearly has a negative connotation. There may be some irony in the report that Jephthah was forced to live in the land Tob. In Hebrew this name also denotes something that is “good”, which is in contrast to the way he had been treated by his half-brothers (cf. Ps. 133:1). It suggests that the place of his exile is better than the place from which he was banished. Because of the oppression by the Ammonites this is not surprising. The name of the land was not made up, however, because it is also mentioned in 2 Sam. 10:6–8. This text tells of men from Tob who were hired by the Ammonites to fight David. When it is correct that the book of Judges was written as an introduction to the stories of the kings, it is conceivable that the author used this information to describe the opposite situation of men coming from Tob to fight the Ammonites. This would also be in line with the message behind the remark that of Jephthah it is only expected that he will make a beginning with the liberation from the Ammonites (10:18), because in the same chapter in the book of Samuel it is described how David is going to finish the job.

332

Judges10:6–12:7

11:4–8 4 5 6 7

8

IthappenedaftersometimethatthechildrenofAmmonwagedwar withIsrael. It happened when the children of Ammon waged war with Israel thattheeldersofGileadwenttotakeJephthahfromthelandTob. TheysaidtoJephthah:“Comeandbechiefforusandwewillwage battlewiththechildrenofAmmon”. JephthahsaidtotheeldersofGilead:“Isitnotyouwhohatedme anddrovemeoutofthehouseofmyfather?Whyhaveyoucometo menow,whenyouareindistress?” The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah: “Therefore, now we have returnedtoyou,thatyoumaygowithusandthatyouwagebattle withthechildrenofAmmon.Youshallbetheheadtous,toallwho settledinGilead”.

For the third time (after 10:9 and 10:17) it is told that the Ammonites are coming to wage war against Israel. This redundancy could be traced back to the activity of a redactor or author piecing together originally separate parts, but one can also note that in its present context this repetition emphasizes the Ammonite threat. In vv. 4–5 it is even told twice. One might be inclined to skip v. 4, as is done in LXX (B), but this double reference can be seen as the climax of the repetitions, indicating that now is the time to act. It also emphasizes the fact that after the common beginning of the story follows something remarkably different. As in the previous stories it started with the reference to Israel sinning and YHWH’s punishment by handing Israel over in the hands of an enemy (10:6–9). After the customary crying out of the Israelites (10:10) YHWH reacted not directly with sending a deliverer. Instead, as in the story of Gideon, he reminded the Israelites of his mighty deeds on behalf of Israel in the past (10:11–12). Unlike the story of Gideon, YHWH does not call up a deliverer right away, but he leaves it to the Israelites, more specifically the lords of Gilead, to start looking for someone who can lead them in the fight against the Ammonites. Three times we read of a reaction to the oppression by the Ammonites. First, it is the Israelites who cry to YHWH (10:10). The second reaction is ascribed more specifically to “the people, the commanders of Gilead” looking for someone to lead Gilead (10:18). When describing the third reaction, the story teller further zooms in to the elders of Gilead. The difference between a “commander” (‫)שׂר‬ ַ and an “elder” (‫)זָ ֵקן‬ is that the former denotes a leading function given to someone, whereas the latter denotes a position one automatically gets within the family. There are fewer people who can call themselves commander, which also points to a higher status.

Jephthah

333

What follows, between the frame of the narrator in vv. 4-5 and 11, is a story of bargaining as a “web of perspectives and competing interests, (…) offers and counter-offers in the world of give-and-take” (Craig 1998, 85). Whereas the commanders of Gilead announced that the one who leads them against the Ammonites would be “head (‫ )רֹאשׁ‬of all who have settled in Gilead” (10:18), the elders first offer Jephthah a position of “chief” (‫ק ִצין‬,ָ v. 6), a leader of the army (cf. Josh. 10:24; see on the interpretation of these two terms Willis 1997, 34–36). Only when Jephthah is reluctant to accept, they raise it to the original offer (v. 8). Jephthah’s initial refusal can be compared to the way YHWH reacted to Israel’s cry for help: why would he help those who had opposed him in the past? Jephthah blames the elders for what his half-brothers had done to him. This is not unfounded. We do not have to assume that the elders actively had taken part in banishing Jephthah, but as those who had the function of administering justice (cf. Deut. 21:19; 25:9) they can be seen as responsible for not preventing the injustice done to Jephthah. 11:9–11 9

10 11

JephthahsaidtotheeldersofGilead:“Ifyoubringmebacktowage warwiththechildrenofAmmonandYHWHgivesthembeforeme, Ishallbeaheadtoyou”. The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah: “YHWH shall be a hearer betweenus,ifwenotdoaccordingtoyourword”. Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead. The people set him over them as head and as chief. Jephthah spoke all his words before YHWHinMizpah.

When we take into account, as was indicated above, that compared to the previous stories YHWH plays a less prominent role, it is striking that YHWH now gets involved in the initiative by Jephthah. The fact that the name of YHWH is mentioned three times in this conclusion of the negotiations is hardly coincidental. It is part of the style of the author. From a theological point of view it should be noted that in fact YHWH is still not active here. The way Jephthah and the elders speak about YHWH is characteristic also for the rest of the story. Jephthah gives YHWH a place in the condition for his leadership: when YHWH gives the victory that will be the proof that Jephthah is the rightful head of the people. It points forward to the vow he will make concerning his own safe return from the war with the Ammonites in vv. 30–31. There Jephthah goes one step further in order to be sure that YHWH will give him this victory. The reaction of the elders, calling upon YHWH as “a hearer between us”, points forward to Jephthah calling upon YHWH as a “judge, judging Israelites and Ammonites” (v. 27).

334

Judges10:6–12:7

Jephthah is very successful in these first negotiations. He does not have to wait for the outcome of the war. Going with the elders to Mizpah is enough to get his position as head and he becomes a chief as well. The final line indicates that Jephthah repeated everything he had settled with the elders in a shrine at Mizpah, apparently to make sure that everything is recorded well. It pictures him as not only a civil leader (“head”) and a military leader (“chief”) but also as a religious leader. It makes him look like Moses, who also “spoke before YHWH” (Exod. 6:12; 34:34). With Moses, however, there was mutual communication between YHWH and him (cf. Exod. 33:11) and exactly that is missing in the situation of Jephthah. 11:12–13 12

13

Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon saying:“Whatistherebetweenmeandyouthatyouhavecometo metowagebattlewithmyland?” ThekingofthechildrenofAmmonsaidtothemessengersofJephthah: “BecauseIsraelhastakenmylandwhenitcameupfromEgypt,from theArnontotheJabbokandtotheJordan.Now,returnitinpeace”.

The story of Jephthah differs, again, on this point from the previous stories about the saviours and deliverers. He does not start right away with fighting the enemy, but tries to avoid the battle through diplomacy. It is in line with the way he reacted to the request by the elders. He is a good negotiator. Within the book of Judges, however, this approach is new. Only of Ehud it is also told that he communicates with his opponent (3:19–20), but with him it is no more than a way to get close to Eglon in order to get him within the reach of his deadly sword. Jephthah seems to be more honest in his approach to the king of Ammon. He also shows that he is fit for his task as leader, making Israel’s cause his own. No less than three times he speaks to the king of Ammon in the first person: “What is there between me and you that you have come to me to wage battle with my land?” He is on a par with the king of Ammon who in his answer also speaks of “my land”. The phrase ‫ה־לּי וָ ָלְך‬ ִ ‫מ‬, ַ “what is there between me and you”, has an interesting parallel in 2 Chron. 35:21 (cf. also 2 Sam. 16:10; 19:23; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13), in the confrontation between the kings of Egypt and Judah. In vain the former tries to prevent a violent confrontation with the latter. Also the king of Ammon seems to looking for a peaceful solution. He claims that he is not the aggressor. The blame is on Israel having taken the land of Ammon on its way from Exodus to the Promised Land. The demand to return it “in peace” recalls the command given to the Israelites in the situation to which the king of Ammon refers. The Israelites had to offer peace to Sihon, the king of Chesbon, in order to let them cross his country (Deut. 26:2).

Jephthah

335

The argument of the king of Ammon ignores the fact recounted in 10:9 that the Ammonites had also crossed the Jordan. The added line in LXX (B) καὶ πορεύσομαι, “and I will go”, is an attempt to correct this by suggesting that the king of Ammon proposed to leave the occupied land west of the Jordan in exchange of the Israelites leaving his land. The most likely solution for this problem is not to assume that the king of Ammon is distorting the truth, but that the reference to Judah and Benjamin was added to turn the story into an all Israelite event. 11:14–26 14 15 16 17

18

19

20 21

22 23 24

25

Jephthah did it once again: he sent messengers to the king of the childrenofAmmon. Hesaidtohim:“ThussaysJephthah:Israelhasnottakentheland ofMoabandthelandofthechildrenofAmmon. Because,whenitcameupfromEgyptIsraelwentinthedesertuntil theSeaofReedsandcametoKadesh. Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom saying: ‘Let me cross throughyourland.’ButthekingofEdomdidnotlisten.Alsotothe king of Moab (Israel) sent (messengers), but he was not willing. IsraelstayedatKadesh. ItwentthroughthedesertandwentroundthelandofEdomandthe landofMoab.Itcamefromthe(sideofthe)sun-risetothelandof Moab.TheycampedacrosstheArnon.Theydidnotcomeintothe territoryofMoab,becausetheArnonistheborderofMoab. IsraelsentmessengerstoSihon,thekingoftheAmorites,theking ofHeshbon.Israelsaidtohim:‘Letuscrossthroughyourlandto myplace.’ SihondidnottrustIsraeltocrossthroughhisterritory.Sihongathered allhispeople,campedatJahazandwagedwarwithIsrael. YHWH,thegodofIsrael,gaveSihonandallhispeopleinthehand ofIsraelandtheystruckthem.Israeltookpossessionofalltheland oftheAmorites,thosewhohadsettledinthatland. They took possession of all the territory of the Amorites from the ArnontotheJabbokandfromthedeserttotheJordan. Now,YHWH,thegodofIsrael,hasdispossessedtheAmoritesbefore hispeopleIsrael;andyou,youwouldtakepossession(ofit)? Isitnot:whatdispossessesforyouChemosh,yourgod,youmaytake inpossessionandwhathasdispossessedYHWH,ourGod,beforeus thatwetakeinpossession. Now,areyoubetter,betterthanBalak,thesonofZippor,theking ofMoab?DidhestrivewithIsraelorwagebattlewiththem?

336 26

Judges10:6–12:7 WhenIsraelwassettledinHeshbonandinitsdaughter-townsandin Aroeranditsdaughter-townsandinallthecitiesthatarealongthe Arnon, for three hundred years, why did you not rescue (them) in thattime?

Now the king of Ammon has brought up the story of Israel’s wandering through Transjordan before entering the Promised Land, Jephthah uses this in an attempt to prove not only that he is the rightful owner of the land but also that he has the support of YHWH. This second speech of Jephthah is a retelling, with many literal quotes, from the story as it is found in Num. 20–21 and Deut. 2 (see the synopsis by Groß 2009, 558–560, and Sasson 2014, 427–428; in the synagogal lectionary Judges 11:1–33 is the Haftarah for Sukkot, that is Num. 19-21). Although there can be difference of opinion about the way these texts are related (cf. Van Seters 1972 and 1980), most scholars agree that the text in Judg. 11 is based on the stories in Numbers and Deuteronomy (cf. Bartlett 1978; Kaswalder 1984a, 1984b, 1990; Böhler 2008, 124–170; Groß 2009, 560–563; Finkelstein & Römer 2016, 719–720, discuss the historical background). This is also in line with the opinion defended in the present commentary about the book of Judges as a late construct (cf. introduction § 3.5). Apparently the author wanted to give an extra example of Jephthah as negotiator and added to the old story this second argument in the negotiations with the king of Ammon. For this he could use information from the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy which were available to him in a form closely related to the Masoretic text as we know it. A trace of this editorial work is found in the unnecessary emphasis on the follow up of the negotiations in v. 14: “Jephthah did it once again: he sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon”. In v. 20 LXX (A) translates καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν Σηων διελθεῖν τὸν Ισραηλ, “And Seon did not want Israel to cross”. According to many scholars this represents a better Hebrew text than the MT ‫א־ה ֱא ִמין ִסיחוֹן‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬, which “is awkward and looks suspicious textually” (Block 1999, 361, n. 67). On the basis of v. 17 and Num. 20:21 BHSproposes to read ‫יְמ ֵאין ִסיחוֹן ֵתּת‬ ָ ַ‫א־א ׇבה ו‬ ‫וְ ל ֹ ׇ‬, “And Sihon was not willing and refused to give”. LXX (B) translates more close to the MT καὶ οὐκ ἐνεπίστευσεν Σηων τῷ Ισραηλ παρελθεῖν, “and Seon did not trust Israel to cross”. The use of the verb ‫ אמן‬hiphil is uncommon but not impossible here (cf. Kaswalder 1984a; Groß 2009, 547; BHQ, 85*–86*). It may have been influenced by the way Sihon was pictured in Deut. 2:30, emphasizing his conflict with Israel and YHWH (cf. Sasson 2014, 429). A much discussed problem is the fact that the story Jephthah tells about Israel crossing the Transjordanian lands, differs on some points from what we read in Num. 20–21 and Deut. 2. Moreover, he seems to be mistaken when he calls Chemosh the god of the Ammonites (v. 24). Chemosh was the god

Jephthah

337

of the Moabites; the god of the Ammonites was Milkom (cf. 1 Kgs 11:33). It has been suggested in older commentaries that these incongruences are traces of the re-use of a tradition originally related to Moab (cf. Burney 1920, 299–300; Richter 1966, 524; Wüst 1975; cf. also BHK and BHSwho propose to replace in vv. 12, 13, 14, 27, 28, 30, and 31 Ammon with Moab; rejected in BHQ, 84*–85*). Some are of the opinion that Jephthah is portrayed here as someone who “has his facts wrong” (Klein 1989, 89) and that, therefore, the Ammonites “no doubt realize that they are dealing with an uneducated man” (Gunn & Fewell 1993, 115). Other scholars assume that it was not Jephthah but the author of the story who made the mistake (Lagrange 1903, 200: “Camos s’est glissé dans le texte”). Another possibility would be that the mistake was deliberate and intended as “subtle satirization of the king of Ammon” (O’Connell 1996, 193) or – together with the omission of Ammon in the historical survey – showing an “obvious contempt for his antagonists” (Block 1999, 362) or for their gods (Assis 2005, 205, n. 48: “Perhaps the confusion in Jephthah’s words is designed to show him as someone who does not distinguish between the gods of Israel’s neighbours to the east, since he does not attribute any importance or strength to them”). Such interpretations probably read too much in this text. At least one can simply conclude that Jephthah has no problem in recognizing the status of a god of another nation (cf. Smith 2008, 110–112, who refers to this text as an example of “crosscultural equation of national gods”). As will be demonstrated below, the most likely solution is that the reference to Chemosh was influenced by the use of Num. 21. In v. 26 LXX (A) has Iazer instead of Aroer, whereas LXX (B) follows MT. Both LXX (A) and (B) refer to the river Jordan instead of the Arnon in MT. LXX mentions Iazer not only in Num. 21:32, but also in Num. 21:24 as “the boundary of the Ammonites”. The deviations in LXX probably have to be explained as a correction of the text, harmonizing it with Num. 21 (Kaswalder 1984b, 36). The reference to Aroer, which was not mentioned in Num. 21, must have been influenced by the report of the battle in v. 33. In this way the author related originally different traditions. A plausible way of interpreting Jephthah’s statements is reading them as argument to prove his innocence (Kim 2013, 111, relates it to “anticonquest ideology”, which justifies the actions of the colonizer by presenting a conquest “as its benign opposite”). As happens so often when pleading a case, the presentation of the facts is done from a specific perspective. In this case Jephthah retells the story of Israel’s Transjordanian journey to prove his initial statement: “Israel has not taken the land of Moab and the land of the children of Ammon”. He takes his information from Num. 20–22, but refers only to the facts which are relevant for his argument. He shortly refers to the confrontation with Edom and Moab, emphasizing that Israel respected their

338

Judges10:6–12:7

borders and accepted that it received no permission to cross their territories. The story which is told in between, in Num. 21:1–3, about the victory over Chorma and its total annihilation, is left out. Most attention is given to the conflict with Sihon, the king of the Amorites. He is explicitly also called “king of Heshbon” (v. 19), supplementing the text of Num. 21:21 with Deut. 2:30, to make clear that this concerns the territory under discussion. The confrontation with Sihon shows that Israel only defended itself. After the victory the land of the Amorites was given to Israel. Again, we find here a combination of Num. 21 and Deut. 2. In Num. 21:24 we read that Israel took the land “from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far the Ammonites”. In Judg. 11:21 it is added in line with Deut. 2:33 that the victory is given by YHWH. The reference to the Ammonites is left out. Instead, it speaks of “all the land of the Amorites”. In Jephthah’s argument the literary quote of Num. 21:24 associating the Ammonites with the contested area would not fit. He now focusses on the role of the gods. It had been YHWH who had given the victory and the land. So the king of Ammon is not opposing Jephthah but his god. The following reference to Chemosh is taken from the next verses in Num. 21, which quotes an old song about Heshbon (Num. 21:28–30). In the song it is suggested that Chemosh, the god of Moab, had turned against his own people, delivering them in the hands of Sihon. From this Jephthah only takes the idea that human beings have to accept that battles and the distribution of the land is in the hand of the gods. It not only concerns the Israelites, but also the Ammonites. The fact that Jephthah calls Chemosh “your god” probably has to be explained as a forced adaptation of the old text from Num. 21 to the situation of the conflict between Israel and Ammon. It is possible that the author, who probably lived in a period long after the demise of Ammon and Moab as independent states, was not aware of his mixing up national deities. He apparently preferred to stick as much as possible to his source from Num. 21. The same holds true for the reference to Balak, the king of Moab. It is in line with Num. 22–24, which tells about Balak asking Bileam to curse Israel but in the end giving up the idea of opposing Israel. It also fits to the previous argument, because according to the story in Num. 22– 24 it was YHWH who made Bileam bless Israel and in this way frustrating Balak. Strictly speaking, Jephthah’s remark that Balak did not wage ware against Israel is in contradiction with Josh. 24:9. Again, Num. 22–24 as source text appears to be dominant here. His final argument is connected to the initial reference to the exodus, which according to the chronology of the book of Judges took place about three hundred years ago. According to Josh. 13:24–28 this region had been allotted to the tribe of Gad and according to Josh. 21:39 Heshbon and its surrounding had been given to the Levites.

Jephthah

339

11:27 

Asforme,Ihavenotsinnedagainstyou.Youaredoingeviltomeby wagingwaragainstme.MayYHWH,thejudge,judgetodaybetween thechildrenofIsraelandthechildrenofAmmon”.

At the end of his speech Jephthah returns to the formulation at the beginning (v. 12) describing the conflict as a personal matter, using the first person singular. Whereas v. 12 is preceded by a reference to Jephthah “speaking his words before YHWH” (v. 11), the parallel remark in v. 27 is followed by Jephthah pointing to YHWH. So his discussion with the king of Ammon is marked by an inclusio(cf. Mittmann 1969, 68, who remarks: “Der von dem Zusatzelement (‫ ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם ְבּ ַא ְר ִצי‬KS) gereinigte V. 12 und die Schlußpassage V. 27f. fügen sich nicht nur nahtlos aneinander; sie bilden auch ein inhaltlich abgerundetes und eigengewichtiges Ganzes, das des Mittelteiles entbehren kann”). His message to the king of Ammon can be compared to a declaration of war of the king of Mari to the king of another city, in which he declares for the gods his peaceful behaviour showing that he cannot be blamed for coming hostilities (cf. Sasson 2014, 433–434). Most interesting in this connection is the opening line: “Šamaš ought to investigate your conduct and mine and come to judgment”. This is very similar to how Jephthah ends his plea, referring to YHWH as the one who should judge in the dispute between the kings of Israel and Ammon. The role of YHWH as judge is emphasized by the repetition of the root ‫ שׁפט‬and can be compared to what Gideon said in his conversation with the Israelites in 8:23: “YHWH will rule over you” (8:23). On these turning points in the stories these are important theological utterances (cf. Spronk 2018, 59). In fact, YHWH is the only one in the book of Judges who is explicitly called “judge” (cf. Abadie 2001, 11, who suggests that it is no coincidence that this is done precisely in the centre of the book). 11:28–29 28 29

The king of the children of Ammon did not listen to the words of Jephthah,whichhehadsenttohim. The spirit of YHWH was upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and ManassehandcrossedMizpehofGileadandfromMizpehofGilead hewasgoingtocross(to)thechildrenofAmmon.

The king of Ammon is not convinced, but the text seems to suggest that YHWH was and that he did change his mind after hearing the words of Jephthah testifying of his faith in YHWH (cf. Assis 2005, 207). According to 10:13 YHWH

340

Judges10:6–12:7

had proclaimed that he would stop delivering his people (10:13). In 10:16 there already was a hint of YHWH becoming soft-hearted. He had not reacted to Jephthah when he spoke his words before him after the negotiations with the elders (11:11), but now he seems to take up the challenge of Jephthah invoking him to act as a judge in his negotiations with the king of Ammon (v. 27). The king of Ammon does not speak anymore. The time has come for action. The first to act is YHWH, be it indirectly, by giving his spirit to Jephthah. In terms of leadership it can be remarked “that Jephthah has stepped over the line of traditional authority into the arena of charismatic authority” (Willis 1997, 42). The formula ‫ וַ ְתּ ִהי ַעל‬is also used in 3:10 with regard to Othniel. In 6:34 (Gideon) and 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14 (Samson) it is described differently. In all cases it is an introduction to energetic acts, marking a decisive turn in the story. Here it is Jephthah who marches against the Ammonites as the first action to do something about the situation as described in 10:8–9 about Israel in great distress and without the power to do anything against its mighty opponent. The description of Jephthah’s action is confusing, because it is not clear what route he is taking. Also the name of his hometown is vocalized differently: Mizpeh instead of Mizpah in 10:17; 11:11, 34. The verse is characterized by the use of the verb ‫עבר‬. It is probably no coincidence that it is used three times, because this is typical of the style of the author of the book of Judges. It may offer an explanation of the somewhat forced phrasing. Some scholars suggest rearranging the word order (cf. BHS) or skipping ‫וַ יַּ ֲעבֹר‬ ‫ת־מנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫ת־הגִּ ְל ָעד וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫( ֶא‬cf. Becker 1990, 220), but the present text makes sense when it is read as a way of zooming in: from a general reference of the region of Gilead and Manasseh to the town of Mizpeh in Gilead, and from the town of Mizpeh to the destination of his march. The use of the verb ‫ עבר‬also relates this verse to the previous description of the Ammonites “crossing over” the river Jordan (10:9) and to the negotiations with the king of Ammon in which Jephthah also used this verb three times in remembering the journey of the Israelites to the promised land (11:17–20). The verb is repeated again in v. 34. The verse about the spirit of YHWH coming over Jephthah can be regarded as an intermezzo. It has the same place within its context as previously 10:7-8 describing YHWH’s anger being kindled against Israel. In both cases it concerns a certain aspect of YHWH and in both cases YHWH works through humans, first the Ammonites and now Jephthah. 11:30–31 30

JephthahmadeavowtoYHWH.Hesaid:“Ifyouwillindeedgiveme thechildrenofAmmoninmyhand,

Jephthah 31

341

itshallbethattheonewhogoesoutofthedoorsofmyhousetomeet me,whenIreturninpeacefromthechildrenofAmmon,shallbefor YHWHandIshallofferhimasanoffering”.

For the reader Jephthah’s vow may come as a surprise, because after the report of the march of the army in v. 29 one would expect a confrontation with the Ammonites. As was indicated in the introduction to the exegesis, the story about the vow in vv. 30–31 and 34–40 looks like a later addition. A clear indication is the “Wiederaufnahme” of v. 29 in v. 32, repeating the report of Jephthah “crossing over” to the Ammonites. It should, however, not be left unnoticed that the present text shows coherence in the fact that a similar transition from a military action indicated as “crossing over” to calling out to YHWH is found in 10:9–10. The crossing of the Jordan by the Ammonites was not followed by a military confrontation, but by the Israelites calling to YHWH. Within the book of Judges one can also compare the intermezzo at the beginning of the story of Gideon, where Gideon addresses YHWH to give him a sign proving his support. Making a vow to YHWH can be seen as another attempt by Jephthah to solve his problems by negotiating. Just as he first negotiated with the elders of Gilead and with the king of Ammon, he now starts negotiating with YHWH. The vow can be compared to the condition he formulated in his contact with the elders of Gilead: “If you bring me back to wage war with the children of Ammon and YHWH gives them before me, I shall be a head to you” (v. 9). He repeats his trust in YHWH giving him the victory of the Ammonites. In both cases also the emphasis is on Jephthah himself: he wants to become the head of his people and he hopes to return from the battle in peace. Comparing the negotiations, one may note also the differences. The first one is successful, the second is not, the third is both successful and a terrible mistake (according to Claassens 1996, 113, it is “rather ironic that the well-spoken man on his way up negotiates the death of his daughter and only child”). The first negotiations end in an agreement verbally expressed by the elders, in the second the king of Ammon remains silent at the end, in the final negotiation YHWH does not react at all. When after the fight with the Ammonites Jephthah faces a new conflict, this time with the Ephraimites (12:1), he does not negotiate any longer. He simply gives his view and does not wait for his opponents to react. The phrase ‫שׁוּבי ְב ָשׁלוֹם‬ ִ ‫בּ‬, ְ “upon my return in peace”, was also used by Gideon when he announces the people of Penuel that he will take revenge for their refusal to support him (8:9). A close parallel is found in the story of Jacob making a vow that YHWH shall be his god when he returns safely to the house of his father (Gen. 28:21). Making a vow to one’s god before the battle is customary in the ancient Near East. It makes war a sacred act

342

Judges10:6–12:7

(cf. Steinberg 1999; Bauks 2010a, 12). A good example in the Hebrew Bible (cf. the surveys by Marcus 1986, 18–22, and Cartledge 1992, 137– 199) is found in Num. 21:2, where Israel makes the following vow to YHWH: “If you will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction”. Formulated in this way, using the verb ‫חרם‬, it indicates that by totally destructing the cities Israel devotes them to its God. One wonders why Jephthah, who had shown in his plea to the king of Ammon to be familiar with exactly this chapter of the book of Numbers, did not make a similar vow. One also wonders why his vow is so unspecified. Is it “a cunning attempt to promise one thing while hoping for a lesser outcome, and effectively forcing Yahweh to make the choice”, as suggested by Cartledge (1992, 179)? In his negotiations with the elders Jephthah formulated his wishes very clear, but now he does not say what exactly he intends to sacrifice. It has been suggested that he did have his daughter in mind: “Potentially, it is precisely the possibility that his daughter might be the victim that give honor to Jephthah in making his vow. The costliest sacrifice brings the highest honor” (DeMaris & Leeb 2005, 184–185; in their view Jephthah is pictured not negatively but as “a figure with unambiguously high honor”, p. 177). However, from his later reaction one can deduce that he was surprised by the outcome. On the other hand, it is also clear that – be it in guarded terms (cf. Marcus 1986, 18, who notes “a number of intentional ambiguities”) – he thinks of a person: someone who will greet him upon his return and who is relieved that he is unharmed. This indicates that Jephthah is flirting with the idea of sacrificing a human being and can be compared to king Manasseh (cf. 2 Kgs 21:6) or the king of Moab (cf. 2 Kgs 3:27). It can also be interpreted as one of the elements which present Jephthah as foreshadowing king Saul, because a close parallel can be found in the story in 1 Sam. 14:44, which tells that Saul is prepared to kill his son Jonathan who unknowingly had called upon himself the curse of his father (cf. Feldman 1998, 186; Kamrada 2009, 73–74; Sasson 2014, 445; Evans 2017, 134; Spronk 2018). One can also compare Jephthah, who appears to be willing to sacrifice his child, with Abraham who was on the brink of killing his son Isaac (Gen. 22:10). A basic difference is that there it is God himself who takes the initiative. In this connection it is also important to note that it is not explicitly told that YHWH reacts to Jephthah’s vow. In the related story about a vow in Num. 21:2-3 we read that YHWH listened to Israel, in Judg. 11 a similar confirmation is missing (cf. Böhler 2008, 276–278). According to Stone the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter is one of the stories in the Hebrew Bible which show an association of women with domesticated animals, blurring the boundaries among animal, human, and divine: “Once Jephthah makes his vow (…) the death of the daughter is one of several

Jephthah

343

possible outcomes of the biblical system of household, domestication, difference, and sacrifice, and the complex meaning associated with it” (Stone 2016, 11). To this observation can be added that this is not the only time in the book of Judges that these boundaries are blurred. We already came across the fact that the assassination of Eglon by Ehud is described as the slaughtering of a calf (3:21–22) and in chapter 19:29 we shall read how the murdered concubine is cut into pieces like Saul did with his oxen (1 Sam. 11:7). The comparison with Ehud and Eglon can be taken as another example that Jephthah is pictured as inferior to his predecessors. Close parallels to Jephthah’s vow are found in the Greco-Roman literature. A useful survey is given by Marcus 1986, 41–42, and more parallels in later literature are noted by Frazer 1921, 394–404. Sasson 2014, 447, lists three examples, but adds that “they are hardly the stuff that might seriously contribute to shaping a Hebraic tale”: (1) In DescriptionofGreece9.33.4 by Pausanias (2nd century CE) we read the following story: In the land of Haliartos there is a river Lophis. It is said that the land was originally arid and without water, so that one of the rulers came to Delphi and asked in what way they would find water in the land. The Pythian priestess, they say, commanded him to kill the man who should first meet him on his return to Haliartos. On his arrival he was met by his son Lophis, and at once smote the youth with his sword. Still living, the boy ran about, and where the blood ran water rose up from the earth. Wherefore the river is called Lophis (translation by G. Nagy on https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/).

(2) In Pseudo-Plutarch (3rd century CE), De fluviis 9.1, we read a similar story explaining the name of a river: It is called Maeander from Maeander, the son of Cercaphus and Anaxibia, who, waging war with the Pessinuntines, made a vow to the Mother of the Gods, that if he obtained the victory, he would sacrifice the first that came to congratulate him for his good success. Now it happened that the first that met him were his son Archelaus, his mother, and his sister. All which, though so nearly related to him, he offered in sacrifice to the satisfaction of his vow. But then no less grieved for what he had done, he cast himself into the river, which from this accident was afterwards called by his own name Maeander (translation on http:// www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/)

(3) The third example mentioned by Sasson is the story of the Cretan king Idomeneus who on his return from Troy was caught with his ship in a terrible storm. He then promised the god Poseidon to sacrifice the first person he saw on his safe return home. This happened to be his own son, whom Idomeneus then duly sacrificed. Sasson refers in this connection to the work of Maurus Servius (4th century CE) in his commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid (3, 121). Another version of the story is also told by Apollodorus of Athens (2nd century BCE) in his Epitome 6.9–10, stating that the daughter of Ideomeneus was killed together with his wife by his rival Leucus.

344

Judges10:6–12:7

In the history of interpretation many scholars have pointed to the parallel with the story of Iphigeneia the daughter of Agamemnon, especially in the way this is described in the play devoted to her by Euripides: Iphigeneiain Tauris. The 17th century scholar Louis Cappel even suggested that Agamemnon and Jephthah were contemporaries and that the name Iphigenia comes from Jepthigenia, “born of Iphe/Jephthah” (Commentariietnotaecriticiin VetusTestamentum1689, 425; cf. Linton 2008, 44). Although the parallel with Euripides’s play is widely accepted (cf. Day 1989, 60–64; Römer 1998 and 2000; Kunz-Lübke 2007: 265-267; Dafni 2016; Lux 2017), Sasson is reluctant here (cf. also Marcus 1986, 42-43; Becking 1990; Michel 2003, 300–302; Groß 2009, 601). He points to the fact that none of the versions of the story as we know it from Greek sources matches all steps found in the Jephthah account (cf. also Brown 1995, 216–218, who in his survey on Hebrew-Greek parallels on human sacrifice gives no reference to Judg. 11). However, as will be demonstrated below, it should be noted that especially in the way the daughter is pictured here the text has much in common with the work of Euripides. Together with the many other parallels (see introduction §3.4) this gives the impression that the author who is responsible for the final version of the book of Judges was influenced by Greek literature. 11:32-33 32 33

JephthahcrossedovertothechildrenofAmmontowagewarwith themandYHWHgavetheminhishand. HestruckthemfromAroertowhereyougotoMinnith,twentycities, andtoAbelCeramim,averybigblow.ThechildrenofAmmonwere humiliatedbeforethefaceofthechildrenofIsrael.

YHWH does not react explicitly to Jephthah’s vow. Nevertheless, he does give the Ammonites “in the hand” of Jephthah, just as Jephthah had asked (v. 30) and the victory is overwhelming: “a very big blow”. Aroer was mentioned already in v. 26 and has to be located near Rabbah, in the heart land of Ammon (cf. Josh. 13:25). The places Minnith and Abel Ceramim cannot be located with certainty (cf. Mittmann 1969 and the survey by Gaß 2005, 465–479). LXX (A) has a different name for the first: Semoith, and translates the second as Αβελ ἀμπελώνων, “Abel-of-the-vineyards”. LXX (B) also differs from MT with regard to the first: “as far as Arnon” and does not translate the second: Εβελχαρμιν. The translation of the second in LXX (A) and the fact that the name of Minnith can be related to wheat (cf. Ezek. 27:17) suggest that these names were made up or highlighted within the twenty cities as an association to fertility: what the Ammonites took from Israel, the Israelites now take back.

Jephthah

345

The expression “a very big blow” is also used in the description of Joshua’s victory over five Canaanite kings, who had also been “given into his hand” by YHWH (Josh. 10:19–20). Jephthah follows in the footsteps of Joshua. And just like the Moabites under Ehud (3:30), the Canaanites under Deborah (4:23), and the Midianites under Gideon (8:28) the Ammonites are humiliated. Until this moment everything goes well, in sharp contrast with what follows. 11:34 

Jephthah came to Mizpah, to his house. Look, his daughter was comingouttomeethimwithtimbrelsandwithdancing.Yetshewas hisonlychild,hehadbesidehersonnordaughter.

When Jephthah returns things happened as he had formulated it in his vow (v. 30). The same words, “house” and “coming out to meet”, are used again. The new element, emphasized by ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬, “look”, is that it is daughter coming out of his house. The fact that it is a woman, dancing with timbrels, welcoming the victorious leader, is not surprising. Something similar was told about Miriam and the women of Israel celebrating the victory over the Egyptians (Exod. 15:20; cf. Roux 2012). A close parallel can also be found in 1 Sam. 18:6 about the women welcoming the victorious Saul and David with dance and timbrels. Next to the many deliberate associations between the book of Judges and the books of Samuel one can also note the contrast between the story of Jephthah’s daughter with what happens next in the story of Saul and David. Whereas Jephthah has only one daughter, who will die without having been with a man, Saul has two daughters who will be offered as a bride to David (1 Sam. 18:17–29). The daughter is presented similarly to how Jephthah was introduced in 11:1. Just like in 11:4–5 where the main line of the story is resumed by a double ‫ויהי‬, so we find in v. 35 the line describing Jephthah’s reaction introduced by ‫ויהי‬. In the story Jephthah’s daughter is not given a name. This is changed in many later retellings and interpretations. It is often maintained that her anonymity is an important theme (cf. esp. Bauks 2007). It should be noted, however, that in the story it is not exceptional, because Jephthah is the only one who has a name. Within the book of Judges as a whole the author does not seem to follow a clear pattern when it comes to naming women. Next to Debora and Jael in chapters 4–5, and Delilah in chapter 16, stand the daughter of Jephthah, the mother of Samson in chapter 13, and the concubine of the Levite in chapter 19. Within the story as it was told until now it is more striking that also Jephthah is no longer mentioned explicitly with name. Verses 34–36

346

Judges10:6–12:7

are characterized by pronominal references: “his house, his daughter, to meet him, to him, to see her, his clothes, my daughter, to make me bow, to trouble me, I, my mouth, to him, my father, your mouth, to me, from your mouth, to you”. According to Assis (2005, 215) ‫ ִהיא יְ ִח ָידה‬can be interpreted as “she is the only one”, indicating that no one else was coming to greet Jephthah. This would be “another personal tragedy for Jephthah”. This is not likely, because of the clear parallel use of this word in Gen. 22:12, 16. The fact that Jephthah’s daughter is his only child is underlined by the in itself superfluous added remark that next to her he had no son and no other daughter. In Hebrew we read ‫מ ֶמּנּוּ‬, ִ “except for him”, which does not seem to be grammatically correct. However, the Masorah notes six passages in which this is read where a feminine would be expected (cf. BHQ, 87*). So there is no need to emend the text to a feminine form, as suggested in BHS and many commentaries, nor to assume a special meaning of the masculine as indicating that the daughter constituted part of Jephthah’s identity (cf. Bal 1989, 223: “she is part of him, as a synecdochical integration which causes her loss to be the loss of himself”). In LXX (A) an adjective is added: καὶ αὕτη μονογενὴς αὐτῷ ἀγαπητή, “she was his only child, beloved”. This is clearly inspired by the use of ἀγαπητός in the parallel story in Gen. 22: 2, 12, 22. Another manuscript (L) arouses even more emotion by adding περίψυκτος αὐτῷ, “cherished by him” (cf. Harlé 1999, 190; Fernández Marcos 2010, 482). Within its wider context there is a clear contrast with the many sons of the preceding judge Jair (10:4) and the many sons and daughters of the following judge Ibsan (12:9). The ongoing line from Jair to Ibsan of sons to sons and daughters enhances this, to which can be added the fact that 12:9 also speaks of marriages. 11:35 

Ithappenedwhenhesawher,thathetorehisgarmentsandsaid: “Alas,mydaughter,youhaveindeedcausedmetobowdown,you arewiththosewhotroubleme.Asforme,Ihaveopenedbymouth toYHWHandIcannotturnback”.

Jephthah immediately realizes the impact of their meeting, as is indicated by him tearing his garments, just like Ruben when he assumes his brother Joseph is dead (Gen. 37:29), and David when he hears the news of the death of his son Amnon (2 Sam. 13:31). It is clear that Jephthah knows that his daughter is going to die. Whereas LXX (B) simply transliterates the exclamation ‫ ֲא ָההּ‬with ἆ ἆ, LXX (A) translates with οἴμμοι, which is a common

Jephthah

347

interjection in classical Greek literature (Harlé 1999, 190). It can be seen as one of the “echoes of the Greek tragedy” in the mind of the translator (Fernández Marcos 2010, 484). For the third time in this story we are told that Jephthah enters into a conversation. Just as with the elders of Gilead and the king of Ammon, he starts with a reproach and accuses his daughter of having done something wrong. She is the one who “troubles” him. The same verb ‫ כרע‬was used in 5:27 (not hiphil but qal) describing Sisera’s going down deadly wounded (in both cases it is a woman who makes the man go down, but one can also note a contrast here: it is not the man, but the woman who is going to die). To this he adds that she has put him into trouble, using the verb which can also be found in Josh. 7:25 for Achan causing big problems for his people because of the transgression of God’s command at Jericho. The emphasis on ‫ כרע‬by using it twice in a paronomastic construction and the close resemblance to the verb ‫ עכר‬using the same letters but in a different order, points at wordplay. This wordplay includes the first part of the verse, because of the paronomasia with the words ‫ ִכ ְראוֹתוֹ‬and ‫וַ יִּ ְק ַרע‬. The price of this wordplay is that it results in unusual phrasing, causing problems for the Greek translators. LXX (B) solves the problem by using the same verbs: ταραχῇ ἐτάραξάς με καὶ σὺ ἦς ἐν τῷ ταράχῳ μου, “with confusion you have confused me, and it is you who were in my confusion”. It is suggested in BHKand BHS to emend the Hebrew text accordingly, but this is rejected by Fernández Marcos (BHQ, 87*). LXX (A) translates ἐμπεποδοστάτηκάς με εἰς σκῶλον ἐγένου ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς μου, “You have got in my way; you have become a thorn in my eyes”. Schreiner 1957, 120, tries to explain the Greek version as “Verlesung in ‫ ְבּ ֵעינַ י‬und Zusatz von εἰς σκῶλον nach dem Kontext”. The close relation between father and daughter is by emphasized Jephthah explicitly calling her “my daughter” and she introducing her reply with “my father”. In between it is continued by the personal pronouns used in Jephthah’s words: ‫ וְ ַא ְתּ‬and ‫וְ ָאנ ִֹכי‬. About his own part in this tragedy he explains that “he has opened his mouth to YHWH”. The verb ‫פצה‬, “to open”, is also used in the story about the netherworld opening its mouth to swallow Korach and his fellows (Num. 16:30). There it is used next to the verb ‫פתח‬, “to open” (Num. 16:32; cf. also Num. 26:10 and Deut. 11:6), which is also part of the name of Jephthah, which can be translated as “(God) opened (the womb)”. So this verb, which is repeated in v. 36, can be seen as another case of wordplay with a name in the book of Judges (cf. Garsiel 1991, 105–106; Block 1999, 351, n. 33; cf. also Hugo 2005, 127: “En ouvrant la bouche [‫]פ ׇצה‬ ‫ ׇ‬pour des mots qui ne correspondent pas à la réalité de son être [‫]פ ׇתח‬, ‫ׇ‬ il consomme la rupture entre parole et identité”). He admits that he should have kept his big mouth shut, as advised in Deut. 23:21–23 and Qoh. 5:1–4:

348

Judges10:6–12:7

once you have a vow, you have to keep to your words (cf. Römer 2000, 40; according to Claassens 1997, 209–212, Jephthah is presented explicitly as someone who is not wise). Brown 1995, 255, points to a parallel in Sophocles’ OedipusRex, 819–820, where Oedipus calls out: “it was none other than I that laid these curses on myself”. There is some irony in the fact that from this moment on he almost falls silent. The man who was so eloquent in his discussion with the elders and with the king of Ammon only speaks one more word to his daughter, granting her request (v. 38). In this context it should also be noted that YHWH is silent as well. This is a basic difference in comparison to the story in Gen. 22, where it was YHWH who ordered the sacrifice of Isaac and eventually in word and deed through the angel prevented the execution of his command. In the story of Jephthah YHWH is neither involved in the initiative nor in the follow up. Exum calls this the tragic element in the story: “The source of the tragic in the story of Jephthah is not divine enmity, as in Saul’s case, but divine silence” (Exum 1989, 78). 11:36–38 36

37

38

She said to him: “My father, you have opened your mouth to YHWH.Dotomeasitcameoutofyourmouth.AfterwhatYHWH hasdoneforyou:vengeanceoveryouenemies,overthechildren ofAmmon”. Shesaidtoherfather:“Letthisthingbedoneforme:desistfrom mefortwomonthsandIshallgoandgodownuponthemountains andweepformyvirginity,Iandmycompanions”. Hesaid:“Go”.Hesentherofffortwomonths.Shewent,sheandher companionsandsheweptoverhervirginityinthemountains.

The initiative in the conversation is now taken over by his daughter. She emphasizes their close relation by explicitly calling him “my father”, just as he had addressed her as “my daughter”. She also repeats his words about “opening the mouth to YHWH” (resulting in another example of a threefold use of an important word: “mouth”). Whereas Jephthah only talked about his own role (“I cannot turn back”), she refers to the consequences for her (“do to me”). Three times she uses the verb “to do” (‫)עשׂה‬, two times about what her father has to do with her and in between about what YHWH did for her father. Especially in the way the daughter is pictured here as more brave and decisive than her father, one can note a parallel in the description of Iphigeneia by Euripides in his play IphigeneiainAulis: And King Agamemnon, when he saw his daughter Coming through the grove to the place of sacrifice, Groaned aloud and turned his head, hiding

Jephthah

349

his tears and heir tears with his robe. But she came up to her father and said, “Father, here I am. And I give my body willingly as a sacrifice for my country, for all of Greece. Lead me to the altar if this is what destiny has decreed. For my part, I hope It turns out well for all of you. May the spoils of victory be yours, and then the sight of your homes again. Let none of the Argives lay hands on me. I will offer my neck in silence , I will not flinch”. (IphigeneiainAulis, 2078–2094; translation W.S. Merwin & G.E. Dimock)

Just like Iphigeneia the daughter of Jephthah declares to her moaning father that she is willing to be sacrificed for the benefit of her people. Jephthah does not react. Whereas one would expect in v. 37 that Jephthah would give an answer to his daughter’s summon to act, it is explicitly indicated again that the girl is going to speak. It contrasts sharply with the way Jephthah was pictured in his negotiations with the elders and the king of Ammon. There Jephthah clearly was the leading character in the conversation. He took the initiative in the conversation between himself and the king of Ammon. As was remarked above, the passage about the spirit of YHWH coming over Jephthah (11:29) can be regarded as an intermezzo. In 11:30 the story continues with Jephthah as the main character. He acts like he did before: he starts talking (‫)ויאמר‬, this time to YHWH. In contrast to the earlier parts of the story, Jephthah does not receive a direct answer. He goes on with what he was doing already (note the repeated verb ‫ ויעבר‬in vv. 29 and 32). The action of YHWH in v. 32 and the situation described in v. 33 with Ammon as subject are syntactically speaking no more than remarks in the side line. The previous conversations showed the same pattern with the repeated ‫ ויאמר‬followed by the explicit reference to the interlocutors. In vv. 35–38 this scheme is abandoned. The subject of the introductory ‫ ויאמר‬is not named. The regular sequence is broken as well when in v. 37 the reference to the daughter speaking (‫ )ותאמר‬is repeated. After v. 36 one would expect a reaction by Jephthah (cf. also Assis 2005, 218: “the silence here is deafening”; Spronk 2011, 311–313). Alter (2013), remarks to his translation of v. 37: This is one of the most arresting instances of the convention of repeating the formula for the introduction of speech with no intervening answer in order to indicate a difficulty in responding on the part of the interlocutor in the dialogue. Jephthah, hearing his daughter’s declaration that she is willing to become a burnt offering in fulfillment of the vow, is dumbfounded and doesn’t know what to say.

350

Judges10:6–12:7

She asks for a two months leave “to go and to go down upon the mountains and weep for my virginity”. The plural in ‫תוּלי‬ ַ ‫בּ‬, ְ “my virginity”, can be explained as indicating a status (JM § 136h).The use of the verb ‫ירד‬, “to go down”, is strange here and has led to many suggestions to emend the text. Also syntactically it stands out, as consecutive perfect sandwiched between the two cohortatives ‫ וְ ֵא ְל ָכה‬and ‫( וְ ֶא ְב ֶכּה‬cf. Sasson 2014, 441). It can be explained (with Rashi; cf. Rosenberg 1987, 102) as used in the same way as ‫י ֵֹרד ַבּ ֶבּ ִכי‬, “going down in weeping” in Isa. 15:3. Apparently, also in Judg. 11:38 the verb ‫ירד‬, “to go down”, has to be related to the weeping, and “upon the mountains” to the preceding “to go”. This is confirmed by the fact that in the next verse the repeated reference to “upon the mountains” is also related to “and they went”. That “going down” would have to do with a loss of status (cf. Gerstein 1989, 188: “a referent to Bat’s shift of positions”) is not likely. The same goes for the suggestion that her going down to the mountain indicates that no divine intervention, of which “coming down to the mountains” is a technical term, can be expected (Römer 1998, 37). It is not clear why she asks to be accompanied by a group of women, nor are we informed about the number of women. This group of companions can be seen as the counterpart of “the empty men, going out” with her father (11:3; cf. Block 1999, 374) and interpreted as an indication of “female resistance” (Claassens 2013, 614–615; cf. also Exum 1993, 143). In v. 37 we have to read ‫עוֹתי‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵר‬, replacing as indicated by the Masoretes a ‫ י‬by a ‫ו‬, just as in v. 38. Her request is formulated as the counterpart of what her father is going to do to her. This is especially clear in the repetition of the verb ‫עשׂה‬, “to do”. In v. 36 she said: “do to me as it came out of your mouth” and now she introduces her request with the words “let this thing be done for me”. In the description in v. 39 of the implementation of the vow the verb will be used for the third time. The emphasis on the deeds stands in contrast to the very few words spoken. Jephthah only says one word: “go!” Neither here, nor in the following text describing what happens after the two months he shows emotion or sympathy with his daughter. 11:39–40 39

40

Ithappened,attheendoftwomonthsthatshereturnedtoherfather. Hedidtoheraccordingtothevowthathehadmade.Shehadnot knownaman.ItwasaruleinIsrael. FromyeartoyearthedaughtersofIsraelgotorecountthedaughter ofJephthahtheGaleaditefourdaysayear.

Just as in 11:4–5 and in 11:35, ‫ ויהי‬is used in v. 39 to return to the main line of the story, describing that Jephthah acted as promised. Again, it is

Jephthah

351

noteworthy that the name of Jephthah is not explicitly mentioned. The emphasis now is completely on his daughter. Just as it was underlined in v. 34 that she was his only child, it is now repeated that she died childless; after it had already been mentioned twice that she remained a virgin, it is now told with other words: she did not have sex with a man. According to the oldest interpretations and retellings of the story by Josephus, Pseudo-Philo and others it was clear that Jephthah really sacrificed and thus killed his daughter. The same can be derived from the old Greek translation (cf. Fernández Marcos 2010, 487). In later interpretation attempts were undertaken, especially since Kimchi in the 12th century CE, to prove that the text suggests that Jephthah did not kill his daughter but sent her to some kind of convent with the rule of celibacy (cf. recently Wood 1975, 287– 295; Marcus 1986, 43; Landers 1991; Alomía 2000). Some scholars suggest that the text is intentionally ambiguous and thus leaves open the possibility that the sacrifice never took place (cf. Marcus 1986, 52–55; Fuchs 1989, 35). Although the embarrassment of the interpreters who regard the book of Judges as part of a holy text and who note the contradiction with the biblical prohibition of child sacrifice (for instance, Lev. 18:21) is understandable, it cannot be denied that the Hebrew text clearly suggests that the daughter was killed. The fact that it is not explicitly reported that she was bound (like Isaac in Gen. 22:9), killed (like almost happed to Isaac) and then burnt (like the son of the king of Moab in 2 Kgs 3:27) can be seen as an indication that also the author felt uncomfortable here. It also means that the emphasis is on her childlessness, which is now indicated for the third time (cf. Smith 2005, 297). A very different interpretation is suggested by Kamrada. She stresses the fact that “there is not even a shadow of criticism about the actual fulfilment of his vow (not to mention the female rite)” (Kamrada 2009, 77–78). Moreover, from the fact that the giving of the spirit precedes the vow “it may well follow that the deity not only accepts the offering, but even inspires it by his spirit” (p. 83). In her opinion all this indicates that the story is told in such a way that it fits within the Deuteronomistic rules of holiness. It can be compared to the positive interpretation by DeMaris &Leeb 2005 (see the comments on vv. 31–32 above). Admittedly, the text offers no explicit judgment, be it negative or positive. However, Jephthah’s shock reaction, his gradually falling silent, YHWH’s silence, and the mere fact of human sacrifice leave hardly any doubt that all this should be evaluated negatively. In the final words of v. 39, ‫וַ ְתּ ִהי־חֹק ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, there seems to be a discrepancy between the feminine form of the verb and the masculine noun. This is not impossible (Ges-K § 144b: third person singular feminine used impersonally), but instead of the usual translation, as offered above, it can also be translated as “she (that is, the daughter) became a rule” (cf. Groß 2009,

352

Judges10:6–12:7

610). It can be interpreted as a way of giving her a special status. According to Kamrada (2009, 83; 2010, 32) this conclusion should be read as the counterpart of the negative representation of Jephthah’s mother in the beginning of the story. The act of commemoration is indicated with the same, rare verb ‫תנה‬, “to recount”, used in the song of Deborah to glorify YHWH’s righteous deeds (5:11). It is presented as a yearly festival lasting no less than four days. Within the Hebrew Bible it is only mentioned here, which evokes doubts about its historicity (Sasson 2014, 443: “Could the narrator simply have conjured it up to divert attention from a distasteful ending?”) and leaves room for speculation about some kind of “rite de passage” for young women entering physical maturity (cf. Keukens 1982; Bal 1989; Day 1989). The latter is primarily based on a wider understanding of the term ‫תוּלים‬ ִ ‫ ְבּ‬as referring to an age group. Within the story, however, the emphasis is on the daughter. The fact that she is “recounted” just like YHWH in the song of Deborah can be seen as another indication of her “more-than-mere-mortal status” (Day 1999, 465). Trible speculates about the words used to mourn her, using David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. 1 as a counterpoint: “Thy daughter, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places! How are the powerless fallen!” (Trible 1981, 68). Whereas she and the ritual devoted to her are not mentioned directly or indirectly elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, there are interesting parallels in Greek texts about heroine cults celebrating daughters who were sacrificed for the good of the state (cf. Beavis 2004, 20–24, based on the work of Larson 1995, esp. p. 102). The myths explaining the origin of these cults tell of virgins sacrificed for a military victory or the end of a plague. The victim is willing to offer her life and is later honoured as a saviour. A very interesting example can be found in Euripides’ play Erechtheus(which unfortunately is only partially preserved). It tells the story of Erechtheus, king of Athens, who learned from the oracle at Delphi that his city can only be saved when he sacrifices one of his three daughters. The daughters are solidary and accept their fate and so they are sacrificed all three of them. Afterwards they are honoured in a yearly festival with choruses of girls, as ordered by the goddess Athena: “I (instruct) my citizens to honour them – never forgetting this over time – with annual sacrifices and slayings of (oxen), adorning these rituals with sacred maiden dances” (fragment 370, 77–80; translation C. Collard, M. Cropp, EuripidesFragments [The Loeb Classical Library 504], 2008, 397). A parallel can also be found in the ritual lament described by Euripides in his Hippolytos: girls mourning the beautiful youth Hippolytus who died without ever knowing a woman because of the wrath of Aphrodite (cf. Burkert 1998, 75–76). The use of the verb θρηνεῖν, “to sing a dirge, to lament”, in the LXX translating ‫תנה‬, indicates that the also Greek translator associated the action

Jephthah

353

of the girls with laments in classical Greek literature (Fernández Marcos 2010, 483–484). The author of the book of Judges may have been inspired – next to Euripides’ play about Iphigeneia – by these traditions when he integrated the story of Jephthah in his book and adapted it. Within this framework it is interesting to note that already Epiphanius of Salamis (4th century CE) assumed a relation between a cultic practice concerning the Greek goddess Kore and Jephthah’s daughter: “in Shechem, that is, the present day Neapolis, the inhabitants offer sacrifices in the name of Kore, supposedly because of Jephthah’s daughter who was once offered to God as a sacrifice” (Penarion23.6 [translation F. Williams]; cf. also Beavis 2004, 13). From medieval Germany and northern France a Jewish ritual is known, called the tekufah, which was explained by the narrative in Judg. 11. It concerns “the practice of refraining four times a year from drinking water from wells and rivers during a certain number of hours of the equinox and the solstice – marking the changing of the seasons” (Baumgarten 2007, 181). Apparently, the four days of the story were related to the four times the ritual took place every year. 12:1–3 1

2

3

The men of Ephraim were mustered and crossed over to Zaphon. TheysaidtoJephthah:“Whydidyoucrossovertowagewarwith thechildrenofAmmonanddidnotcallustogowithyou?Yourhouse wewillburndownoveryouwithfire”. Jephthahsaidtothem:“AmanofstrifeIwas,Iandmypeopleand the children of Ammon, very much. I summoned you, but you did notdelivermefromtheirhand. Isawthatyouwerenotadeliverer.Iputmylifeinmypalm.Icrossed overtothechildrenofAmmonandYHWHgavethemintomyhand. Whyhaveyoucomeuptomethisdaytowagewarwithme?”

The city of Zaphon is also mentioned in Josh. 10:17 as a city in the territory of king Sihon (cf. 11:19). It is located north of the river Jabbok and close to the river Jordan (cf. Rösel 1999). The internal Israelite conflict between the Gileadite Jephthah and the tribe of Ephraim comes unexpectedly and without a clear indication of time. It could have taken place in the period of two months between Jephthah’s return from the battle with the Ammonites and the sacrifice of his daughter. Within the present context the discussion with and the fight against the Ephraimites stand in clear contrast with the story of the war against the Ammonites. Both stories start with referring to the army being summoned

354

Judges10:6–12:7

(using the verb ‫ צעק‬niphal) and in both cases the fight is preceded by a discussion. Both stories end with the victory by Jephthah. In both stories the verb ‫עבר‬, “to cross”, dominates (10:9; 11:19, 29 [2×], 32; and 12:1 [2×], 3, 5; cf. Park 2015, 261, who states that crossing is a “leitmotif” that “runs throughout the Jephthah cycle and binds together all the stories about this figure”). The big differences concern the fact that the enemy is not a foreign intruder but one of the tribes of Israel. This may explain why the victory over the Ephraimites is not attributed to YHWH. The confrontation with Ephraim is also reminiscent of a similar conflict of Gideon with the members of this tribe (8:1–3; cf. Assis 2005, 226–227; Groß 2009, 612). Whereas Gideon found the right words to assuage the Ephraimites, Jephthah’s words have the opposite effect. It is the consequence of the fact that Jephthah does not – like Gideon – humble himself and praise his opponents, but presents himself as a warrior and makes harsh accusations. He calls himself ‫אישׁ ִריב‬, ִ “a man of strife”. The verb ‫ ריב‬was also used in 8:1, describing the aggression of the Ephraimites against Gideon: “They strove with him with strength”. Jephthah also used it in 11:25 when he compared the aspirations of the king of Ammon to the fact that the king of Moab did not “strive” with Israel. So what Jephthah means with this phrase is that he had already had his share of antagonism and that what the Ephraimites are doing puts them on the same level as the Ammonites. LXX (A) adds to the first line of v. 2: “(the sons of Ammon) were humbling me (greatly)”. Apparently, the translator wanted to explain what was meant with “strive”. LXX (B) is in line with MT. As in the previous conflict with Gideon the Ephraimites indicate that they feel excluded. Jephthah should have invited them to join the war with Ammon. Jephthah states the opposite. The narrator leaves it open who is right here, because he did not give the relevant information about the summoning of the army in the previous chapter. We were only informed in 10:9 that Ephraim had also suffered under the Ammonite raids, from which one can also conclude that the Ephraimites had not been able to withstand the Ammonites by themselves. More in general, one can also associate the Ephraimite complaints with the tradition of Ephraim representing the northern state of Israel being scorned by YHWH (cf. Ps. 78:67–68). Then it foreshadows – as in many other cases in the book of Judges – the later situation of the monarchy. The threat by the Ephraimites to burn down Jephthah’s house is reminiscent of Jotham’s warning for bad kingship (9:15, 20; fulfilled by Abimelech in 9:49) and it will return in the story of the Philistines attending Samson’s wedding who threaten to burn the bride and her family (14:15; executed in 15:6) and later also in 18:27. The fact that it can be associated with Abimelech and with the Philistines can be seen as a negative qualification

Jephthah

355

of the Ephraimites, next to the fact that they can be held responsible for this first inner-Israelite conflict between tribes. In this connection the association of Ephraim with Amalek, Israel’s archenemy, in 5:14 adds extra fuel to the suspicion about the role of this tribe. In his reaction to the Ephraimite reproach Jephthah uses the verb ‫ישׁע‬ hiphil, “to deliver”, and the related word ‫מוֹשׁ ַיע‬ ִ to denote what the Ephraimites had failed to do. These words were often used in the previous chapters describing how the successive leaders liberated Israel from its enemies. It is striking that in the story of Jephthah this verb is only used in 10:12–14 where YHWH speaks of his own acts of deliverance. It is never said of Jephthah and only in a final note he is called someone who “judged” Israel. This is another indication of the fading quality of leadership. After Jephthah the verb ‫ ישׁע‬will be only used one more time: in the announcement of the coming deliverance by Samson (13:5). It will be no coincidence that it is not used in the stories how he did his job. Because the Ephraimites had not helped him, Jephthah had to “put his life in his palm”. The same is said of David (1 Sam. 19:5) and the woman of Endor (1 Sam. 28:21), indicating that they had risked their life. Jephthah adds that YHWH had given him the victory, implying that in the conflict with the Ephraimites YHWH is also on his side. 12:4 

Jephthah gathered all the men of Gilead and waged war against Ephraim.ThemenofGileadstruckEphraim,becausetheyhadsaid: “FugitivesofEphraimareyou,Gilead,inthemidstofEphraim,in themidstofManasseh”.

In this verse the opponents are mentioned no less than three (Gilead) and four times (Ephraim). The following hostilities are not only described as a fight with military weapons, but also as a verbal dispute. The text following the report of the victory of Gilead over Ephraim is difficult. This is probably the reason for a number of variant readings in the old Greek and Latin translations (cf. Trebolle Barrera 1989, 240–241; O’Connell 1996, 471–472). Apparently, the author took up an old “tribal taunt similar to the one in 8:2” (Nelson 2017, 230), that is, from the related passage about a discussion with the Ephraimites. In 8:2 Gideon made a for the Ephraimites favourable comparison with the house of Abiezer of the tribe of Manasseh. In 12:4 the Ephraimites seem to provoke the people of Gilead by claiming that they are inferior to Ephraim, calling them fugitives looking for shelter in the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh. This may have to with the complicated division of the land between Ephraim and Manasseh, as indicated in Josh. 16:9; 17:8–10.

356

Judges10:6–12:7

The territory of Gilead originally probably consisted only of enclaves within Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Neef 1995, 254–255). This is also in line with the fact that according to Num. 26:29 Gilead is the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh. 12:5–6 5

6

GileadcapturedthefordsoftheJordanforEphraim.Itwaswhenthe fugitivesofEphraimsaid:“Letmecrossover”,themenofGilead wouldsaytohim:“AreyouanEphraimite?”,hewouldsay:“No”. Theywouldsay:“Sayshibbolet”.Wouldhesay“sibbolet”andcould notspeakright,theywouldgrabhimandslaughterhimatthefords oftheJordan.Atthattimefellforty-twothousandofEphraim.

The reaction by the Gileadites to the defiant words of the Ephraimites is given both by the sword and through words. After beating the Ephraimites on the battle field, they take a strategic position at a place near the river Jordan, preventing fleeing Ephraimites to cross. It is the same place where the Israelites commanded by Ehud killed thousands of Moabite soldiers (3:28–29). The sad conclusion of the story of Jephthah is that it ends on the same place now with an inner-Israelite massacre. The same change from the outside to the inside enemy was observed with Abimelech being killed by a woman with a “household weapon” just like the Canaanite general Sisera. In this framework one can also think of Jephthah’s daughter being sacrificed like an animal just like Eglon was slaughtered by Ehud. The Ephraimites who had called the Gileadites fugitives have now become fugitives themselves and, to make them even more regret their boast, they are now unmasked by their own words. The Gileadites address their opponents with the question whether they are Ephraimites (‫)א ְפ ָר ִתי‬. ֶ This word is also used in 1 Sam. 1:1; 1 Kgs 11:26 for people from Ephraim, but it is also the name of the inhabitants of Bethlehem of Ephrata (1 Sam. 17:12). According to Willesen (1958) the latter is also meant here, referring to Benjaminites and Judaeans who were allowed to cross the river unhampered. It is more likely, however, that this is another way of humiliating the Ephraimites forcing them to renounce their tribe. The test on the basis of the pronunciation of the word ‫שׁבּ ֶֹלת‬, ִ “ear of grain”, with a /sh/ or a /s/ at the beginning, has given rise in the scholarly literature to much discussion about dialectal differences in ancient Israel. A good overview, pointing to the many difficulties and uncertainties, can be found with Marcus (1992, 95–100; cf. also Emerton 1985; Hendel 1996; Woodhouse 2003; Young & Rezetko 2008, 190–191; Groß 2009, 614–615;

Jephthah

357

Blau 2010, 40–41; Sasson 2014, 453–454), who states that it is better not to focus on assumed different dialects but on the way the Ephraimites as portrayed here as “incompetent nincompoops who cannot even repeat a test-word” (p. 100). Next to the historical philological studies the shibboleth test has given rise to in-depth philosophical and cultural studies about perspectives this text opens to modern issues (cf. Meredith 2004; Yamada 2004). Within its present context, however, the most plausible interpretation is that it is something like the test Gideon had his army put through (7:5–6): something completely arbitrary but nevertheless with far-reaching consequences. The number of killed men from Ephraim is enormous, much more than the Moabites killed at the same place by Ehud and his companions. 42 can be seen as a round number as half of 84, which is the total of 7 × 12 (cf. Nelson 2017, 228). On the one hand this number shows how things are going in the wrong direction: the number of men killed in the fight of Israelite tribes against each other is bigger than the number of slain enemies. On the other hand one can note that this is only a first step in devastating civil wars. The number forty-two thousand can be seen as an indication that half of the Ephraimites were killed. The next step is the war between Benjamin and the other tribes with as outcome that the tribe of Benjamin was almost completely gone. 12:7 

JephthahjudgedIsraelforsixyears.JephthahtheGileaditediedand hewasburiedinthecitiesofGilead.

In the stories about his life Jephthah can be compared – as indicated a number of times above – with Gideon and Abimelech. The report about his death is more in line with that of the “minor judges”, because it is structured in the same way: years as a judge, his tribe, his death, place of burial. Comparison with the “minor judges” presents itself by the fact that the story of Jephthah is placed between the two lists of “minor judges” (Claassens 1997, 204–207; Block 1999, 342). It emphasizes the fact that he had no offspring and that he did not reign a long time. The relatively short period of six years of his leadership can be related to the only three years of Abimelech (Baker 2018, 41). It is an extra indication that it was not very successful. To this can be added that no reference is given, as with previous leaders in Israel, of a period of rest. It shows that Jephthah’s work is not evaluated positively. Even the report of his burial deviates in a negative sense from what we read about the other judges and saviours. It remains unclear where he was buried, because it is not specified in which of the cities of Gilead his grave can be found.

358

Judges10:6–12:7

The LXX (accepted by many scholars as the better reading here) is a little bit more specific: ἐν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ Γαλααδ, “in his city of Gilead”, but also in this version there is more than one candidate. In rabbinic literature (Gen.Rab. 60.3) the plural of the location of his burial is explained as due to a mortal disease which made him loose his limbs one after another in different cities.

JUDGES 12:8–15

IBZAN, ELON AND ABDON

TRANSLATION 12:8 AfterhimIbzanofBethlehemjudgedIsrael. 9 Hehadthirtysonsandthirtydaughtershehadsentoutside.Thirty daughtershebroughtforhissonsfromtheoutside.HejudgedIsrael forsevenyears. 10 IbzandiedandhewasburiedinBethlehem. 11 AfterhimElontheZebulunitejudgedIsrael.HejudgedIsraeltenyears. 12 Elon the Zebulunite died. He was buried in Ajalon in the land of Zebulun. 13 AfterhimAbdon,thesonofHillelthePerathonite,judgedIsrael. 14 He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, riding on seventy male donkeys.HejudgedIsraelforeightyears. 15 Abdon, the son of Hillel the Perathonite, died. He was buried in PirathoninthelandofEphraimonthemountainoftheAmalekite.

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY (see also the bibliography on 10:1–5) H. Cazelles, “Déborah (Jud. V 14), Amaleq en Mâkîr”, VT 24 (1974), 235–238; J. Day, “Bedan, Abdon or Barak in 1 Samuel xii 11”, VT43 (1993); G. Galil, “Pirathon, Parathon and Timnatha”, ZDPV109 (1993), 49–53; H. Jacobson, “The Judge Bedan (1 Samuel xii 11)”, VT42 (1992), 123–124; idem, “Bedan and Barak Reconsidered”, VT44 (1994), 108–109; A. Knauf, “Pireathon – Farʻat”, BN51 (1990), 19–24; N. Na’aman, “Pirathon and Ophrah”, BN 50 (1989), 11–16.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES Together with the other “minor judges” Tola and Jair (10:1–5) Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon judged Israel precisely seventy years. It is not told what their function precisely entailed. The emphasis in the reports, at least with Ibzan and Abdon, is on their progeny. The numbers of the children of the “minor judges” are ever increasing: from the thirty sons of Jair (10:4), to the thirty sons and thirty daughters of Ibzan (12:9), to the forty sons and thirty grandsons of Abdon (12:14). Looking at the children one notes a pattern in these

360

Judges12:8–15

and the following chapters in the book of Judges. The reference to the many children of Jair is preceded by the information about Tola, of whom no children are mentioned (10:1-2). After the report about the thirty sons of Jair follows the story of Jephthah who only had one daughter. Between Ibzan and Abdon stands Elon, of whom again no children are mentioned. After the many children of Abdon follows the story of Samson, who was the only child of Manoah. In rabbinic literature the connection between the “minor judges” and the following story of Samson is made in a tradition which recounts that Ibzan had not invited Manoah, the later father of Samson, to the wedding banquets for his sons and daughters, because at that moment Manoah had no son or daughter to give into wedlock. For this he was punished: all his children would die during his lifetime (mentioned in a marginal gloss to Judg. 12:9 in the Targum and in b.B.Bat 91a; cf. Smelik 1995, 561). The big differences concerning the offspring underline that within the present context the information about these “minor judges” functions as a contrast to the surrounding stories. They testify of a time of peace. There are no conflicts with other peoples. Apparently, there was no need for YHWH to send enemies to punish Israel for idolatry. Instead, the many children can be seen as a blessing by YHWH (cf. Ps. 128).

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS See on the scholarly discussion about the relation between the “minor” and the “major judges” and on the precise meaning of the verb ‫שׁפט‬, “to judge”, the introductory remarks on 10:1–5.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS 12:8–10 8 9

10

AfterhimIbzanofBethlehemjudgedIsrael. Hehadthirtysonsandthirtydaughtershehadsentoutside.Thirty daughtershebroughtforhissonsfromtheoutside.HejudgedIsrael forsevenyears. IbzandiedandhewasburiedinBethlehem.

When one compares the information given about the “minor judges” in 12:8–15 to that of 10:1–5, it can be noted that the reference to Ibzan starts in the same way as those to Jair (10:3), Elon (12:11), and Abdon (12:13): with the simple phrase “after him”. Only with the first “minor judge” the previous leader, Abimelech, is explicitly mentioned. Apparently, the author

Ibzan,ElonandAbdon

361

did not feel the need to connect the present list of three “minor judges” to the previous, more elaborate story, in the same way as he did in 10:1 with Tola. This underlines what was already remarked concerning the final note about Jephthah (12:7), namely that it corroborates with the final notes about the “minor judges”: Jephthah fits in well with the surrounding lists. Another difference with the way the previous “minor judges” were presented in 10:1–5 is that the verb “he arose” used in 10:1 and 3, is now missing. It points to a more smooth succession from Ibzan and the next judges coming after Jephthah than from Tola and Jair coming after Abimelech. Ibzan’s Bethlehem probably has to be located in the territory of Zebulun in the northern part of Israel, where his successor Elon lived as well. It is also mentioned in Josh. 19:15. In the book of Judges it is clearly distinguished from the well-known Bethlehem in Judah, because this is consistently referred to as “Bethlehem of Judah” (17:7 etc.). The name Ibzan can be related to the place name Ebez (‫)א ֶבץ‬, ָ which was located in the neighboring territory of Issachar (Sasson 2014, 456). It is mentioned in Josh. 19:20, close to the text mentioned above referring to the Bethlehem of Ibzan. There is a contrast between the one daughter of Jephthah who did not marry and the many sons and daughters of Ibsan and the marriages he was able to arrange (Beem 1992, 155). These marriages outside the clan also point to a time of peace with good connections to people from the outside. They did not have to fear invading armies. Things will change again with Samson, who also wanted to bring in his bride from the outside (Judg. 14:2), but did not succeed. Samson, however, had the task to free his people from the Philistines. Apparently, Ibzan was not facing such problems. The fact that, according to Josephus, “having done nothing worthy of mention or memory for a period of seven years, he died, an old man” (Ant.5.271), should not be seen of something negative with regard to Ibzan, but as something positive with regard to his time. 12:11–12 11 12

AfterhimElontheZebulunitejudgedIsrael.HejudgedIsraeltenyears. Elon the Zebulunite died. He was buried in Ajalon in the land of Zebulun.

The name Elon (‫ ֵאילוֹן‬or ‫ ֵאלוֹן‬in v. 12) can be related to ‫אלוֹן‬, ֵ “terebinth”, (cf. 4:11) or to ‫איִ ל‬, ַ “ram”, with the expansion –on, as with Abdon. We have to assume that he was named after Elon, son of Zebulun (Gen. 46:14; Num. 26:26). Elon is from the tribe of Zebulun, just like his predecessor Ibzan, although Ibzan’s tribe was not explicitly mentioned. Something similar can be observed

362

Judges12:8–15

with the two previous judges, Jair and Jephthah, who are both related to the tribe of Gilead. There is wordplay with the name of his burial place Ajalon (‫)איָּ לוֹן‬. ַ LXX (A) has a slightly different text in v. 12: καὶ ἀπέθανεν Αιλων ὁ Ζαβουλωνίτης ἐν Αιλιμ καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν γῇ Ζαβουλων, “And Ailon the Zaboulonite died at Ailim, and they buried him in the land of Zaboulon”. LXX (B) is more in line with the MT: καὶ ἀπέθανεν Αιλωμ ὁ Ζαβουλωνίτης καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν Αιλωμ ἐν γῇ Ζαβουλων. Here the names of the judge and his city are spelled identically. A city of Ajalon is also mentioned in 1:35, but this is located more to the south. As was noted above in the remarks to 1:35, there is no reference to a city with that name in the LXX. With regard to the MT we have to assume a homonym. This phenomenon of the correspondence between personal names and place names is found a number of times in the book of Chronicles: in 1 Chron. 8:29: “Jeiel the father of Gibeon lived in Gibeon;” 1 Chron 9:35: “In Gibeon lived the father of Gibeon, Jeiel…”; and 1 Chron. 2:51 referring to Bethlehem as a person. In the book of Judges it can be compared to Gilead, both as a name of a region and a person in 11:1. According to Pseudo-Philo Elon was chosen by the people and judged Israel twenty years, during which he fought the Philistines and took from them twelve cities (L.A.B.41.2). Pseudo-Philo does not mention Ibzan and puts Abdon before Elon. In this way the reference to the Philistines functions as an introduction to the story of Samson. 12:13–15 13 14 15

AfterhimAbdon,thesonofHillelthePerathonite,judgedIsrael. He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, riding on seventy male donkeys.HejudgedIsraelforeightyears. Abdon, the son of Hillel the Perathonite, died. He was buried in PirathoninthelandofEphraimonthemountainoftheAmalekite.

The name of Abdon (also mentioned in 1 Chron. 8:23, 30; 9:36; 2 Chron. 34:20) can be related to ‫ע ֶבד‬, ֶ “servant, slave”, with the same ending –on/–an as his predecessors Ibzan and Elon and his successor Samson. This end rhyme of the names of these four successive judges points to editorial activity. The same can be noted with regard to the fact that the naming of the father of the last of the “minor judges” has a parallel in the reference to the father of the first “minor judge” in 10:1. Of the other “minor judges” no lineage is mentioned. This looks like a deliberate inclusion by the author. To this can be added that the repeated use of the number thirty and the total number of seventy years of five periods attributed to the “minor judges” are hardly coincidental.

Ibzan,ElonandAbdon

363

The number seventy also returns in the total of his sons and grandsons. They can be contrasted to the seventy sons of Gideon, killed by Abimelech (Beem 1992, 157–157). As was remarked above in the comments on 10:4 about the thirty sons of Jair, possessing donkeys was a sign of wealth. It underlines the difference with the sad fate of the sons of Gideon. Being called Perathonite associates Abdon with one of David’s heroes: Benaiah (2 Sam. 23:30; 1 Chron. 11:31; 27:14). The precise location of Pirathon in the land of Ephraim is a matter of debate (cf. Na’aman 1989; Knauf 1990; Gallil 1993; Gaß 2005, 352–355). Intriguing, but hard to explain (cf. Cazelles 1974; Neef 1995, 172), is the added detail “on the mountain of the Amalekite” with a reference to Israel’s arch-enemy. Something similar was found in 5:14 speaking of “Ephraim, their root in Amalek”. LXX (A) avoids the problem by “translating” it as “the mountain of Lanak”. Some Greek manuscripts have “the land of Sallum” (cf. Harlé 1999, 196). Although the Amalekites are not mentioned in the previous stories as the primary opponent, they do figure as allies of the invading enemy in 6:3 and 7:12 (cf. also 10:12). So the fact that a location named after the Amalekites is presented here as Israelite territory can be interpreted as indication that the Israelites were fully in control of the situation. According to some scholars Abdon has to be identified with Bedan, who is mentioned in 1 Sam. 12:11 as one of the judges. Next to the similarity in name (‫ ַע ְבדּוֹן‬and ‫)בּ ָדן‬, ְ suggesting that one is just a variant of the other, Jacobson points to the tradition preserved in L.A.B.41.2 about Abdon fighting against Moab and killing forty-five thousand men of them (Jacobson 1992 and 1994). It would have earned Bedan/Abdon his place among the other judges in the list of 1 Sam. 12. This theory is disputed (cf. Day 1993, identifying Bedan with Barak; according to t.RH2.18 Bedan is Samson). Just as with Elon, Pseudo-Philo seems to have preserved a different tradition with regard to Abson. He is placed before Elon. The battle with Moab looks like Jephthah’s conflict with Ammon, including a dispute with its king. As burial place L.A.B.41 mentions Effrata.

JUDGES 13:1–16:31

SAMSON

TRANSLATION 13:1

2 3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10 11

ThechildrenofIsraelcontinueddoingwhatisevilintheeyesof YHWH. YHWH gave them in the hand of the Philistines for forty years. There was one man from Zorah from the clan of the Danites. His namewasManoah.Hiswifewasbarren,shehadnotgivenbirth. A messenger of YHWH appeared to the woman. He said to her: “Look,youarebarren,youhavenotgivenbirth.Youshallbecome pregnantandbearason. Now, take care: do not drink wine or beer, do not eat all that is unclean. Because, look, you will become pregnant and bear a son. A razor mustnotcomeuponhishead,becausesomeoneconsecratedtothe deityshalltheboybefromthewomb.HeshallbegintodeliverIsrael fromthehandofthePhilistines”. Thewomancameandsaidtoherhusband,saying:“AmanofGod has come to me. His appearance was like the appearance of the messengerofGod,veryfearsome.Ihavenotaskedhimfromwhere hewasandhisnamehehasnottoldme. Hesaidtome:‘Look,youshallbecomepregnantandbearason. Now,donotdrinkwineandbeeranddonoteatallthatisunclean, becausesomeoneconsecratedtothedeityshalltheboybefromthe wombuntilthedayofhisdeath’”. ManoahprayedtoYHWH.Hesaid:“OmyLord,themanofGod whomyousent,lethimcomeagaintousandteachuswhatweshould dofortheboywhowillbeborn”. GodlistenedtothevoiceofManoah.ThemessengerofGodcame againtothewoman.Shewassittinginthefield.Manoah,herhusband, wasnotwithher. Thewomanhurriedandranandtoldherhusband.Shesaidtohim: “Look,hehasappearedtome,themanwhocametomeintheday”. Manoaharoseandwentafterhiswife.Hecametothemanandsaid tohim:“Areyouthemanwhohasspokentothewoman?”Hesaid: “Iam”.

Samson 12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19

20

21 22 23

24 25

14:1 2

365

Manoahsaid:“Now,shouldyourwordscome(true),whatwillbe thejudgmentoftheboyandhiswork?” ThemessengerofYHWHsaidtoManoah:“FromallthatIsaidto thewomanshemustguardherself. Fromallthatgoesoutfromthevineofwinesheshallnoteat,wine andbeersheshallnotdrink,andallthatisuncleansheshallnot eat.AllthatIhavecommandedhershemustguard”. ManoahsaidtothemessengerofYHWH:“Letusdetainyouand prepareagoat’skidforyou”. ThemessengerofYHWHsaidtoManoah:“Ifyoudetainme,Iwill noteatofyourfoodandifyouprepareanofferingtoYHWH,then offerit”.BecauseManoahdidnotknowthathewasthemessenger ofYHWH. ManoahsaidtothemessengerofYHWH:“Who,yourname?Because (when)yourwordscome(true),wemayhonouryou”. ThemessengerofYHWHsaidtohim:“Whydoyouaskaboutmy name.Itiswonderful”. Manoahtookthegoat’skidandtheofferingandofferedthemupon arocktoYHWHandawonderwasdoneandManoahandhiswife werewatching. Ithappenedwhentheflamewasgoingupwardfromthealtartothe heaventhatthemessengerofYHWHwentupintheflameofthealtar. Manoahandhiswifewerewatchingandtheyfellontheirfacestothe ground. ThemessengerofYHWHdidnotcontinuetoappearagaintoManoah andhiswife.ThenManoahknewthathewasthemessengerofYHWH. Manoahsaidtohiswife:“Wewillcertainlydie,becausewehaveseen God”. Hiswifesaidtohim:“IfYHWHhaddesiredtokillus,hewouldnot havetakenfromourhandaburntofferingandagrainofferingand he would not have let us see all these things and he would not at (this)timehasmadeushearallthis”. The woman bore a son and she called his name Samson. The boy grewupandYHWHblessedhim. ThespiritofYHWHbegantostirhiminMahaneh-Dan,betweenZorah andEshtaol. SamsonwentdowntoTimnah.HesawawomaninTimnahfromthe daughtersofthePhilistines. Hewentupandtoldittohisfatherandhismother.Hesaid:“Awoman I have seen in Timnah from the daughters of the Philistines. Now, takeherformeasawife”.

366 3

4

5

6

7 8

9

10 11 12

13

14

15

16

Judges13:1–16:31 His father and his mother said to him: “Is there not among the daughtersofyourbrothersandamongallmypeopleawomanthatyou havegonetotakeawomanfromthePhilistines,theuncircumcised?” Samsonsaidtohisfather:“Takeherforme,becausesheisrightin myeyes”. HisfatherandhismotherdidnotknowthatthiswasfromYHWH: thathewasseekinganoccasionagainstthePhilistines.Inthattime thePhilistineswererulingoverIsrael. Samson went down with his father and his mother to Timnah. TheycameatthevineyardsofTimnahand,look,ayounglionoflions roaringtomeethim. ThespiritofYHWHbecamestrongoverhim.Hetoreitapartasone tearsapartthekid,withnothinginhishand.Hedidnottelltohis fatherandtohismotherwhathehaddone. Hewentdownandspoketothewoman.Shewasrightintheeyesof Samson. Hereturnedaftersometimetotakeher.Heturnedasidetoseethe carcassofthelion.Look,aswarmofbeesinthecorpseofthelion andhoney. Hescrapeditintohispalmsandhewent,goingandeating.Hewent tohisfatherandtohismotherandgavethemandtheyate.Hedid nottellthemthathehadscrapedthehoneyfromthecorpseofthe lion. His father went down to the woman. Samson made there a feast, becausethusyoungmendo. It happened when they saw him that they took thirty companions andtheywerewithhim. Samsonsaidtothem:“Letmeposeyouariddle.Ifindeedyoutellit(s solution)tomeduringthesevendaysofthefeastandhavefoundit, Ishallgiveyouthirtylinengarmentsandthirtychangesofgarments. And if you are not able to tell it(s solution) to me, you shall give thirtylinengarmentsandthirtychangesofgarments”.Theysaidto him:“Poseyourriddleandwewillhearit”. Hesaidtothem:“Fromtheeaterhascomeforthwhatiseatenand from the strong has come forth sweetness”. They were not able to tell(thesolutionof)theriddleforthreedays. IthappenedontheseventhdaythattheysaidtothewifeofSamson: “Seduceyourmanthathemaytelltous(thesolutionof)theriddle orelsewewillburnyouandthehouseofyourfatherwithfire.Isit todispossessusthatyoucalledushere?” The woman of Samson wept before him and she said: “You all togetherhateme,youdonotloveme.Theriddleyouposedtothe

Samson

17

18

19

20

15:1

2

3 4 5

6

7 8 9

367

sonsofmypeopleandtomeyoudidnottellit(ssolution)”.Hesaid toher:“Look,tomyfatherandtomymotherIhavenottolditand toyouIshouldtellit?” Sheweptbeforehimsevendaysinwhichtheyhadthefeast.Ithappenedontheseventhdaythathetoldher,becauseshehadpressed himhardandshetold(thesolutionof)theriddletothesonsofher people. Themenofthecitysaidtohimontheseventhdaybeforethesunwent down: “What is sweeter than honey and what is stronger than a lion?”Hesaidtothem:“Hadyounotploughedwithmyheifer,you wouldnothavefoundmyriddle”. The spirit of YHWH became strong over Samson. He went down to Ashkelonandstruckdownthirtymenfromthem.Hetooktheirclothes andgavethechanges(ofgarments)tothosewhohadtold(thesolution to)theriddle.Hisangerflaredupandhewentuptothehouseofhis father. ThewifeofSamsonwas(given)tohiscompanionwhohadbeena companiontohim. It happened after some time in the days of the wheat harvest that Samsonvisitedhiswifewithagoat’skid.Hesaid:“Letmecometo mywifeinthechamber”.Butherfatherdidnotgive(permission)to comein. Herfathersaid:“Isurelysaidthatyouwouldsurelyhateher.Igave hertoyourcompanion.Isnotheryoungersisterbetterthanshe. Letherbeyoursinsteadofher”. Samsonsaidtothem:“IaminnocentthistimebeforethePhilistines, whenIdoeviltothem”. Samson went and captured three hundred foxes. He took torches, turnedtailtotailandputonetorchbetweentwotails,inthemiddle. Hesetfiretothetorchesandsent(them)inthestandinggrainofthe Philistines.Heset(fire)tothestackedgrain,thestandinggrain,the grovesofolives. ThePhilistinessaid:“Whohasdonethis?”Theysaid:“Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because he has taken his wife and gavehertohiscompanion”.ThePhilistineswentupandburnedher andherfatherwithfire. Samsonsaidtothem:“Ifyoudothis,surely,IwillnotceaseuntilI haveavengedmyselfuponyou”. He struck them, a leg on thigh, a heavy blow. He went down and stayedinthecleftoftherockofEtam. ThePhilistineswentandcampedinJudah.TheyspreadoutatLehi.

368 10

11

12

13

14

15 16 17 18

19

20 16:1 2

3

Judges13:1–16:31 ThemenofJudahsaid:“Whyhaveyoucomeupagainstus?”They said:“TobindSamsonwehavecomeup,todotohimwhathehas donetous”. ThreethousandmenofJudahwentdowntothecleftoftherockof Etam.TheysaidtoSamson:“DoyounotknowthatthePhilistines arerulingus?Whathaveyoudonetous?”Hesaidtothem:“Asthey havedonetome,sohaveIdonetothem”. Theysaidtohim:“Tobindyouwehavecomedown,togiveyouin thehandofthePhilistines”.Samsonsaidtothem:“Sweartomethat youwillnotattackme”. Theysaidtohim,saying:“No,becauseweshallsurelybindyouand giveyouintheirhand,butweshallsurelynotkillyou”.Theybound himwithtwonewropesandledhimupfromtherock. When he was coming to Lehi and the Philistines shouted meeting him,thespiritofYHWHbecamestrongoverhim.Theropeswhich were on his arms became like flax burning in fire and his bonds meltedoffhishands. Hefoundafreshjawboneofadonkey,reachedouthishand,took itandwithitstruckdownthousandmen. Samsonsaid:“Withthejawboneofthedonkey,aheap,twoheaps, withthejawboneofthedonkeyIhavestruckdownthousandmen”. Ithappenedwhenhehadfinishedspeakingthathethrewthejawbone fromhishand.HecalledthatplaceRamathLehi. HebecameverythirstyandcalledouttoYHWHandsaid:“Youhave giveninthehandofyourservantthisgreatdeliverance,butnowI shalldieofthirstandfallinthehandoftheuncircumcised”. GodsplitopenthehollowthatwasinLehi,watercameoutofit,he drank, his spirit returned and he revived. Therefore one calls its nameSourceoftheCaller,whichisinLehiuntilthisday. HejudgedIsraelinthedaysofthePhilistines,twentyyears. SamsonwenttoGaza.Hesawthereawoman,aprostitute,andhe cametoher. TotheGazitesitwassaid:“Samsonhascomehere”.Theysurrounded and lay in ambush for the whole night at the gate of the city. They keptstillthewholenight,saying:“Atthelightofthemorningweshall killhim”. Samsonlayuntilthemiddleofthenight.Hearoseinthemiddle of the night, seized the doors of the gate of the city and the two doorposts,pulledthemupwiththeboltandplaced(them)onhis shoulders.Hetookthemuptothetopofthemountainoveragainst thefaceofHebron.

Samson 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

369

It happened afterward that he loved a woman in Nahal Sorek. HernamewasDelilah. The princes of the Philistines came up to her and said to her: “Seducehimandseewherebyhispower(is)greatandwherebywe prevailoverhim,bindhimandsubduehim.Asforus,wewillgive you,(each)man,elevenhundred(piecesof)silver. DelilahsaidtoSamson:“Tellmewhereby(is)yourpowergreatand wherebyyoushouldbeboundtosubdueyou”. Samsonsaidtoher:“Iftheybindmewithsevenfreshsinewsthat havenotbeendried,Iwouldbeweakandbelikeanyman”. TheprincesofthePhilistinesbroughtuptohersevenfreshsinews thathadnotbeendriedandsheboundhimwiththem. Withtheambushlaidoutwithherinthechamber,shesaidtohim: “Philistinesuponyou,Samson!”Hetoreapartthesinewsasistorn apartastringoftowwhenitsmellsfire.Hispowerwasnotunderstood. DelilahsaidtoSamson:“Look,youhavedeceivedmeandyouhave spokenliestome.Now,tellmewherebyyoushouldbebound”. Hesaidtoher:“Iftheysurelybindmewithnewropeswithwhich noworkhasbeendone,Iwouldbeweakandbelikeanyman”. Delilah took new ropes, bound him with them and said to him: “Philistines upon you, Samson!”, with the ambush laid out in the chamber.Hetorethemapartfromoffhisarmslikeathread. DelilahsaidtoSamson:“Untilnowyouhavedeceivedmeandyou havetoldmelies.Tellmewherebyyoushouldbebound”.Hesaidto her:“Ifyouweavethesevenlocksofmyheadinawarp”. Shedrove(them)withapeginthewall.Shesaidtohim:“Philistines uponyou,Samson!”Heawokefromhissleep,pulledoutthepegof theloomandthewarp. Shesaidtohim:“Howcanyousay:‘Iloveyou’andyourheartis notwithme?Threetimesnowyouhavedeceivedmeandnottold mewherebyyourpower(is)great”. It happened because she had pressed him with her words all the daysandimportunedhimthathissoulbecameimpatientuntothe death. Hetoldherallhisheart.Hesaidtoher:“Arazorhasnotbeenupon my head, because I have been consecrated to the deity from the wombofmymother.IfIamshavenmypowerwillturnawayfrom me,Iwillbeweakandbelikeanyman”. Delilahsawthathehadtoldallhisheart.Shesentandcalledthe princesofthePhilistines,saying:“Comeupthistime,becausehe has told me all that is in his heart. The princes of the Philistines wentuptoherandbroughtthesilverintheirhand.

370 19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31

Judges13:1–16:31 Shelethimfallasleeponherknees,calledtheman,shavedtheseven locksofhisheadandbegantosubduehim.Hispowerturnedaway fromhim. Shesaid:“Philistinesoveryou,Samson!”Heawokefromhissleep andsaid:“Iwillgooutasothertimesandshakemyself(free)”. HedidnotknowthatYHWHhadturnedawayfromhim. ThePhilistinesheldhimdownandgougedouthiseyes.Theybrought himdowntoGazaandboundhimintwobronzefetters.Heusedto grindatthemillintheprisonhouse. Thehairofhisheadbegantogrowafterithadbeenshaven. TheprincesofthePhilistineshadgatheredtoofferagreatsacrifice toDagontheirgodandtorejoice.Theysaid:“Ourgodhasgivenin ourhandSamsonourenemy”. The people saw him and they praised their god, yes, they said: “Ourgodhasgiveninourhandourenemy,thedestroyerofourland, whomademanyourslain”. Ithappenedwhentheirheartwasgoodthattheysaid:“CallSamson andheshallamuseus”.TheycalledSamsonfromtheprisonhouse andheamusedthem.Theyplacedhimbetweenthepillars. Samsonsaidtotheboywhoheldhishand:“Letmerestandfeelthe pillarsonwhichthehouseisstandingandIwillleanagainstthem. Thehousewasfilledwithmenandwomen.Therewerealltheprinces of the Philistines. Upon the roof about three thousand, man and woman.TheywerelookingatSamsonamusing(them). SamsoncalledtoYHWHandsaid:“MylordYHWH,rememberme, makemestrongonlythistime,God.ThatImaytakerevenge,one revengeformytwoeyesfrom(the)Philistines”. Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house was foundedandhepushedagainstthem,onewithhisrighthandand onewithhislefthand. Samsonsaid:“Letmysouldiewith(the)Philistines”.Hestretched with power and the house fell down on the princes and on all the peoplewhowereinit.Thedeadwhosedeathhehadcausedwithhis deathweremorethanthosewhosedeathhehadcausedinhislife. Hisbrothersandallofthehouseofhisfatherwentdown.Theylifted himup,broughthimupandburiedhimbetweenZorahandEshtaolin thegraveofManoahhisfather.HehadjudgedIsraelfortwentyyears. ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. Achinstein, “Samson Agonistes”, in: T.N. Corns (ed.), ANewCompanionto Milton, Chichester 2016, 475–492; R. Alter, “How Convention Helps Us Read: The Case of the Bible’s Annunciation Type-Scene”, Prooftexts 3 (1983), 115–130;

Samson

371

idem, “Samson Without Folkore”, in: S. Niditch (ed.), Text and Tradition: The HebrewBibleandFolkore, Atlanta 1990, 47–56; E. Altschuler etal., “Did Samson Have Antisocial Personality Disorder?”, ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry 58 (2001), 202; Y. Amit, “I Delilah: A Victim of Interpretation”, in: P.R. Davies (ed.), First Person: Essays in Biblical Autobiography, London 2002, 59–76; idem, “The Nazirism Motif and the Editorial Work”, in: InPraiseofEditingtheHebrewBible. CollectedEssaysinRetrospect, Sheffield 2012, 131–146; E. Assis, “The Structure and Meaning of the Samson Narratives”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 1–12; W. Bader, SimsonbeiDelila:ComputerlinguistischeInterpretationdesTextesRi13-16, Tübingen 1991; idem, “Traut LeserInnen etwas zu! Eine unnötige textkritische Ergänzung in Ri 16, 13.14”, BN75 (1994), 5–12; M. Bal, LethalLove:Feminist LiteraryReadingsofBiblicalLoveStories, Bloomington 1987; S. Bar, TheSamson Story:Love,Seduction,Betrayal,Violence,Riddles,Myth, Eugene 2018; P. Barbier, “SamsonetDalila de Saint-Saëns, de l’oratorio à l’opéra”, Graphè13 (2004), 173– 182; R. Bartelmus, HeroentuminIsraelundseinerUmwelt(AThANT 65), Zürich 1979; H. Bauer, “Zu Simsons Rätsel in Richter Kapitel 14”, ZDMG 66 (1912), 473–474; A. Beckenstein Mbuvi, “Samson’s Body Politic”, BibInt 20 (2012), 389– 406; J. Blenkinsopp, “Some Notes on the Saga of Samson and the Heroic Milieu”, Scripture11 (1959), 81–89; idem, “Structure and Style in Judges 13–16”, JBL82 (1963), 65–76; C. Blyth, “When Raymond Met Delilah”, Relegere4 (2014), 41–63; idem, ReimaginingDelilah’sAfterlivesasFemmeFatale:TheLostSeduction(LHB/ OTS 652), London 2017; J.P. Bommel, Simsonintweevoud:Eenonderzoeknaar de ontstaansgeschiedenis van Richteren 13–16, Velzen-Zuid 2004; R.G. Bowman, R.W. Swanson, “Samson and the Son of God or Dead Heroes and Dead Goats: Ethical Readings of Narrative Violence in Judges and Matthew”, Semeia 77 (1997), 59–73; L. Budde, AntikeMosaikeninKilikien,vol.I, Recklinghausen 1969; W.A. Bulst, “Samson”, in: E. Kirschbaum (ed.), LexikonderChristlichenIkonographie,vol.4, Freiburg im Breisgau 1972, 30–38; D.E. Bynum, “Samson as a Biblical φὴρ ὁρεσκῷος”, in: S. Niditch (ed.), TextandTradition, Atlanta 1990, 57–73; C. Camp, C.R. Fontaine, “The Words of the Wise and Their Riddles”, in: S. Niditch (ed.), TextandTradition, Atlanta 1990, 153–160; C.V. Camp, Wise,StrangeandHoly: TheStrangeWomanandtheMakingoftheBible (JSOTSup 320), Sheffield 2000, 94–143; P. Carus, “Mythical Elements in the Samson Story”, TheMonist17 (1907), 33–83; S. Chepey, “Samson the ‘Holy One’: A Suggestion Regarding the Reviser’s Use of ἅγιος in Judg. 13,7; 16,17 LXX Vaticanus”, Bib83 (2002), 97–99; idem, NaziritesinLateSecondTempleJudaism:ASurveyofAncientJewishWritings,the NewTestament,ArchaeologicalEvidence,andOtherWritingsfromLateAntiquity, Leiden 2005; R.B. Chisholm, “Identity Crisis: Assessing Samson’s Birth and Career”, BS166 (2009), 147–162; G.G. Cohen, “Samson to Hercules”, EvQ 42 (l970), 131– 141; J. Cohen, “On Martyrs and Communal Interests: Rabbinic Readings of the Samson Narrative”, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11 (2008), 49–72; B. Conklin, OathFormulasinBiblicalHebrew, Winona Lake 2011; J.L. Crenshaw, “The Samson Saga: Filial Devotion or Erotic Attachment?”, ZAW 86 (1974), 470–504; idem, Samson:ASecretBetrayed,aVowIgnored, Atlanta 1978;A.G. van Daalen, Simson (SSN 8), Assen 1966; G. Dahan, “Samson et Dalila: le chapitre 16 des Juges dans l’exégèse chrétienne du XIIe et du XIIIe siècle”, Graphè13 (2004), 119–129; D. Delmaire, “Qui a coupé les sept tresses de Samson (Jg 16,19)?”, Graphè 13 (2004), 159–161; A. van Doornink, “De Simsonsagen: Kritische studiën over Richteren 14–16”, Theologisch Tijdschrift 28 (1894), 14–32; F. Dornseiff, “Das Buch Richter”, AfO14 (1941–1944), 319–328 (reprinted in AntikeundalterOrient: KleineSchriftenI, Leipzig 1956, 340–363);C.L. Echols, “Can the Samson Narrative

372

Judges13:1–16:31

Properly Be Called ‘Heroic’?”, in: D.A. Baer, R.P. Gordon (eds), LeshonLimmudim (Fs MacIntosh), New York 2013, 63–76; D.V. Edelman, “Remembering Samson in a Hellenized Jewish Context (Judges 13–16), in: D.V. Edelman, E. Ben Zvi (eds), Leadership,SocialMemoryandJudeanDiscourseintheFifth–SecondCenturiesBCE, Sheffield 2016, 231–247; J.A. Emerton, “A Further Consideration of D.W. Thomas’s Theories about yādaʻ”, VT41 (1991), 145–163; M. Emmrich, “The Symbolism of the Lion and the Bees: Another Ironic Twist in the Samson Cycle”, JETS 44 (2001), 67–74; J.C. Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13”, JBL99 (1980), 43–59; idem, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance in the Samson Saga”, JSOT 19 (1981), 3–29; 20 (1982), 90; idem, “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga”, VT 33 (1983), 30–45; idem, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub) versionsofBiblicalNarratives(JSOTSup 163), Sheffield 1993;idem, “Harvesting the Biblical Narrator’s Scanty Plot of Ground: a Holistic Approach to Judges 16:4– 22”, in: M. Cogan et al. (eds.), Tehillah le-Moshe (Fs Greenberg), Winona Lake 1997, 39–46; idem, “Lovis Corinth’s BlindedSamson”, BibInt6 (1998), 410–425; idem, “Lethal Woman 2: Reflections on Delilah and her Incarnation as Liz Hurley”, in: M. O’Kane (ed.), Borders,BoundariesandtheBible(JSOTSup 313), Sheffield 2002, 254–273; idem, “The Riddle of Samson”, in: H.M. Niemann, M. Augustin (eds), StimulationfromLeiden (IOSOT 18, Leiden 2004), Frankfurt 2006, 45–54; idem, “Samson and his God: Modern Culture Reads the Bible”, in: A. Brenner, F.H. Polak (eds), Words,Ideas,Worlds (Fs Amit), Sheffield 2012, 70–92; idem, “The Many Faces of Samson”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 13–31; idem, “Samson and Delilah in Film”, in: R. Burnette-Bletsch (ed.), TheBibleinMotion:AHandbookof theBibleandItsReceptioninFilm.Part1, Berlin/Boston 2016, 83–100; E. Eynikel, “The Angel in Samson’s Birth Narrative – Judg 13”, in: F.V. Reiterer etal. (eds), DeuterocanonicalandCognateLiteratureYearbook2007, Berlin 2007, 109–123; idem, “Samson in Islamic Literature and in the Old Testament”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 145–159; E. Eynikel, T. Nicklas (eds), Samson:HeroorFool?TheMany FacesofSamson(ThBN 17), Leiden 2014; L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Samson”, JSJ 19 (1988), 171–214; N. Fernández Marcos, “The Septuagint Reading of the Samson Cycle”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 87–99; I. Finkelstein, “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective”, JSOT27 (2002), 131– 167; S.J. Foster, “Judges 14:4: Yahweh uses Samson to provoke the Philistines”, OTE 25 (2012), 292–302; P. Galpaz-Feller, “ ‘Let my Soul Die with the Philistines’ (Judgs 16.30)”, JSOT 30 (2006), 315–325; idem, Samson: TheHeroandtheMan. TheStoryofSamson(Judges13–16), Bern 2006b; E. Gass, B. Zissu, “The Monastery of Samson up the Rock of Etham in the Byzantine Period”, ZDPV 121 (2005), 168–183; E. Gass, “Samson and Delilah in a Newly Found Inscription?”, JNSL32 (2006), 103–114; idem, “Simson und die Philister: historische und archäologische Rückfragen”, RB 114 (2007), 372–402; G. Gengembre, “De Vigny à Balzac: Samson entre exaltation romantique et derision”, Graphè13 (2004), 163–173; A. GeorgievskaShine, “Rubens and the tropes of deceit in Samson and Delilah”, Word&Image 23 (2007), 460–473; S. Gerson, “The Myth of Samson: Omnipotence, Alienation and Destructive Narcissism”, StudiesinGenderandSexuality 12 (2011), 89–96; H. Gese, “Die ältere Simsonüberlieferung (Richter c. 14–15)”, ZThK 82 (1985), 261–280 (reprinted in: H. Gese, AlttestamentlicheStudien, Tübingen 1991, 52–71); S. GillmayrBucher, “A Hero Ensnared in Otherness? Literary Images of Samson”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 33–51; E.L. Greenstein, “The Riddle of Samson”, Prooftexts 1 (1981), 237–260; B. Greiner, “ ‘Philister über Dir, Simson!’– Die Geschichte Simsons als jüdische Urszene interkulturellen Konflikts”, ZeitschriftfürÄsthetikundAllgemeine

Samson

373

Kunstwissenschaft 44 (2000), 123–139; M. Grey, “The redeemer to arise from the house of Dan”, JSJ 44 (2013), 553–589; D. Grossman, Lion’s Honey: The MythofSamson, New York 2005;H. Gunkel, “Simson”, in: RedenundAufsätze, Göttingen 1913, 38–64;D.M. Gunn, “Samson of Sorrows: An Isaianic Gloss on Judges 13-16”, in: D.N. Fewell (ed.),ReadingBetweenTexts:Intertextualityandthe HebrewBible, Louisville 1992, 225–253; R. Hachlili, AncientSynagogues.Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research, Leiden 2013; C. Halton, “Samson’s Last Laugh: The “Ś/ŠḤQ” Pun in Judges 16:25–27”, JBL 128 (2009), 61–64; J.E. Hanauer, “The Rock Altar of Zorah”, PEQ 17 (1885), 183–184; R. Harris, “Samson’s Suicide: Death and the Hebrew Literary Canon”, Israel Studies 17/3 (2012), 67–91; S. Hasegawa, “Samson and Mill (Judg 16,21)”, BN 152 (2012), 29–34; B. Herzberg, “Samson’s Moment of Truth”, BibInt 18 (2010), 226–250; F.J. Hoogewoud, “Simson Revisited: In memoriam Dr. Aleida G. van Daalen, leesmoeder in Amsterdam”, ACEBT 19 (2001), 111–124; Y. Horsman, “Psychoanalysis – Law, Theatre and Violence in Samson (1660), in: J. Bloemendal, F.-W. Korsten (eds), JoostvandenVondel(1587–1679):DutchPlaywrightintheGoldenAge, Leiden 2012, 445–458; C. Houtman, Meer dan boeiend. Simson in twee poses (Kamper Oraties 27), Kampen 2003; idem, K. Spronk, EinHelddesGlaubens?RezeptionsgeschichtlicheStudienzudenSimson-Erzählungen, Leuven 2004; idem, “Van Messias en verzetsheld tot zelfmoordterrorist”, Kerkentheologie58 (2007), 197–211; idem, “Who Cut Samson’s Hair? The Interpretation of Judges 16:19a Reconsidered”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 67–85; M.A. Jackson, ComedyandFeministInterpretation of the Hebrew Bible: A Subversive Collaboration, Oxford 2012; B.J.M. Johnson, “What Type of Son is Samson? Reading Judges 13 as a Biblical Type-Scene”, JETS 53 (2010), 269–286; L.C. Jonker, “Samson in Double Vision”, JNSL18 (1992), 49–66; idem, Exclusivity and Variety:Perspectives on Multidimensional Exegesis (CBET 19), Kampen 1996; T.M. Jonquière, “On Valour and Strength: The Samson Cycle in Josephus’ Work: Jewish Antiquities 5.276–317”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 119–128; J. Kegler, “Simson – Widerstandskämpfer und Volksheld”, CV18 (1985), 97–117; J. Keuning, “Delila, de vrouw van de nacht”, in: J. Siebert-Hommes (ed.), De vrouw van de nacht en andere verhalen uit de bijbel, Zoetermeer 1998, 45–59; J. Kim, TheStructureoftheSamsonCycle, Kampen 1993; A.K. van Kooij, Een ontmoetingsgelegenheid gezocht of met Simson bij de Filistijnen, Maastricht 2003; T.M. Krouse, Milton’sSamsonandtheChristianTradition, Princeton 1949; P. Kübel, “Epiphanie und Altarbau”, ZAW83 (1971), 225–231; B. Lang, “The Three Sins of Samson the Warrior”, in: I. Kottsieper etal. (eds), Berührungspunkte:Studien zurSozial-undReligionsgeschichteIsraelsundseinerUmwelt (AOAT 350), Münster 2008, 179–192 (also published in B. Lang, HebrewLifeandLiterature, Burlington 2008, 129–141); idem, “Simson und die Philister”, in: R. Bunia etal. (eds), Philister: ProblemgeschichteeinerSozialfigurderneuerendeutschenLiteratur, Berlin 2011, 159–173; K. Lee, “The Not Not-Inglorious Death of Samson”, in: D. Batovici, K. De Troyer (eds), AnthoritativeTextsandReceptionHistory:AspectsandApproaches, Leiden 2017, 41–51; C. Léglu, Samson and Delilah in Medieval Insular French, Cham 2018; G. Lehmann et al., “Zora und Estaol: Ein archäologischer Oberflächensurvey im Gebiet nördlich von Bet Shemesh”, UF 28 (1996), 343–442; C. Lemardelé, “Samson le nazir: un mythe du jeune guerrier”, RHR 222 (2005), 259–286; idem, “Note Concerning the Problem of Samson the Nazirite in the Biblical Studies”, SJOT 30 (2016), 65–68; A. Leveen, BiblicalNarrativesofIsraelitesand TheirNeighbors:StrangersattheGate, London 2017; P. Louguet, “Le voir et le savoir: Samson et Dalila (SamsonandDelilah) de Cecil B. De Mille, ou les deux

374

Judges13:1–16:31

piliers de l’art cinématographique”, Graphè13 (2004), 183–206; D. Luciani, “Samson: l’amour rend aveugle”, VT 59 (2009), 323–326; idem, D. Noël, “Samson, récit et histoire: Lectures de Juges 13–16”, CahierÉvangile 168 (2014); P. Machinist, “Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and Israelite History”, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Sea PeoplesandTheirWorld:AReassessment, Philadelphia 2000, 53–83; A.M. Maeir, “ThePhilistinesbeuponthee,Samson (Jud. 16:20): Reassessing the Martial Nature of the Philistines – Archaeological Evidence vs. Ideological Image?”, in: L. NiesiołowskiSpanò, Marek Węcowski (eds), Change,Continuity,andConnectivity:North-Eastern MediterraneanattheTurnoftheBronzeAgeandintheEarlyIronAge, Wiesbaden 2018, 158–168;J. Magness, “Samson in the Synagogue”, BARev 39.1 (2013), 32–39, 66– 67; A.J. Malherbe, “Herakles”, RAC 14, 1988, 559–583; O. Margalith, “Samson’s Foxes”, VT 35 (1985), 224–229; idem, “Samson’s Riddle and Samson’s Magic Locks”, VT 36 (1986a), 225–234; idem, “More Samson Legends”, VT 36 (1986b), 397–405; idem, “The Legends of Samson/Herakles”, VT 37 (1987), 63–70; H. Margulies, “Das Rätsel der Biene im Alten Testament”, VT 24 (1974), 56–76; R. Mayer-Opificius, “Simson, der sechslockige Held?”, UF14 (1982), 149–151; J. McHugh, “How Samson Killed a Thousand Men with the Jawbone of Taurus: The Mesopotamian Astrological ‘Science’ Behind Judges 15.15–19”, EuropeanJournalofScienceandTheology 14/6 (2018), 17-40; A. Meisner, “Alles oder Nichts: Die Tragik des Helden Simson (Richter 13–16)”, in: D. Bauer etal., MännerweinenHeimlich:Geschichtenausdem AltenTestament, Stuttgart 1993, 59–76; J. Mendelsohn, “Simson, innere und äußere Realität eines Mythos”, AnalytischePsychologie 16 (1985), 165–179; T. Meurer, Die Simson-Erzählungen: Studien zu Komposition und Entstehung, Erzähltechnik und TheologievonRi13–16 (BBB 130), Berlin 2001; G. Mobley, “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East”, JBL 116 (1997), 217–233; idem, Samson andtheLiminalHerointheAncientNearEast(LHB/OTS 453), New York 2006; J.C. de Moor, “ʼar‘Honey-Dew’”, UF7 (1975), 590–591;S. Morell, “The Samson Nazirite Vow in the Sixteenth Century”, AJSReview14 (1989), 223–262; R.J. Myles, “Terminating Samson: TheSarahConnorChronicles and the Rise of New Biblical Meaning”, Relegere1 (2011), 329–350; N.N., “The Samson Saga and the Myth of Herakles”, TheWestminsterandForeignQuarterlyReview 121 (1884), 305– 328; C. Nauerth, “Simsons Taten: Motivgeschichtliche Überlegungen”, Dielheimer Blätter 21 (1985), 94–120; P. Nel, “The Riddle of Samson (Judg 14, 14.18)”, Bib 66 (1985), 534–545; T. Nicklas, “Kein Simson im Neuen Testament?”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 129–143; S. Niditch, “Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak”, CBQ 52 (1990), 608–624; H.M. Niemann, “Zorah, Eshtaol, Beth-Shemesh und Dan’s Migration to the South”, JSOT 86 (1999), 25–48; R. Nikolsky, “Rabbinic Discourse about Samson: Continuity and Change between the Tannaitic Culture to the Amoraic”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 101– 118; D. Nocquet, “De quelques intentions du cycle de Samson: Regards historicocritiques du Jg 13–16”, Graphè13 (2004), 53–73; A.S. Palmer, TheSamson-Saga anditsPlaceinComparativeReligion, London 1913 (reprint: New York 1977); S.M. Paul, “ ‘Plowing with a Heifer’ in Judges 14:18: Tracing a Sexual Euphemism”, in: S. Dolansky (ed.), Sacred History, Sacred Literature (Fs Friedman), Winona Lake 2008, 163–167; B.N. Peterson, “Samson: Hero or Villain? The Samson Narrative in Light of David and Saul”, BS174 (2017), 22–44; J.R. Porter, “Samson’s Riddle in Judges XIV. 14, 18”, JThS 13 (1962), 106–109; K. Prenner, “Der Sonnenheld Samson: Bauplan des Textes als Imago Mundi”, GrenzgebietederWissenschaft30 (1981), 230–262; G. von Rad, “Die Geschichte von Simson”, in: Gottes

Samson

375

WirkeninIsrael:VorträgezumAltenTestament, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974, 49–52; S. Raux, “Samson et Delila dans la peinture baroque septentrionale”, Graphè 13 (2004), 131–157; A. Reinhartz, “Samson’s Mother: An Unnamed Protagonist”, JSOT55 (1992), 25–37; M. Reiss, “Samson: The Only Nazarite in the Hebrew Bible and His Women!”, SJOT 28 (2014), 133–146; X. Ressos, SamsonundDelilainder KunstvonMittelalterundFrüherZeit, Petersberg 2014; K.F.D. Römheld, “Von den Quellen der Kraft (Jdc 13)”, ZAW104 (1992), 28–52; G. Roskoff, DieSimsonsage nachihrerEntstehung,FormundBedeutung,undderHeraclesmythus, Leipzig 1860; E. Rozmarin etal., “Samson Now”, GenderandSexuality 12/2 (2011); F.H. Ruddell, “Samson and the Honeytraps: Yahweh’s Use of Women to Ensnare Samson”, Irish BiblicalStudies 29.2 (2011), 54–82; J. Sasson, “Who Cut Samson’s Hair?” Prooftexts 8 (1988), 333–339; H. Savon, “Samson dans l’oeuvre d’Ambroise de Milan”, Graphè13 (2004), 75–95; J. Schipper, “Narrative Obscurity of Samson’s chidah in Judges 14.14 and 18”, JSOT 27 (2003), 339–353; idem, “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges 16,17 and 16,20?”, Bib 92 (2011), 60–69; K. Schöpflin, “Samson in European Literature: Some Examples from English, French and German Poetry”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 177–196; A. Scheiber, “Samson Uprooting a Tree”, JQR50 (1959–1960), 176–180; idem, “Further Parallels to the Figure of Samson the Tree-Uprooter”, JQR 52 (1961–1962), 35–40 (both articles were reprinted in Essays on Jewish Folklore and Comparative Literature, Budapest 1985, 70–80); S. Segert, “Paronomasia in the Samson Narrative in Judges XIII–XVI”, VT 34 (1984), 454–461; W.H. Shea, “Samson and Delilah in a Philistine Text from Ashkelon”, DavarLogos2 (2003), 73–86; A. Shinan, Y. Zakovitch, FromGodstoGod:Howthe BibleDebunked,Suppressed,orChangedAncientMythsandLegends, Philadelphia 2012; F. Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten. II, Tübingen 1992; idem, “L’Héraclès des Juifs”, in: Discoursreligieuxdansl’Antiquité.Actesducolloquede Besançon,27-28janvier1995,Besançon 1995, 151–176; U. Simon, “Samson and the Heroic”, in: M. Wadsworth (ed.), WaysofReadingtheBible, Sussex 1981, 154– 167; I. Singer, “The Philistines in the Bible: A Short Rejoinder to a New Perspective”, in: A.E. Killebrew, G. Lehmann (eds), ThePhilistinesandother“SeaPeoples” inTextandArchaeology, Atlanta 2013, 17–27;C. Smith, “Delilah: A Suitable Case for (Feminist) Treatment?”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), Judges.AFeministCompanion totheBible(SecondSeries), Sheffield 1999, 93–116; M.J. Smith, “The Failure of the Family in Judges, Part 2: Samson”, BS 162 (2005), 424–436; J.-P. Sonnet, “Samson, le ‘dernier’ des juges: Une lecture de Juges 13–16”, Graphè13 (2004), 35–51; S.D. Sperling, “Dinah, ʻInnah, and Related Matters”, in: N. Sacher Fox etal. (eds), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment (Fs Tigay), Winona Lake 2009, 73–93 (reprinted in Ve-EilehDivreiDavid:Essays inSemitics,HebrewBibleandHistoryofBiblicalScholarship, Leiden 2017, 260– 281); K. Spronk, “Vrouwen en Simson: Enkele opmerkingen over de feministische uitleg van Richteren 13–16”, GThT 101 (2001), 11–21; idem, “Samson as the Suffering Servant: Some Remarks on a Painting by Lovis Corinth”, in: F. Postma etal. (eds), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy (Fs Leene; ACEBTSup 3), Maastricht 2002, 219–224; idem, “The Looks of a Hero: Some Aspects of Samson in Fine Arts”, in Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 197–209; idem, “Judging Samson: Judges 16 in Intercultural Reading and the Arts after 9/11”, in: D.S. Schipani etal. (eds), NewPerspectivesonInterculturalReadingoftheBible (Fs De Wit), Amsterdam/Elkhart 2015, 315–325; idem, “Nomos and Violence in the Story of Samson”, in V. Ber (ed.), NomosandViolence:DimensionsinBible

376

Judges13:1–16:31

andTheology, Münster 2019, 97–105; idem, “Samson”, RAC29 (2019), 491–499; idem, “Samson”, TheBrillEncyclopediaofEarlyChristianity(forthcoming); B. Stade, “Miscellen 4. Ri. 14”, ZAW4 (1884), 250–256; L.E. Stager, “Biblical Philistines: A Hellenistic Literary Creation?”, in: A.M. Maeir, P. de Miroschedji (eds), “IWill SpeaktheRiddlesofAncientTimes(Fs Mazar), Winona Lake 2006, 374–384; H. Stahn, Die Simsonsage: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Richter 13–16, Göttingen 1908;H. Steinthal, “Die Sage von Simson”, ZeitschriftfürVölkerpsychologieundSprachwissenschaft2 (1862), 129–178 (English translation: “The Legend of Samson”, in: I. Goldziher (ed.), MythologyAmongtheHebrews, London 1877, 392–446); H.-J. Stipp, “Samson, der Nasiräer”, VT 45 (1995), 337–369 (reprinted in: Alttestamentlichestudien[BZAW 442], Berlin 2013, 139–169); M. Stol, Birthin BabyloniaandtheBible:ItsMediterraneanSetting, Groningen 2000; idem, Women intheAncientNearEast, Berlin 2016;B.A. Strawn, “kěpîr‘ărāyôt in Judges 14:5”, VT 59 (2009), 150–159; K. van der Toorn, “Judges XVI 21 in the Light of the Akkadian Sources”, VT 36 (1986), 246–253; idem, FromherCradletoherGrave: TheRoleofReligionintheLifeoftheIsraeliteandtheBabylonianWomen, Sheffield 1994;V. Wagner, “Die ‫ סרנים‬der Philister und die Ältesten Israels”, ZAR14 (2008), 408–433; B. Webb, “A Serious Reading of the Samson Story (Judges 13-16)”, The ReformedTheologicalReview 54 (1995), 110–120; S. Weitzman, “The Samson Story as Border Fiction”, BibInt 10 (2002), 158–174; idem, “Crossing the Border with Samson: Beth-Shemesh and the Bible’s Geographical Imagination”, in: S. Bunimovitz, Z. Lederman (eds), TelBeth-Shemesh:ABorderCommunityinJudah.Vol.I, Tel Aviv 2016, 266–278; A. Wénin, “Le context littéraire de l’histoire de Samson”, Graphè13 (2004), 13–34; E. Wenning, R. Zenger, “Der Sieben-lockige Held Simson: literarische und ikonographische Beobachtungen zu Ri 13–16”, BN17 (1982), 43–55; J.A. Wharton, “The Secret of Yahweh: Story and Affirmation in Judges 13–16”, Int27 (1973), 48–66;W. van Wieringen, “Een dochter in de aanbieding (Ri. 15:2): De wederwaardigheden van de dochters in het boek Richteren”, ACEBT 19 (2001), 125–138; idem, “ ‘Wer ... äh, dein Name, bitte?’ Ein erster Versuch, mit der Frau ohne Namen aus Richter 13 Bekanntschaft zu Machen”, in: J.W. Dyk etal. (eds), Unlesssomeoneguideme... (Fs Deurloo, ACEBTSup 2), Maastricht 2001, 95–105; idem, “Mogelijk blijvend letsel: een uitleg van Richteren 15:8”, Interpretatie 10/2 (2002), 17–19; idem, Delilaendeanderen:EensyntactischgeoriënteerdbijbelstheologischonderzoeknaarderolvandevrouwenindeSimsoncyclus(Richteren13– 16)(ACEBTSup 7), Vught 2007; idem, “Showcasing the Little Sister. The Grammatical Lives of Samson’s Women (Judg 13–16) as a Syntactic Supplement to Narratological Analysis, in: R.R. Ganzevoort etal. (eds), ReligiousStoriesWeLiveBy: Narrative Approaches in Theology and Religious Studies, Leiden 2014, 117–128; idem, “Holy Wit: A Good Laugh with Samson (Judges 13–16)”, in: A. Berlis etal. (eds), EverydayLifeandtheSacred:ReconfiguringGenderStudies, Leiden 2017, 114–130;E. Wietzke, DerbiblischeSimsonderaegyptischeHorus-Ra, Wittenberg 1888; S.M. Wilson, “Samson the Man-Child: Failing to Come of Age in the Deuteronomistic History”, JBL 133 (2014), 43–60; K. Wisse, “Samson in Music”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 161–176; M. Witte, “Wie Simson in den Kanon kam: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Jdc 13–16”, ZAW 112 (2000), 526–549; A. Yadin, “Simson’s chîdâ, VT 52 (2002), 407–426; L. van der Zee, “Samson and Samuel: Two Examples of Leadership”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 53–65; R. Zwick, “Obsessive Love: Samson and Delilah Go to the Movies”, in: Eynikel & Nicklas 2014, 211–235.

Samson

377 ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES

The stories about Samson, the relationship to his elders, his contacts with women, his strength, and his fights, appeal to the imagination of readers of all times. This not only concerns theologians, but also psychologists (cf. Mendelsohn 1985; Altschuler etal. 2001; Gerson 2010 and Wilson 2014) and artists (see the survey below). Within the Christian canon there is a much noted parallel between the annunciation of the birth of Samson and the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, just as the parallel between Samson’s death and the death of Jesus. To this was added in recent times the association with suicide killers. All this makes it difficult but all the more important to pay close attention to these stories in their literary context and against their historical background. Within its present literary context the stories about Samson are closely connected both to the preceding and to the following stories. The childlessness of Manoah and his wife contrasts sharply with the numerous offspring of Ibsan who had thirty sons and thirty daughters (12:9) and Abdon with his forty sons and thirty grandsons (12:14). The next story starts with the report about the theft of eleven hundred pieces of silver (17:2) which is precisely the amount of money promised by each Philistine prince to Delilah for betraying Samson (16:5). Also the story in chapter 18 about the tribe of Dan looking for a new homeland is related, because of the fact that Samson belongs to the same tribe. Even more prominent are the connections to the story of the birth of Samuel, in the first chapters of 1 Samuel, which comes after the book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible. Both stories begin with the phrase ‘there was one man from (…) and his name was (…)’ (Judg. 13:2; 1 Sam. 1:1). In both stories the mother plays a central role and in both stories it is announced that the boy will be devoted to YHWH. Whereas the beginning of the story of Samson in Judg. 13 is related in this way to the beginning of the books of Samuel, the end of Samson’s story has a clear parallel in the end of the books of Kings: both Samson and Zedekiah, the final king of Judah, are blinded and bound with bronze fetters (Judg. 16:21; 2 Kgs 25:7). The introduction of the story of Samson in chapter 13 differs markedly from the following three chapters. Whereas YHWH plays a prominent role in chapter 13 via his messenger, he is only mentioned in the margins of chapters 14–16. The chapters 14–16 also appear to be built up as two parallel parts, with chapters 15–16 mirroring chapter 14. They begin with Samson starting a relation with a woman; followed by Samson revealing his secret to a woman who takes advantage of his affection for her; and it ends with Samson praying YHWH for help. The structure of the stories about Samson resembles the structure of Gideon’s story. This also began, in chapter 6, with an elaborate

378

Judges13:1–16:31

story about YHWH acting via his messenger, introducing a new saviour of Israel. In comparison with Gideon, Samson interacts far less with YHWH and with the people of Israel. There is also a link with Jephthah: in 10:7 it is told that YHWH “sold” the Israelites “in the hand of the Philistines and in the hand of the children of Ammon”. Whereas Jephthah dealt with the Ammonites, the Philistines apparently were left to Samson. Another similarity is that of both Jephthah and Samson it is said that they will “begin” with the fight against the enemy (10:18; 13:5). The final victory will be gained later, by Saul and David respectively. In comparison with previous leaders, like Gideon and Ehud, it is clear that Jephthah and Samson did not finish their job. Stories about powerful heroes like Samson are found in many cultures in the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean. There are many parallels, among others, with the Mesopotamian stories about Gilgamesh and the ancient Greek stories about Hercules, with the returning themes of love, life and death. Some elements in the stories about Samson may have been inspired by those about his Greek counterpart. At the very least one can safely assume that Jews living in a Hellenized environment will have associated Samson with Hercules (cf. Edelman 2016, who also includes Alexander the Great, who claimed that he descended from Hercules). A basic difference with related stories from the surrounding cultures is that Samson remains completely human. There are no hints of him being semi divine like Gilgamesh and Hercules. On the contrary, an important line in his story is that he increasingly realises that he is dependent on the help of YHWH and cannot trust in his own strength. The history of interpretation (cf. Houtman & Spronk 2004; Gunn 2005, 170–230; Groß 2009, 743–746; Ressos 2014; Blyth 2017) abundantly shows the popularity of the story of Samson, with special interest in the role of Delilah. Samson is usually pictured positively. Josephus (Ant. 5.276-317; cf. Jonquière 2014) calls him a prophet and praises him for his courage, his worthy death, and for the fact that he persisted in looking for revenge against his enemies. According to Josephus the story of Samson, especially the scene where he fears to die from thirst, teaches the reader to put his trust not in one’s own strength but in God. Pseudo-Philo, who names Samson’s mother Eluma, is more critical. The fact that Samson is blinded is associated with Samson’s giving in to the temptation of simply following his eyes every time he saw a beautiful woman. It is told that God says: “Samson has been led astray through his eyes. (...) Samson’s lust will be a stumbling block for him, and his mingling a ruin. I will hand him over to his enemies, and they will blind him” (L.A.B. 43.5). More explicitly this judgment is found in Rabbinic literature: “Samson went astray after his eyes and so the Philistines put out his eyes” (m.Soṭah 1,8; t.Soṭah 3,15). Samson’s grinding in the mill (16:21) is considered a euphemism for sexual transgression (b.Soṭah 10a). On the other hand, Samson is also associated with the Messiah in Gen.Rab. 98 (on

Samson

379

Gen. 49:17), suggesting that in his blessing of Dan (the eponymous father of the tribe of Samson) Jacob was thinking of the Messiah, only to realize his mistake when he is shown Samson’s death (cf. Feldman 1988, 175; see for a survey of the both critical and admiring rabbinic discourse on Samson Nikolsky 2014). In De Sampsone, another erroneously to Philo attributed text from the 1st century AD, the author speculates about the effects of the heavenly message on Samson’s mother and about the character of the divine spirit given to Samson, who is pictured as a Messianic figure but also looks like Hercules (cf. Siegert 1982, 269–272; 1995, 155–168). In the Targum (cf. Smelik 1995, 562–592), which as a rule follows the Masoretic text, some elements are added emphasizing the sexual aspect. In 15:1; 16: 9, 12 it is indicated that the actions take place in the bedroom of the woman. In one of the manuscripts of 16:15 it is explained how Delilah sexually teases Samson: “she slipped away from under him in the period of sexual consummation and pressed him hard”. Another manuscript states that the donkey, whose jawbone was used as a weapon by Samson (15:15), was Abraham’s. In the New Testament Samson is mentioned next to Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets as a hero of faith (Heb. 11:32). Of the motives mentioned in the next verses the reference to those “whose weakness was turned to strength” (11:34) probably pertains to Samson. An indirect association with the story of the annunciation of Samson’s birth can be found in Heb. 13:2 referring to hospitality shown to strangers who turn out to be angels (cf. Nicklas 2014, 133–135). It is a matter of dispute whether allusions to Samson are also found in Mat. 2:23, where Jesus is called a “Nazarene”, and in Luke 1:15, which seems to suggest that John the Baptist was a Nazirite (cf. the discussion by Chepey 2005, 131–159; Nicklas 2014, 135–140). Just as in the New Testament Samson is pictured positively in Islamic literature. He is considered a prophet and saint (cf. Eynikel 2014). Samson is portrayed in a mosaic floor of a synagogue (according to some scholars it was a church) in Mopsuestia of the 4th or 5th century. It contains about ten scenes from the life of Samson (Budde 1969, 57–76, Pl. 143-157). Other pictures of Samson are found in the 4th century synagogues of Wadi Hamam and Huqoq (cf. Hachlili 2013, 413; Magness 2013). Samson seems to have been venerated in this way as a local hero and it might also be an indication of the association with the Messiah (cf. Grey 2013). In early Christian art Samson’s fight with the lion is a popular motif (cf. Bulst 1972, 31). Different episodes of Samson’s life are pictured in the catacombs of the Via Latina (cf. Kötzsche-Breitenbruch, 89–93). Here he is also portrayed as Hercules (cf. Malherbe 1988, 581–583). A remarkable tradition picturing

380

Judges13:1–16:31

Samson is found in 12th and 13th century in Hungary, Germany and Switzerland, where he is presented uprooting a tree, apparently as a symbol of strength (cf. Scheiber 1959–1962). Morell (1989) describes a 16th century custom of making an oath which invokes the name of Samson as a Nazirite. In patristic texts Samson is often compared to Jesus and also to Hercules (cf. the survey by Krouse 1949, 31–62). Athanasius indicates that Samson should be honoured like David, Samuel and other saints because of their righteous deeds and their obedience to God even in the face of death (Ep.ad Episc.Aeg.Lib. 21, 3). Clement of Alexandria calls Samson a prophet, but also the counterpart of Joseph, who did not succumb to sexual temptation (Strom. 21, 109-111; Paed. 3, 68, 3). Ambrose wrote an allegorical commentary to Samson in his treatise DeSpirituSanctu.In his letters he gives a more literal description of his life (cf. Savon 2004). He uses his story amongst others as a warning against mixed marriage (Epist. 62.19). Augustine emphasizes that Samson chose to kill himself carrying out the assignment of God and that this story therefore not justifies suicide (Civ. 1, 26). He compares him to Hercules (Civ. 18, 19), just like Eusebius who calls him “irresistible in strength of body, like the famous Hercules among the Greeks” (Praep. 10, 9, 7). Filastrius maintains that the stories about Hercules plagiarize the biblical accounts about Samson (Haer. 8). Samson is also regarded as prefiguring Christ. Ephrem associates the story of the honey coming from the dead lion to the work of Christ bringing sweetness out of bitterness. Just as the death of Samson the death of Christ brings liberation (Syr. Hymn. 13, 4). Augustine expands on this by comparing the dead lion to the body of Christ, from which christian believers come forth like a swarm of bees (Serm. 276f.). The foxes from the story in Judg. 15 symbolize the heathens (Serm. 278f; cf. also Origen, IncCant.Comm. 4, 3). Samson escaping from Gaza is seen as foreshadowing Christ breaching the gates of hell (Serm. 279f). Samson’s fight against the Philistines is compared to the fight of the church against its enemies (Greg. Naz. Or. 21, 26). In this fight Samson’s arms stretching out between the pillars of the temple prefigure the cross of Christ (Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 119f). This kind of typological interpretation is also customary in the next centuries (cf. Dahan 2004). It is well illustrated in medieval picture bibles called “Bible moraliseé” (cf. Guest 1995; Houtman & Spronk 2004, 77–82). We find there in many ways, in pictures with explanatory text, episodes of the life of Samson paired with that of Jesus Christ. In the 13th century Codex Vindobonensis 2554, folios 61–64, first a connection is made between the angel announcing the birth of a strong son called Samson to the announcement by the angel Gabriel of the birth of a very tall and strong son called Jesus Christ. The second combination is between the sacrifice by Manoah and his wife and the sacrifice by Joseph and Mary “of their good flesh and

Samson

381

flour”. The birth of Samson is compared to the birth of Jesus Christ, “whom the heavenly Father gave big strength and great power, more than any man before, to speak against the Jews”. With a slight adaptation of the biblical text it is stated that the angel commanded Samson to go into the heathen land to get him a wife. This is interpreted as pointing to God sending his Son to the heathen. The lion he meets on his way is the devil. The lion’s carrion is the hell from which Jesus Christ takes out the prophets and the meek like the honey from the dead lion. The honey offered by Samson to his parents is the sweet message of the prophets given by Jesus Christ to his people. The BibliaPauperum originating also in the early Middle Ages (cf. Henry 1987) contains two references to Samson (cf. Houtman & Spronk 2004, 68–77). Samson’s killing of the lion is related together with David’s killing of Goliath to Jesus defeating death. The second tableau pictures Samson who took away the gates of Gaza together with Jonah being spit out by the fish as prefiguring Jesus coming out of the tomb. The idea of Samson as a type of Jesus Christ remained popular in the next centuries (cf. Houtman & Spronk 2004, 133–140; Gaß & Zissu 2005, 169– 170; Gunn 2005, 180–182). Next to this, the story of Samson’s life is presented as either edifying or as a warning (cf. Houtman & Spronk 2004, 141– 170; Gunn 2005, 182–190; cf. also Léglu 2018, 122, who notes in French interpretations of the 14th century “signs of the dramatisations and humanisations that would mark adaptations of the Samson story in the modern era”). The prominent role of women in the story has led to very different interpretations and applications. In older literature the warning against the dangerous woman, especially against Delilah as “femme fatale”(cf. Blyth 2017), is dominant. In modern literature there is a counter reaction, especially in feminist literature (cf. Bal 1987, 57–67; Exum 1993; Keuning 1998; Smith 1999; Camp 2000, 94–143; Van Wieringen 2001, 2007 and 2014; Amit 2002; Jost 2006, 208–278; Jackson 2012, 116–141; and the survey by Spronk 2001 and Houtman & Spronk 2004, 247–263). In modern scholarly literature one also notes a gradual change in the moral appraisal of Samson’s deeds (cf. Stipp 1995, 337–339). Instead of using the traditional typological explanation of Samson prefiguring Jesus Christ, scholars started asking the question how the story of Samson could have become part of sacred scripture, or – with Keil – “Soll Simson (…) die Spitze und Blüte des Richtertums sein?” (Keil 1874, 325). His answer is that there is deliberate ambiguity: In dem Naziräer Simson wollte der Herr aber seinem Volke nicht blos einen Mann aufstellen, welcher durch festen Glauben und zuversichtliches Vertrauen auf die ihm verliehene Gottesgabe in Heldenkraft vor dem versunkenen Geschlechte hervorragte und demselben die Aussicht auf eine neue Erhebung seiner Kraft im großen und Ganzen eröffnete, um durch ein solches Vorbild die in dem Volke

382

Judges13:1–16:31 schlummernden Kräfte und Fähigkeiten zu wecken, sondern Simson sollte seinem Zeitalter überhaupt ein Bild darstellen sowohl von der Kraft welche das Volk Gottes zur Ueberwindung seiner mächtigsten Feinde durch treue Hingebung an den Herrn seinen Gott empfangen könne, als auch von der Schwäche, in welche es durch seine Bundbrüchigkeit und sein Buhlen mit den Heiden gerathen sei. In dieser Vorbildlichkeit Simsons und seines Wirkens liegt die Blüte und Spitze des Richtertums.

The special character of the stories about Samson was now often ascribed to the fact that they were taken from folk tales which “give us a glimpse of a side of old Israelite life and character which is rarely represented in the Old Testament” (Moore 1895). According to Gunkel (1913) the elements of fairy tales, like the hair as seat of power, have been incorporated into Israel’s religion by attributing this power to YHWH. One of the ways in which the old stories were adapted to the new context would have been the addition of the Yahwistic introduction in chapter 13. Von Rad maintains that this also means that Samson’s deeds are criticized: Diese Vorgeschichte des Lebens Simsons bei Gott stellt dem Leser das eigentliche Problem der Simsonerzahlung, denn wer von der frommen Berufungsgeschichte herkommt – von einer Gotteserscheinung, von Opfer und Gelübde war die Rede –, der muß sich über den Wirbel von sehr ungeistlichen Abenteuern wundern, in denen sich Simson verliert. (…) seine Gotteskraft verzettelt sich immer mehr in wirkungslosem Schabernack, und Simson geht in dem großen Konflikt zwischen Eros und Charisma schließlich unter. So zeigen also die Simsongeschichten das Scheitern eines Charismatikers und das Bild einer vertanen Gotteskraft (TheologiedesAltenTestamentsI, München 1969, 346; cf. also Von Rad 1974, 52).

This is still the dominant view in most commentaries (cf. the survey by Stipp 1995, 337–343; and also Bartusch 2003, 136–170; Lee 2017), although nowadays there is also the tendency to be more careful in applying modern standards too easily (cf. Lemardelé 2016, 68, n. 18: “this biblical character is represented as a victim of biblical scholars rather than a victim of the Philistines” and Nelson 2017, 274: “One must doubt […] that early readers would have felt any problem here”). According to Stipp Samson is not presented as a failed Nazirite; on the contrary: “Dieser religiöse Sonderstatus sollte ihn ebenso wie seine Berufung zum Retter auf- und nicht abwerten” (Stipp 1995, 369). In recent publications the question whether Samson was considered a hero or a fool (Eynikel & Nicklas 2014) or even a villain (Peterson 2017) is left unanswered. In moderate form the traditional comparison with the life and death of Jesus Christ is still made (cf. Webb 2012, 418–419: “Christian readers can hardly fail to notice a number of points of correspondence between the broad structure of Samson’s career and that of Christ (…) we discover even here, in the most unlikely of places, intimations of things to come”).

Samson

383

Through the ages it inspired visual artists (cf. Spronk 2014), for instance, Rembrandt who made a number of etchings of the angel ascending after Manoah’s sacrifice, or Rubens with his painting of Samson and Delilah (1609; cf. Raux 2004; Georgievska-Shine 2007), or Lovis Corinth with his painting of the blinded Samson (1912; cf. Exum 1998; Spronk 2002). Many writers gave their version of the story (cf. Gengembre 2004; Blyth 2014; Schöpflin 2014). Very influential was Milton with his Samson Agonistes (1671; cf. Exum 2012; Achinstein 2016). Milton emphasizes Samson’s feelings of guilt and remorse. His contemporary Vondel presents him in his play SamsonofHeiligeWraeck(1660) as someone transforming “from a subdued prisoner into a raging figure of revenge” (Horsman 2012, 446). Modern interpretations of the work of Milton and Vondel often address the question whether it can be read as justification of terrorism. Among the most interesting recent retellings are those by Elias Canetti (cf. Greiner 2000) and by Grossmann (2005; cf. Houtman 2007, 198–202), who explicitly relates it to the modern experiences with suicide terrorists (his book functioned as a “springboard” for a “collective contemplation of the figure of the biblical Samson” by Rozmarin etal. 2011). This stands in sharp contrast to the positive use of the name Samson as the name of a special forces unit within the Israeli army. Of the many musical compositions based on the story of Samson the oratorio of Händel (1741), which was based on Milton’s drama, and the opera of Saint-Saëns (1876; cf. Barbier 2004) stand out (cf. Wisse 2014). There is also a constant flow of movies, from which much can be learned, especially about their makers (cf. Louguet 2004; Exum 2002, 2012 and 2016; Myles 2011; Zwick 2014).

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS In its present form the story of Samson fits in nicely at the end of the book of Judges and also functions as a bridge to the next book in the Hebrew Bible. His story starts with the appearance of a messenger of YHWH. At the beginning of the book this messenger came to the people as a whole urging it to convert itself to YHWH again (2:1–5). Then he came to Gideon, turning him from a terrified man to the saviour of his people (6:11–24). Now he comes to a barren woman with the promise that she will be the mother of a man who will start liberating his people (13:3–25). Especially the stories in chapters 6 and 13 show many correspondences. Taking the three stories about the messenger of YHWH together one notices a clear increase with things becoming more personal and more miraculous.

384

Judges13:1–16:31 2:1–5

6:11–24

13:2–25

A messenger of YHWH comes/appears

v. 1

v. 11

v. 3a

The message

vv. 2–3

vv. 12, 14, 16

vv. 3b–5, 13–14

Reactions

v. 4

vv. 13, 15, 16

v. 8

Offer of sacrifice/meal with goat’s kid

vv. 17–19

v. 15

Placed on the rock

v. 20

v. 19

Bringing of the sacrifice

v. 21

v. 19

Fire from the rock

v. 5

v. 21

v. 20

Disappearance of the messenger

v. 21

v. 20

Fearful reaction

v. 22

v. 22

Reassurance by YHWH / the woman

v. 23

v. 23

Positive follow-up

v. 24

vv. 24–25

There is a contrast with the previous reports about the judges Ibsan and Abdon with their numerous offspring. It is part of a pattern starting with Jair who had thirty sons (10:4), followed by Jephthah who had only one daughter (11:34), Ibsan with thirty sons and thirty daughters (12:9), Elon of whom no offspring is mentioned (12:11–12), Abdon with forty sons and thirty grandsons (12:4), ending with Manoah and his wife having no children (13:2). It is connected to the following story of Micah and of the fellow tribes men of Dan looking for a place to live through the repeated details of the eleven hundred pieces of silver (16:5; 17:2) and the location of Zorah and Eshtaol (13:25; 18:2). The story of Samson is on the one hand related to that of Jephthah by the fact that of both judges it is reported that they will “make a beginning” with the liberation from the Ammonites and Philistines respectively (11:18; 13:5). This distinguishes them from the previous saviours and leaders who all finished their job with the definitive defeat of the enemy. The correspondence between Jephthah and Samson is underlined by the introduction to the story of Jephthah in 10:7, where it is reported that YHWH gave his people in the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites. It also points forward to the stories of Samuel, Saul and David who will finish their jobs by ending the threat of the Ammonites and the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam. 14:47; 2 Sam. 8:12). As is noted by many scholars (cf. amongst others Wenin 2004, 30–32; Bar 2018, 49) there is also a specific link to the story of Samuel because both are introduced by a story of their miraculous birth, which is related to their dedication as a Nazirite. A closer look at the text reveals that it is not in all aspects coherent (cf. Jonker 1996, 127–131; Groß 2009, 648–657). After the customary introduction

Samson

385

in 13:1 reporting that YHWH gave the disobedient Israelites in the hands of the Philistines does not follow, as in 3:12; 4:1; 10:6, a description of the oppression by the enemies, nor a call for help by the Israelites. One misses the reason for the introduction of Manoah in v. 2 in the way Gideon was introduced in chapter 6. The period of oppression by the Philistines, mentioned in v. 1, is confusing. In both 15:20 and 16:31 it is reported that Samson judged Israel twenty years. Do we have to add up these numbers: forty years of oppression, followed by twenty years or perhaps two times twenty years of Samson leading his people? We have to assume that only a few incidents of this long period are mentioned. In these stories Samson is never pictured as a leader. He always acts on his own. Many scholars point to the remarkable difference in distribution of the references to YHWH. In chapter 13 the divine name is used eighteen times, in chapter 14 only three times and in chapters 15–16 even less: two times two. The same holds true for the reference to ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬: ֱ respectively 8, 0, 1, and 2 times. In the second part of chapter 14 the role of Samson’s parents is not clear. Whereas they play a prominent role in the first verses, trying to persuade him not to marry a Philistine woman, their presence during the two trips to Timnah and the wedding is not clearly described. In the history of modern interpretation (cf. Kim 1993, 1–114) this combination of unifying elements on the one hand and tensions within the text on the other hand has been explained in many different ways. At the end of the 19th century most scholars assumed that chapters 13–16 were produced by one author (cf. Wellhausen 1899, 223: “sichtlich von Einer Hand”) and should be regarded as “the oldest stratum of the book” (Moore 1895, 314), to which later redactors only made minor additions and alterations. According to Van Doorninck (1894), however, all references to YHWH and God in chapters 14– 16 are later additions. They can be left out without disturbing the flow of the originally Canaanite story. The addition in 16:17, referring to the promise made to Samson’s mothers, shows that the editor wanted to connect this chapter with the also added chapter 13. A comparable radical view suggesting a Yahwistic adaptation of a hero saga can be found with Bartelmus 1979, 79– 111 (as he also indicates himself on p. 103, n. 1). Less extreme and more influential was the analysis by Budde who in line with previous scholarly views assumes that the hexateuchal sources J and E are also found in the book of Judges. In chapters 13–16, however, he finds no traces of E. An important argument he derives from the parallels between the stories of Samson and Samuel: Dass daneben auch E beteiligt sei, ist schon deshalb unwahrscheinlich, weil die Geburtsgeschichte Simsons der Samuels in I Sam 1 viel zu ähnlich sieht, um so nahe bei ihr in derselben Quelle zu stehen. Vielmehr wird jede der beiden

386

Judges13:1–16:31 Quellen nur einen Mann gekannt haben, der schon von Mutterleibe von Gott auserwählt war, sein Volk von den Philistern zu befreien, oder doch mit dieser Befreiung den Anfang zu machen (13 5). Das ist in der südlichen Quelle J der Daniter Simson, der ursprünglich ganz andre Züge aufwies, in der nördlichen E (I Sa 7) der Ephramit Samuel. (Budde 1897, 92)

Within the story of Samuel he identifies two Yahwistic sources. In one version of the story Samson’s strength is connected with his hair, in the other Samson would have received his special gift through his mother and by the spirit of YHWH. In chapter 13 both versions are combined, in chapters 14– 15 the second version prevails, in chapter 16 the first (Budde 1897, 93). The introduction in 13:1 he ascribes to a later Deuteronomistic redactor, who also added the first final note in 15:20. In again a later redaction chapter 16, which was first skipped by the Deuteronomistic redactor, was added again, together with the repeated final note in 16:31 (Budde 1897, 92). Gunkel (1913, 46–48) includes in his reconstruction of the growth of the text the oral traditions behind the present literary text. He assumes that the stories about Samson started with the short note about Samson being stirred by the spirit of YHWH in Mahaneh-Dan (13:25). In a next phase the short story about Samson taking the gates of Gaza (16:1–3) would have been added and after this respectively the Delilah episode of chapter 16, the story of his wedding in chapters 14–15, and an etiological narrative about his prayer to YHWH (15:18–19). Finally, the birth story of chapter 13 would have been prefixed as a religious portal. Like Gunkel, Wiese does not look for traces of the Pentateuchal sources and he also agrees with Gunkel concerning the phases of the growth of the text, be it that in his opinion the story about Delilah was added later than the introductory chapter 13 (Wiese 1926, 61). Eissfeldt distinguishes between two parallel literary strands: a J source with most of chapters 13 and chapters 14–15 and a L (“Laienquelle”) source found in 13:5, 7b, 16b–18, 19b, 21 and chapter 16 (Eissfeldt 1925, 82–83; cf. also Eissfeldt 1964, 346–347). A combination of the reconstructions by Gunkel and Eissfeldt can be found with Wharton. He takes the story in 16:1–3 as “a kind of prototypical Samson story” (Wharton 1973, 52) and builds his case about two ways of retelling Samson’s story around 13:5 and 7b. Burney, again, assumes like Budde two Yahwistic sources, but he assigns them differently. The old story in chapters 14–16 he ascribes to J1 and “the later construction put upon it by the main J narrator (as embodied in ch.13 and in the touches in chs. 14–16 …) as J2” (Burney 1920, 338). Simpson takes this approach to the extreme in his very detailed analysis. He finds J1 in 13:1–3, 5abb, 10a–13a, 15–16a, 19a, 20aba, 21b, 24; 14:1b, 5–6abc, 7b–9, 10b, 11b–18, 19b–20; 15:1–2, 4–7, 15, 17b; 16:16a, 13b–17*, 19–20a, 21–23a, 25–27a, 29–30*. A Yahwistic author (J2) would have added 13:4–5a, 24b–25a; 14:1a, 2–4, 6a, 7a, 15*, 19a; 15:3, 8, 9a, 10–14*, 16–17a,

Samson

387

18–19; 16:6b–13a, 17*, 20*, 27b–28, 30–31a (Simpson 1962, 53–63, 113– 118). The rest of the text is ascribed to different Deuteronomistic redactions. Whereas in the first stage the stories of Jephthah and Samson were omitted, in a second stage chapters 13–15 would have been added (adding also 13:1, 13b–14; the reference to the forty years in 13:1 and also 15:20 would be part of a next redaction); finally, in a post-Deuteronomic redaction chapter 16 would have been added (with the addition of 16:31b and 13:5aa and the replacement of 13:5abb [“no razor shall be come upon his head”]) (Simpson 1962, 144). With the broad acceptance of Noth’s theory about the Deuteronomistic History the attempts to explain the tensions in the story of Samson in relation to the Pentateuchal sources faded. According to Noth the Samson cycle was probably added later to the Deuteronomistic History, as can derived from the fact that the name of Samson is missing in the summary in 1 Sam. 12:11. The remarks about the length of Samson’s period as a judge in 15:20 and 16:31 can be seen as copies of 1 Sam. 4:18b. Within the Deuteronomistic History 1 Sam. 1:1 would have followed directly after Judg. 13:1 (Noth 1943, 61). With regard to 15:20 and 16:31 Richter is of a different opinion. In his view they are closely related to the formulas used in the lists in 10:1–5 and 12:7–15. It shows that the Deuteronomistic author incorporated the stories of Samson and Eli when he combined the traditions about the judges and the saviours (Richter 1964, 128–129). According to Gese the original story about Samson is found in chapters 14– 15. To this the story in chapter 13 about his God-given birth was added and also chapter 16 which is built up in the same way as chapters 14–15, together with some connecting verses (Gese 1985, 263–264). In the core text of the story, chapters 14–15, Gese discerns eight actions, four by the Philistines and four by Samson, and he points to the climactic structure. Each act by Samson is a retaliation of an unjust act by the Philistines, eventually leading to the killing of thousand Philistines with the help of YHWH (Gese 1985, 266–268). This not only shows the literary quality of the text, but also the fact that the Yahwistic elements are part of the original story. Recent historical-critical reconstructions of the growth of Judg. 13–16 shows a growing consensus about chapter 13 as an added introduction, but different views on the details of the reconstructed growth of the text. Römheld finds the original birth story in 13:2–4, 5a*, 6–8, 10–11a, 13–14a, 15–19a, 20–24. A Deuteronomistic redactor would have incorporated it as introduction to the originally secular heroic story of chapters 14–15 in the Deuteronomistic History, together with 13:1, 5b; 15:20 and the references to the spirit of YHWH. A next redactor would have added chapter 16, making links in 13:5, 7b and 25. Finally some elements would have been added in 13:9, 14 and 19 to give it a more graphic presentation (Römheld 1992, 47–48).

388

Judges13:1–16:31

Witte distinguishes four phases in the process leading to the present text (Witte 2000, 547–548): (1) “Einzelsagen” about Samson killing a lion (14:5*, 6*), Samson finding bees in the lion’s corpse (14:8*, 9*), Samson giving a feast (14:10b–16a, 17–18, 19b), Samson burning the crops of the Philistines (15:1*, 4–5), Samson killing at Etam (15:8), Samson killing thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass (15:9, 14a, 15–16), aetiology of Lechi (15:17); (2) “Simsonzyklus A” or “Geistschicht” about the strong man Samson and his rightful retaliation with the help of the spirit of YHWH in 14:5–15:19; (3) “Simsonzyklus B” created by the redactors of a “Wunderschicht” presenting Samson as a superhuman hero with uncut hair, adding the two stories of 13:2–25 and 16:1–31, which are both equally structured in exactly twelve parts; (4) “Endredaktion” by the deuteronomistic historian including these stories in the book of Judges, adding the necessary elements in 13:5, 20; and 16:31b. A similar analysis is given by Kratz: Der Kern der Überlieferung ist in Jdc 14,1–15,8 (ohne 14,4; 15,3 und die Formel “Und der Geist Jhwhs kam über ihn” in 14,6.19) enthalten. Er wurde – vermutlich noch vor der Aufnahme in das Richterbuch – erweitert durch die Ätiologie des judäischen Ortes Ramat-Lehi in 15,9–19, die Fortsetzung der Frauengeschichten in 16,1–30 (ohne 16,17aβ.20bγ-23b–24.28) und die Geburtslegende in 13,2–24 (…) Durch 13,1; 15,20 und 16,31 (sowie die Geistbegabung in 13,5.25; 14,6.19; 15,14 und andere Ergänzungen) ist der ehemals selbständige Erzählzyklus nach Art van Jdc 9–12 (…) in das Richterschema integriert (Kratz 2000, 213).

On the whole Groß agrees with Witte and Kratz when he concludes his lengthy discussion about the growth of the texts thus: “Ein und derselbe Verfasser hat mit Hilfe der von ihm verfaßten Kap 13 + 16 (16 unter Umakzentuierung des mündlich überlieferten Delila-Stoffes) die Gestalt Simsons theologisch gedeutet und durch seine in 14,1–10.16* wahrnehmbare Bearbeitung (…) den älteren Erzählkranz Kap 14–15* einbezogen” (Groß 2009, 659). As may be derived from the remarks by Gese and Witte about the wellconsidered and artful structure of parts of the story of Samson, the diachronic approach does not exclude a more synchronic view of the text. Something similar is noticed the other way around in the sixties of the previous century in the work by Blenkinsopp and Van Daalen. Blenkinsopp takes the view “that the expositor should have the habit of looking at the passage as whole, while having an acute awareness of its literary history” (Blenkinsopp 1963, 65). He sees a clear plot in the narrative around the theme of the broken vow, but he leaves open the possibility that this theme “was imported in to a series of disconnected and heterogeneous episodes at a later stage” (Blenkinsopp

Samson

389

1963, 67). This positive view on the literary qualities of the story of Samson is found since then with many scholars, for instance recently with Bar, who states: “The Samson story is a masterful piece of work written by a skilful writer (…) It appears in a logical order, a well thought-out plot (…) Any attempts to remove or change some parts of the story will damage the harmony, unity, and logical structure of the story” (Bar 2018, 41–42). In her dissertation (Amsterdam, 1966; cf. Hoogewoud 2001) Van Daalen presents her analysis of the plot of the story of Samson as an alternative to the many historical-critical theories which in her opinion have failed to explain convincingly the seemingly contradictory elements. In her view the present text is “an exceptionally sophisticated, well-integrated composition” (Van Daalen 1966, 126) by one author, reworking different motifs and data available to him. She also agrees, however, with the theory that 13:1 was originally the introduction to the story of Samuel. The Samson cycle would have been added to the book of Judges after the chapters 17–21 with a proDavid tendency had been placed before 1 Sam. 1. And it is likely that its author had the story of the birth of Samuel in mind when he wrote chapter 13 (Van Daalen 1966, 79–83). According to Crenshaw “(t)he Samson saga is Israelite narrative art at its finest” (Crenshaw 1974, 470). Among other things this is apparent in the way it is skilfully built around the unifying theme of the relation between filial devotion and erotic passion. He distinguishes four episodes, each about Samson and a woman: (1) 13:2–24 about Samson and his mother; (2) 14:1– 15:19 about Samson and the woman from Timnah; (3) 16:1–3 about Samson and the harlot from Gaza; (4) 16:4–30 about Samson and Delilah. They are linked through key words and phrases, such as ‫נגד‬, “to tell”, ‫ידע‬, “to know”, ‫פתי‬, “to entice”, “because she harassed him”, and “to go down/up” (Crenshaw 1978, 52–56). In many publications on the narrative art of Judg. 13-16, based on her unpublished dissertation “Literary Patterns in the Samson Saga” (1976), Exum analyses Judg. 13-16 as “a superb specimen of Hebrew literary art” (Exum 1981, 3). Although she does not deny that chapter 13 “may represent a later accretion”, she maintains that it should be interpreted in the first place as “an indispensable introduction to the following stories, giving them direction and context, and presenting and expounding what will become the major motifs of the saga” (Exum 1983, 35; cf. also Exum 1980). She discerns seven of these motifs: life and death, answered prayer, (not) knowing, (not) telling, doing, seeing, and coming and going. Another important conclusion is that chapters 14–15 and 16 are symmetrical accounts “in terms of their themes and the literary motifs” (Exum 1981, 9). Also chapters 13 and 16 show an almost parallel structure, whereas the references to Manoah in 13:2 and 16:31 frame the entire narrative (Exum 1981, 10). These observations are not entirely

390

Judges13:1–16:31

new. They can be found in previous research, also from a diachronic view, and are often quoted in later publications (cf. among others Webb 1987, 164; 2012, 347; Way 2016, 98). In his dissertation of 2001 Meurer combines a thorough synchronic analysis of the literary structure with the widely accepted diachronic view that chapters 14–15 contain the oldest narrative. First chapter 16 would have been added, picturing Samson as a tragic hero and, finally, chapter 13 as a theological introduction, turning the old tradition into a story of salvation (Meurer 2001, 189). The present text shows in his opinion a chiastic structure, with chapters 13 and 15 focussing on the conflict with the Philistines and chapters 14 and 16 on Samson’s love affairs and attempts to assimilation (Meurer 2001, 187). Strictly synchronic are two other dissertations, by Prenner and Kim. The first (Graz, 1980, unpublished, but summarized in his article of 1981) is a structural analysis of the Masoretic text employing the logotechnical method. Specific numbers of text units and words would prove that the story of Samson is an example of “Kunst-prosa (…) deren form-gebende Kraft bis in die einzelnen Buchstaben hinein verfolgt werden kann” (Prenner 1981, 262). His use of many different numerical models, relating them to cosmic patterns, does not lend much to the credibility of his thesis. More convincing on this field of research is the work of Labuschagne (2014), who focusses on the use in the Hebrew Bible of the numbers 17 and 26 as references to the name of YHWH. In his analysis of Judg. 13–16 he observes that YHWH is mentioned exactly 26 times and that until chapter 16 the name of YHWH occurs 153 (=9×17) times. The total number of words in the speeches of the angel in 13:11 and 13 is also 26. In relation to this, one of the most interesting observations by Prenner is that the total number of words in the phrases which mention YHWH/elohim in chapters 14–16 (parts of the verses 14:4, 6, 9; 15:14, 18, 19; 16:20) is also 26 (Prenner 1981, 251–252). In his dissertation (Kampen, 1993) Kim analyses Judg. 13–16 with a structural method which pretends to take into account all elements of the Hebrew text, including the Masoretic accents, which could have a structuring function. He concludes that it consists of three cantos (13:2–25; 14:1–16:3; 16:4– 31), which are built up of respectively 2+4+4 subcantos, which in their turn consist of evenly distributed thirty canticles: 3+3 / 3+3+3+5 / 2+2+3+3. According to Kim “(t)his high level of regularity suggests that this is not a crude folktale but a sophisticated work of narrative art” (Kim 1993, 386). The strictly formal patterns support in his opinion the more thematic correspondences between the different parts of the story, which were noted by Crenshaw, Exum and others: the symmetry between chapters 14–15 and chapter 16 and the motifs of telling, seeing, going up/down, binding, to entice.

Samson

391

In the history of scholarly research of the Samson cycle much attention was also paid to the question how Samson, who takes such a unique place within the Hebrew Bible, relates to comparable heroic characters in folklore outside the Bible (cf. Simon 1981; Mobley 2006, 5–33; Groß 2009, 735–739; Echols 2013). In the older literature Samson is often associated with mythology around the sun (cf. Steinthal 1862; Wietzke 1888; Carus 1907, 64–68; Stahn 1908, 29–78; Palmer 1913; and more recently Van Daalen 1966, 116– 117), because his name can be related to the Hebrew word for “sun” and because of the setting of the story near the city which names points to a sun cult: Beth Shemesh. Some see also a relation between his hair and the rays of the sun (cf. Palmer 1913, 34). In recent literature a connection with solar mythology finds little support (cf. Kim 1993, xiv–xv; Bar 2018, 93–95). Older and still more popular is the comparison with Hercules. As was noted above this can already be found in the early church with some of the patres and is still defended by many scholars (cf. Roskoff 1860; N.N. 1884; Dornseiff 1941–1944; Margalith 1985–1987; Nauerth 1985), although contested by others (cf. Cohen 1970). The parallels are obvious: the superhuman strength, the barehanded killing of a lion, a woman causing his death. According to other scholars these element make Samson look like someone who in folklore studies is called the “wild man” (cf. Niditch 1990, 613– 621; Jost 2006, 264–277) and “the opponent of urban culture” (Mobley 2006, 113). Very influential in this respect was the work of Gunkel, who pictures Samson as “Naturmensch” who performs all his acts “ohne ein Mittel der Kultur” (Gunkel 1913, 40; cf. Lang 2011, 172: “Simson [verkörpert] den archaischen Krieger, der sich mehrfach über die gesellschaftlichen Regeln hinwegsetzt und dadurch isoliert”). He is compared to Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic (Mobley 2006, 37–65) or to the Centaurs as described by Homer in Iliad1.268 as the wild ones living in the mountains (cf. Bynum 1990, 66). It is usually assumed that these folkloristic elements in the story of Samson are characteristic of old oral traditions, which were adapted by Yahwistic redactors when they were incorporated in the story of pre-monarchic Israel. As a conclusion, using the many observations made in the history of research and taking seriously both the synchronic and diachronic approach, the realization of the present text can be reconstructed as follows. In their present form chapters 13–16 fit in very well within the context of the book and beyond. It is introduced in 13:1 referring to the Israelites continuing to do what is evil in the eyes of YHWH as a continuation of stories like those of Gideon (6:1) and Jephthah (10:6). As with Gideon and Jephthah the report about the actual actions against the enemy is preceded by a story telling how

392

Judges13:1–16:31

he came to be a fighter for the cause of his people. For this introduction (chapter 13) the author used elements from chapter 6, combining them with elements from the story of the birth story of Samuel and of related stories in the book of Genesis. As with Gideon the messenger of YHWH plays an important role in this story. With the report in 16:31 about his burial and the time of Samson acting as a judge he is presented in the same way as the “minor judges” before him. Like many other stories about the judges and saviours in this book, the story of Samson contains elements showing that Samson is presented as prefiguring later leaders of Israel. This is especially clear in the beginning, with Samson’s birth story equalling the birth story of Samuel, and in the end, with the blinded and chained Samson looking like the last king of Judah. Because this is consistent with the rest of the book of Judges, this can be ascribed to one author/editor of the book. He probably took up an existing story, which is now found in chapters 14–15, about a strong and cunning man who killed a lion with his bare hands and made up a difficult riddle, but who was outwitted by his enemies. He wrote an introduction, for which he took his inspiration from the introduction to the story of Gideon and from the introduction to the story of Samuel. From the first he took over the role of the messenger of YHWH, from the latter he took over the elements of the god-given birth and the boy being promised as devoted to YHWH. He edited the old story of the strong man accordingly, adding references to his parents in chapter 14, references to the spirit of YHWH coming over him on exiting moments, and references to him seeking YHWH’s help in moments of despair. He also added the stories of Samson and the harlot in Gaza and of Samson and Delilah in chapter 16. These were structured in the same way as the stories in chapters 14–15. In this final chapter also the most important elements of the introduction were taken up again: the vow of dedication and the role of the deity, this time of Dagon. The author/ editor of the story probably made up the names of the main figures. The opposing role of Samson and Delilah is emphasized by their names which are derived from the words for sun/daylight and night. The name of his father, Manoah, is also unique in the Hebrew Bible and was probably chosen to emphasize the contrast of its meaning “rest” with his panicky behaviour. This play with names is also found many times in the previous chapters (see introduction § 2.4) and can be seen as an argument for the theory of one author/editor of the book of Judges as a whole. As in the previous stories in the book of Judges we also find here a preference for the number three as characteristic of the style of the author. The coherence of the story is underlined by symmetrical structures on different levels (cf. Exum 1981). Chapter 13 shows a concentric structure (cf. Exum 1980; Kim 1993, 222–223, for related but not exactly similar analyses):

Samson

393

reference to Zorah (v. 2) promise that the woman will give birth to a son (v.3) who will begin to deliver his people (v. 5) the woman did not ask the messenger where he came from, nor did he give his name (v. 6) prayer of Manoah, asking what to do with the boy (v. 8) question by Manoah about what to do with the boy (v. 12) Manoah asks for the name of the messenger, who does not give it (v. 17–18) the spirit of YHWH begins to stir him (v. 25) the woman gives birth to a son (v. 24) reference to Zorah and Eshtaol (v. 25)

As has been noted by many scholars (see especially Exum 1981), chapters 1415 are built up in the same way as chapter 16: • Samson goes to Timnah/Gaza and sees a woman (14:1 / 16:1) • Samson likes a woman / falls in love with Delilah (14:3 / 16:4) • Philistines press the woman to fish out the solution to his riddle / Delilah to find out the secret behind his strength (14:15 / 16:5) • Five times the number seven is used and one time the number three (14:12–18 / 16:7–19) • Samson refuses to tell his secret / fools Delilah (14:16 / 16:7–14) • The women persist (14:17 / 16:16) • Samson reveals his secret (14:17 / 16:17) • Samson wants revenge (15:7 / 16:28) • Samson kills thousand / three thousand Philistines (15:15 / 16:27, 30) • Samson judges Israel twenty years (15:20 / 16:31) This final repetition, about the length of Samson’s period as a judge, has always puzzled the commentators. It is often used as argument for the suggestion that chapter 16 is a later addition to the story. However, together with the other parallels it can also be related to parts of the book of Judges in which part of the story appears to be told twice, repeating the first version from a different perspective. The same phenomenon (see the end of introduction § 4) can be observed in 2:6–3:6, which can be read as a second introduction from a different perspective than chapter 1, and also in the way the short note about Shamgar (3:31) is connected to the story of Ehud, and in the fact that the song in chapter 5 recapitulates the narrative in chapter 4. Next to the parallel structure of chapters 14–15 and 16 there are also thematic and formal relations between chapters 13 and 16. • They both consist of precisely twelve scenes (cf. Witte 2000, 546: 13:2, 3–5a, 6–7, 8–9, 10-11a, 11b–14, 15–16, 17–18, 19–21, 22–23, 24, 24,

394

Judges13:1–16:31

25; 16:1–3, 4–5, 6–7, 8–9, 10–12, 13–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–22, 23–25, 26–30, 31a). • They are “constructed around a fourfold asking and answer discourse” (Exum 1981, 10: 13:11–18 / 16:4–22). • They end with a reference to Zorah and Eshtaol, where he started his career (13:25) and finally is buried (16:31). It is not fruitful to play off this synchronic analysis against the diachronic approach, but with Alter we can conclude that “the fine adumbrations of motive, relationship, and theme through the minute management of verbal formulation bear striking evidence to the recasting of folkloric and legendary materials into an exacting, subtly discriminating art” (Alter 1990, 56). Attempts to relate the story of Samson to a specific historical reality are not convincing or even evidently wrong (cf. Gass 2006 on Shea’s suggestion [2003] that a reference to the story of Samson and Delilah was found on an ostracon found in Ashkelon). More useful is the attempt to find a plausible historical background of the author of the story or of the traditions on which it is based (cf. Gass 2007 and Weitzman 2016). Dating the assumed original heroic stories is hardly possible, when one takes into account that similar stories can be found in related cultures already in the third millennium BCE but are also well known in Greek-Roman literature in the last centuries BCE. With regard to the reference to the Philistines Nelson rightly warns of the danger of falling “into a historicizing trap” (Nelson 2017, 274). The enemies Samson is facing look more like Canaanites, who had much in common with the Israelites, than like the colonizing group of Sea People who had invaded the southern Levant in the beginning of the Iron Age.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS 13:1 

The children of Israel continued doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH. YHWH gave them in the hand of the Philistines for forty years.

The story of Samson starts like the ones of Ehud (3:12), Deborah and Barak (4:1) and Gideon (10:6), but compared to these and the other introductions to the stories of the saviours and judges there are also some remarkable differences. There is no reference to the people crying out to YHWH. In fact, there is no reference to the people of Israel in the rest of this story at all. Only in 20:1 they are mentioned again. It is one of the characteristic features of the story of Samson: it is all about him and his personal struggles

Samson

395

and not about Samson as a deliverer or leader of his people. According to Greenstein “Samson is Israel” (Greenstein 1981, 247) and also other scholars see in Samson “the embodiment of the whole nation of Israel” (Olson 1998, 842; cf. also Wong 2006a, 231). When Samson states that for him decisive is “what is right in my eyes” (14:3, 7), he looks like the Israelites who are blamed for “doing what is right in their eyes” (17:6; 21:25). And when Samson cries out to YHWH (15:18; 16:28), he does what was repeatedly said before of the Israelites. However, this call for help does not mean that he repents and also of his predecessors Gideon and Jephthah it was reported that they did some things wrong. It is more to the point, therefore, to emphasize the problematic relation between Samson and the people of Israel. This will become apparent when he chooses his bride not from the Israelites but from the Philistines (14:1–4) and when the people of Judah want to hand him over to the Philistines (15:10–13). The Philistines were mentioned three times before as Israel’s enemy. 3:3 mentions the “five princes of the Philistines” among the peoples left by YHWH to test the Israelites. According to 3:31 Shamgar successfully fought them and already in 10:7 it was reported that YHWH had sent them, together with the Ammonites, to punish the sinful Israelites. In fact, the introduction in 10:6–7 not only pertains to the following story about Jephthah, but also to the present one about Samson. Jephthah had only dealt with the Ammonites. The Philistine threat is still looming. Another correspondence with the stories of Jephthah and Samson is that it is said of both of them that he will “make a beginning” with the liberation from the Ammonites, respectively the Philistines (10:18; 13:5). In other words, they will leave it to the later kings to settle the scores with these enemies definitively. The information given in the story of Samson about the Philistines is also limited to what we read about them in the books of Samuel. Their leaders are called “princes” (‫;ס ָרנִ ים‬ ְ cf. also Josh. 13:3), their god is Dagon, and their territory consists of five cities: Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron. It is interesting and may be no coincidence that whereas the story of Samson only mentions two of them, Ashkelon and Gaza, precisely the other three are mentioned in 1 Sam. 5 as the places where the Philistines stored the ark they captured from the Israelites (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 83). To what extent this information can be related to the archaeological evidence about the Philistines as one of the Sea Peoples of the early Iron Age remains a matter of dispute (cf. Finkelstein 2002 and Maeir 2018, who are very reluctant in this matter, and for the opposite view Stager 2006 and Singer 2013, who claims that memories of this period were “immortalized in the Deuteronomistic history” [p. 27]; cf. also Machinist 2000, 69). This has no bearing on the interpretation of the present story (see in general on the relations between Israelites and Philistines, Leveen 2017, 79–132).

396

Judges13:1–16:31

The forty years of suppression by the Philistines is the longest of all of such periods mentioned in the book of Judges. It is reminiscent of the period of tranquillity after Othniel (3:11), Deborah and Barak (5:31), and Gideon (8:28). No such period follows after Samson’s actions. This is in line with the remark that Samson will only make a beginning with the liberation from the Philistines. A new period of tranquillity is not yet in sight. No details are given about specific actions by the Philistines or about the way the Israelites suffered under their yoke. It is also not clear at what moment Samson was born: was it during or after this period of forty years? Because there is no reference to a moment in which the people start crying out to YHWH for deliverance, the text leaves open the possibility that Samson was born not long after the beginning of the Philistine oppression. Because he started his fights against the Philistines at the age in which a young man could consider marriage, this would mean that the period of forty years includes the twenty years of Samson’s functioning as a judge. 13:2 

There was one man from Zorah from the clan of the Danites. His namewasManoah.Hiswifewasbarren,shehadnotgivenbirth.

Like the stories of Gideon and Jephthah, the story of Samson starts with a lengthy introduction describing how he came to be the liberator of his people. As with Gideon the messenger of YHWH will play a prominent part in that introduction. The story in this chapter shows many similarities with other stories about barren women. It is an “annunciation type-scene” (cf. Alter 1983) which is also found in Gen. 17; 30; 2 Kgs 4. The closest parallel to the story in Judg. 13 is the birth story of Samuel (1 Sam. 1). Not only do they share the themes of the initially barren woman and the boy to be born being dedicated to YHWH, they also share the opening line ‫וּשׁמוֹ‬ ְ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִאישׁ ֶא ָחד‬, “There was one man from … his name was …”. In the Hebrew Bible this narrative beginning is only found in Judg. 13:2 and 1 Sam. 1:1. Without ‫אחד‬, “one”, the phrase is also found in Judg. 17:1 and 1 Sam. 9:1 and without the reference to the name also in 19:1. The beginning of the book of Job ‫ִאישׁ ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ב ֶא ֶרץ־עוּץ ִאיּוֹב ְשׁמוֹ‬, ְ “There was a man from the land of Uts, Job was his name”, comes close, but only underlines the remarkable fact of the presence of these very similar phrases within the limited space at the end of the book of Judges and the beginning of the books of Samuel. Of this uncommon use of ‫( אחד‬cf. JM § 137u) one finds most examples in the books of Samuel (1 Sam. 7:9, 12; 2 Sam. 18:10; 1 Kgs 13:11; 19:4; 22:9; 2 Kgs 4:1; 12:10), which is another argument for the suggestion made in the introduction that the birth story of Samson imitates the one of Samuel.

Samson

397

The town Zorah is located close to Wadi Sorek, few km to the north of Bet Shemesh, 23 km west of Jerusalem and 10 km east of Ekron. It has been identified as Tell Ṣarʽa (cf. Lehmann etal. 1996; Niemann 1999). It was also mentioned in Josh. 19:41 as belonging to Dan, but in Josh. 15:33 as part of the territory of the tribe of Judah (cf. also 2 Chron. 11:10 and Neh. 11:29). Apparently, this anticipates Dan’s migration to the north. In the story of Samson, Zorah (together with Eshtaol) is only mentioned in the margins: at the beginning and end of chapter 13 and at the end of chapter 16. In chapter 18 it plays a more prominent role as the operating base of the Danites looking for a new territory (18:2, 8, 11). It is very well possible that this location was attributed later to Manoah and his family to connect the stories (cf. Lehmann etal. 1996, 392–396, and Niemann 1999; however, their theory that originally the tribe of Dan migrated from the north to the south is not convincing). Within the present context it shows how things are getting worse. With regard to the location it highlights the fact that the Danites are forced to leave Zorah, indicates that Samson was not successful in taking away the threat of the Philistines. The text speaks of the “clan” (‫)מ ְשׁ ָפּ ָחה‬ ִ and not of the tribe of Dan. The explanation may be found in 18:1–2, where we read about the people of the tribe of Dan who select “from their clan five men, out of their totality, powerful men from Zorah and from Eshtaol”. Something similar can be observed in 17:7, referring to “a boy from Bethlehem of Judah, from the clan of Judah”. Apparently, it denotes a part of the tribe without the usual name of the eponymous ancestor (cf. Josh. 7:16–17 for the combination of the general and specific use of the word). The name Manoah occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. It can be translated as “rest(ing place)” (cf. Deut. 28:65; Ruth 3:1; Lam. 1:3; Ps. 116:7), which points to one of many wordplays in this book (see introduction § 2.4). His name emphasizes his restless behaviour in contrast to his nameless wife who reacts more properly to the message and the miracle (cf. Block 1999, 397). As was remarked above, concerning the also nameless daughter of Jephthah, the author does not seem to follow a clear pattern when it comes to naming. Within chapter 13, however, the anonymity and the giving of names is an important element (cf. Reinhartz 1992). It returns in the conversation with the messenger of YHWH, who does not want to give his name (vv. 17–18), and in the end with the naming of Samson by his mother (v. 24). Instead of her name it is told twice that she is childless. It can be compared to Gen. 11:29–30. Here the wife of Abram does get a name: Sarai, followed by the remark that “she is barren and had no child”. In Gen. 16:1 this is repeated but with a simple formula. A difference with Sarah, as she is now named, and also with Hannah in the related story of the birth of Samuel, is that the wife of Manoah does not take action or complains about her situation.

398

Judges13:1–16:31

In all cases the childlessness is emphasized through the comparison with more lucky people: Hagar, Peninna and previous judges. Strictly speaking, the phrase “she is barren and has no child” is a pleonasm. It is more logical to formulate it the other way around: from the fact that they had no children it was derived that the women were barren, because childlessness was always regarded as a defect of the wife. 13:3 

A messenger of YHWH appeared to the woman. He said to her: “Look,youarebarren,youhavenotgivenbirth.Youshallbecome pregnantandbearason”.

The messenger of YHWH (see the remarks on 2:1 with regard to the translation) is mentioned in the book of Judges more than any other book in the Hebrew Bible, with no less than nineteen times out of a total of fifty-eight (cf. Eynikel 2007, 118). Whereas according to other texts this messenger of YHWH can have the function to act on behalf of YHWH (cf. Gen. 24:7, 40; Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34; Num. 20:16), his duties in the book of Judges are restricted to delivering YHWH’s words. His appearance at the beginning of the story is reminiscent of the beginning of the story of Gideon (6:11). Unlike this previous story we are not informed about the place of his appearance, but this will become all the more important at his second coming (v. 9; see the remarks below). He does not greet the woman, but simply confronts here with her situation. To the phrase with the twofold indication of her childlessness he adds a twofold promise of its change, repeating the verb ‫ילד‬, “to bear”. The same reversal is found in Gen. 25:21, where it is Rebekkah who was barren and becomes pregnant (the same verb ‫ הרה‬is used) after Isaac’s prayer to YHWH. In v. 5 the promise is repeated, but with slightly different words. 13:4–5 4 5

“Now, take care: do not drink wine or beer, do not eat all that is unclean. Because, look, you will become pregnant and bear a son. A razor mustnotcomeuponhishead,becausesomeoneconsecratedtothe deityshalltheboybefromthewomb.HeshallbegintodeliverIsrael fromthehandofthePhilistines”.

The messenger of YHWH urges the woman to pay good attention to the following command. The same verb (‫ שׁמר‬niphal) is used in the similar situation in Exod. 23:21, where Israel has to listen to the commands of the messenger

Samson

399

of YHWH leading Israel on its way to the Promised Land. At first sight the advice not to drink alcohol and not to eat unclean food seems to be meant to promote a successful pregnancy. However, in the ancient Near Eastern texts about pregnancy and the much feared miscarriages (cf. Stol 2000, 17–48) one never comes across the idea about possible negative effects of alcohol. The emphasis is on the promise that she will bear a son and that this son will be someone consecrated to the deity. Whereas in v. 3 we read ‫ וְ ָה ִרית וְ יָ ַל ְד ְתּ ֵבּן‬with two times a perfect, which has to be translated in the future tense, in v. 5 and v. 7 this is changed into ‫ ִהנָּ ְך ָה ָרה וְ י ַֹל ְד ְתּ ֵבּן‬with an adjective, followed by a form which is usually considered a mixed form of a perfect and a participle (cf. JM § 89j; a similar phenomenon was observed with ‫ ֶהחֳ ַד ְל ִתּי‬in 9:9). The same formula is used in Gen. 16:11, where a messenger of YHWH announces to Hagar the birth of Ishmael, and in Isa. 7:14, where Isaiah announces the birth of Immanuel. Grammatically it is possible to translate the adjective as describing the present situation: “you are pregnant”. In the manuscripts of the LXX we find both possibilities. LXX (A) translates ἰδοὺ σὺ ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξεις, “see, you shall become pregnant”, whereas LXX (B) has: ἰδοὺ σὺ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχεις, “see, you are pregnant”. In the story about Hagar it is clear that she is already pregnant (cf. v. 4), with regard to Isa. 7 it is a well-known matter of dispute, which is usually decided on other than grammatical grounds. In the context of the story of Samson it plays a role in the discussion about the suggestion that Samson may have been fathered by the messenger of YHWH (cf. Van Wieringen 2006, 234–235). Because there is no indication that something happened between the announcement in v. 3 of the coming birth and the repetition in vv. 5 and 7, it is most likely that the conception is placed there in the future as well (cf. Groß 2009, 664). The announcement that the boy will be someone consecrated to the deity from birth is connected on the one hand to the command not to shave his hair and on the other hand to the promise that he will begin to deliver Israel. The first element is also found in the law on the Nazirites in Num. 6:1–21 and because the same term ‫ נָ זִ יר‬is used it seems obvious that we have to think of this special status for the boy that shall be born. In most translations it is, therefore, translated as Nazirite. In LXX (A) we find a double translation: ἡγιασμένον ναζιραῖον ἔσται τῷ θεῷ, “he shall be sanctified, a Nazirite to God”. In LXX (B) ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ נְ זִ יר ֱא‬in v. 7 (cf. also 16:17) is translated as ἅγιον θεοῦ ἔσται, “he shall be holy to God”, which was probably influenced by the fact that the translator related it to Num. 6 (cf. Chepey 2002; 2005, 30–34). There are good reasons, however, to assume that the author of Judg. 13 was not referring here to the Nazirite as we know him from Num. 6 (cf. Lemardelé 2005 and 2016; an overview of the discussion about the relation with Num. 6 is given by Butler 2009, 324–326; see also Amit 2012 and Spronk 2019,

400

Judges13:1–16:31

100–101). Num. 6 is about a vow made by a man or woman to devote oneself for a limited period of time to YHWH by not drinking or eating anything coming from the grapevine, by not shaving the head, and not touching a dead person. Moreover, in the law on the Nazirites nothing is said about a specific task. Nazirites are also mentioned in Am. 2:11–12, next to prophets, and there it is also suggested that they do not drink wine, but a reference to the hair is missing. A closer parallel to the promise given in Judg. 13 is found in the already mentioned birth story of Samuel, because there Hannah vows that, if YHWH gives her a son, she will give him to YHWH all the days of his life and that no razor shall come upon his head (1 Sam. 1:11). In her discussion of these and other “annunciation type-scenes” Ackerman points to the fact that in related stories one usually finds the element of the near-death of the boy given by YHWH. It is told of Isaac (Gen. 22), Joseph (Gen. 37) and the Shunammite boy (2 Kgs 4). At first sight it seems to be missing in the stories about Samson and Samuel, but it is present in the motif that a child given to a barren woman is a gift of YHWH: “If Yahweh fills the womb, then Yahweh has a particular claim on all that comes forth from it” (Ackerman 1998, 192; cf. also Jost 2006, 236). The phrase in 1 Sam. 1:11 about the razor uses exactly the same words as Judg. 13:5. Especially the use of the word ‫מוֹרה‬ ָ for “razor”, instead of the more common ‫ ַתּ ַער‬as in Num. 6:5, is remarkable. The parallels between the two stories already began with the opening lines. There is much discussion about their precise relation. As was indicated already many times, the book of Judges seems to have been written with the books of Samuel and Kings in mind. Also Samson seems to prefigure some of the future leaders of Israel. On the other hand, the element of not cutting the hair seems to fit better in the story of Samson, where it plays an important role in chapter 16, than in the story of Samuel, where it does not return in the next chapters. This is used as an argument that it was added to 1 Sam. 1:11 to make Samuel look like Samson (cf. Dietrich 2010, 45–46). It should be noted, however, that in 13:5 the clear connection between the hair and the strength in chapter 16 is missing (see the remarks on 16:17). It is also remarkable that the command about the hair is not repeated like the other commands. It seems to be less essential within this story than in the story about Samuel. Also the element of not drinking alcohol of the future mother (with the almost identical phrase in Judg. 13:4 and 1 Sam. 1:15) fits better in the story of Hannah explaining her behaviour to Eli than in the command given to Samson’s mother, because it deviates from the law on the Nazirites. In comparing the two stories Hannah’s vow makes more sense than the messenger’s command in Judg. 13. There are more examples in the Hebrew Bible of humans making a vow when asking a favour of God, but none of YHWH arranging such a vow. The most likely reconstruction of the interplay of these texts is, therefore,

Samson

401

the following. In 1 Sam. 1 the boy Samuel is presented as someone fully consecrated to YHWH. He is not explicitly called a Nazirite, because he does not fit the law as formulated in Num. 6. Apparently, not cutting the hair as a sign of consecration did not necessarily mean that you would become a Nazarite. In Jer. 7:29 the people who are rejected by YHWH cut off their hair as a sign that they are no longer connected to YHWH. The term used to denote the hair here is ‫ נֵ זֶ ר‬which also points to the long hair due to consecration (cf. HAL, 646). When the heroic tales of Samson were incorporated in the book of Judges, he was presented in the added chapter 13 as installed by YHWH and more specifically as prefiguring Samuel. With regard to Samson the element of the hair became a prominent feature, with regard to the mother the element of non-drinking alcohol was taken up. By calling the boy “consecrated to the deity” his special role was emphasized, just as the announcement of his birth was emphasized by coming not from a priest, as with Hannah, but from a messenger of YHWH. There are no compelling reasons to assume that the author intended that the story of Samson should be read against the background of the law on the Nazirites in Num. 6 and thus indicates that Samson violates its rules (cf. the overview of the discussion by Stipp 1995 and Groß 2009, 667–668). One not only misses explicit references to the ban on drinking or eating from the grapevine and on touching the dead, one also misses explicit references to its transgression by Samson and to him being condemned for it. When the vow of consecration is mentioned again, at the end of the story, it is again related to the non-cutting of the hair only. The command to the woman not to drink wine or beer or to not eat anything that is unclean indicates that Samson is called to his special function even before his birth. It can be compared to the calling of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5). It emphasizes that everything depends here on the action taken by YHWH. It is another indication that in comparison to the related story of the birth of Samuel things are more special: his career starts earlier. There is only one thing that is less positive about the announcement by the messenger of YHWH. He states that the boy will only make a beginning with the deliverance of his people from the Philistines. This points to an important deficit compared to the previous leaders, who all succeeded in completely defeating the enemy and giving Israel rest. Only Abimelech failed to do so and it was also said of Jephthah that he was only expected to make a beginning with the liberation from the Ammonites (10:18). Another connection with Jephthah is that the story about Jephthah started with the report that YHWH had given Israel in the hands of the Ammonites and Philistines (10:7). Jephthah and Samson have in common that they had to leave it to the future kings of Israel to finish what they had started. The verb ‫ חלל‬hiphil, “to begin”, functions as a key word in the story of Samson (cf. Crenshaw 1978, 56). It announces

402

Judges13:1–16:31

both the positive start, with the spirit of YHWH beginning to stir him (13:25) and the downfall, with Delilah beginning to humble him (16:19), but at the end it also signals the change to a more positive course again when his hairs begins to grow (16:22). 13:6–7 6

7

Thewomancameandsaidtoherhusband,saying:“AmanofGod has come to me. His appearance was like the appearance of the messengerofGod,veryfearsome.Ihavenotaskedhimfromwhere hewasandhisnamehehasnottoldme. Hesaidtome:‘Look,youshallbecomepregnantandbearason. Now,donotdrinkwineandbeeranddonoteatallthatisunclean, becausesomeoneconsecratedtothedeityshalltheboybefromthe wombuntilthedayofhisdeath’”.

When we compare this story with the related stories of Hagar (Gen. 16) and Hannah (1 Sam. 1), the husband plays a remarkable role. It is clear that Abram is the father of the boy announced to Hagar (Gen. 16:4), the promise to Hannah of a son is followed by the report of his conceptions by the intercourse of Hannah and her husband (1 Sam. 1:19). Any reference to sex between Manoah and his wife, however, is missing. Instead we are witness of a repeated conversation between Manoah and his wife about the messenger and his message, in which the identity of the messenger is the primary topic. It starts with the woman about her “very fearsome” encounter with a person she calls “man of God” looking like a “messenger of God”. It ends with Manoah’s fear that they shall die, when he realizes that they had “seen God” (v. 22). The inclusio is underlined by the repetition of the words related to seeing (‫מ ְר ֶאה‬, ַ “appearance”, twice in v. 6 and ‫ר ִאינוּ‬,ָ “we have seen”, in v. 22 and ‫ ֶה ְר ָאנוּ‬, “he has shown us”, in v. 23). A “man of God” does not have to be a heavenly creature. It is also said of human beings, like Moses (Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6), Samuel (1 Sam. 9:6), and other prophets (1 Kgs 12:22; 13:5 etc.; cf. also the translation in the Targum: “a prophet of the Lord”; cf. Smelik 1995, 563–564). Apparently, the woman does not want to exaggerate. But by adding that he looked like a fearsome messenger of God she indicates that this man was more than a normal human being. The expression “messenger of God” is also used for the divine being with whom Jacob wrestled (Gen. 31:11) and who led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod. 14:19). In BHKand BHSit is suggested to delete the first ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ָה ֱא‬in v. 6, because in v. 10 the woman speaks of “a man” only. This is not supported by any evidence from the literary sources. It would diminish the contrast the author

Samson

403

makes between the wife and her husband: whereas from the beginning she appears to be aware of the special identity of the messenger, he needs much convincing. She also shows appropriate restraint towards the heavenly messenger, by not asking too much, whereas her husband fails to show the right reticence by asking his name (v. 18). In LXX (A) and the Vulgate the negative particle in v. 6 is missing, suggesting that the woman did ask where he came from. LXX (B) is in line with the MT. According to Harlé 1999, 199, and BHQ, 90*, LXX (A) could very well represent the original text, because the fact that it is said that the messenger did not reveal his name, would indicate that he had been interrogated by the woman. However, his reaction does not fit the suggested question. Within the unfolding story it makes more sense that the questions about his origin and his name are left open at the beginning, to be answered at the end. The woman does not repeat everything the messenger said to her. She tells the things that touched her most. She reverses the command with the promise (ending with ‫ל־ט ְמ ָאה‬ ֻ ‫ ָכּ‬which is slightly different than ‫ל־ט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫ ָכּ‬in v. 4), putting the announced pregnancy first and leaving out the remark that she is barren. She also leaves out the command about the non-cutting of the hair and the announcement about the deliverance from the Philistines. She replaces the hopeful words about the deliverance with the ominous words “until the day of his death”, which seems to indicate that as a mother she heard in the words of the messenger the prediction of a premature death of her son (cf. Alter 1990, 54; Leveen 2017, 86). At the end of the story of Samson the reader/hearer will remember these words of his mother, when he reveals to another woman that he is “consecrated to the deity from the womb of my mother” (16:17). 13:8–10 8

9

10

ManoahprayedtoYHWH.Hesaid:“OmyLord,themanofGod whomyousent,lethimcomeagaintousandteachuswhatweshould dofortheboywhowillbeborn”. GodlistenedtothevoiceofManoah.ThemessengerofGodcame againtothewoman.Shewassittinginthefield.Manoah,herhusband, wasnotwithher. Thewomanhurriedandranandtoldherhusband.Shesaidtohim: “Look,hehasappearedtome,themanwhocametomeintheday”.

The way Manoah addresses YHWH (‫)בּי ֲאדוֹנָי‬ ִ is reminiscent of the similar words used by Gideon in 6:13 (with a slight variation: ‫בּי ֲאד ֹנִי‬, ִ because there he speaks to the messenger of YHWH); cf. also Gen. 43:20; 44:18; Exod. 4:10, 13; Num. 12:11; Josh. 7:8; 1 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kgs 3:17, 26. What is most striking in this part of the story is the way people are neglected. First Manoah neglects his wife. He does not react to her, but in

404

Judges13:1–16:31

his reaction to her words he addresses YHWH. In reaction to this prayer Manoah in his turn is neglected. Whereas Manoah had asked to send the messenger to him and his wife, he comes to the woman only. This is emphasized by the remark that she was not at home, but in the field, and that her husband was not with her. The three verbs at the beginning of v. 10 underline the excitement of the woman. It is a typical feature of the style of the author; similar triads are also found in 4:19, 21; 5:26, 27; 7:21; 9:27; 15:15; and 16:31. In the present context there is a contrast with the previous scene, describing her sitting, and also with the twice mentioned name of Manoah, “rest”. In the report about the first encounter between the messenger of YHWH and the woman no information was given about the place. The second time the location is mentioned and is all the more interesting. It sketches a woman alone in the field, where she is visited by a stranger. It is reminiscent of the law in Deut. 22:25–29 about what to do when a man had sex with a woman in the field against her will. The association with sex is also evoked by the expression “to come to a woman”, because this is a common way of denoting intercourse, as can be found later in this story (15:1; 16:1; cf. also Gen. 16:4; 29:23, 30; 30:16; Ruth 4:13). The verb ‫ בוא‬also attracts the attention by the way it is used in relation to the other verb describing the coming of the messenger: ‫ ראה‬niphal, “to appear” (cf. Exum 1980, 45). According to v. 3 the messenger “appears” to the woman. When she reports this to her husband, she tells him that he “came to her” (v. 6). Manoah prays: “let him come to us” (v. 8). Then the messenger “comes to the woman” (v. 9), after which the woman tells her husband: “he has appeared to me, the man who came to me” (v. 10). Especially this final line, together with the fact noted above that nothing is told of any sexual activity by Manoah, seems to suggest or at least leaves open the possibility that the messenger had put his words into action. Because this would be no more than a hint, there is much room for scholarly discussion. According to Klein 1988, 114–115, this “theophany cumconception” is part of the depiction of Manoah as a weak, “unmanly” character and an allusion to the birth of Isaac in which YHWH according to Gen. 21:1 had also played the decisive role. Reinhartz 1992, 35, states that the text implies that Samson was conceived during the encounter between the woman and the messenger and that within the story this functions as a means to show that their relationship is “the only fully harmonious one in the story”. Margalith 1986, 400–402, maintains that in this way Samson is pictured like Greek heroes, especially Hercules and Perseus, as the result of Zeus’ coming to mortal women. According to Bartelmus 1979, 95–96, the story of Samson born of a divine father and mortal mother can be compared to the tradition preserved in Gen. 6:1–4 and was part of the original nonYahwistic story taken up and reworked by the editor/author of the book of Judges (cf. also Shinan & Zakovitch 2012, 194, stating that in its present form

Samson

405

the story “was aimed at uprooting an ancient tradition”). Whereas Camp 2000, 109, is reluctant (“The text hints, but is not explicit”), Jost 2006, 231– 236, maintains that there can be no doubt about it that Samson descends from the woman and the messenger of YHWH. Other scholars decidedly deny any hint in this direction. According to Butler 2009, 326, “(c)ertainly the text gives no support to such sensationalist exegesis”. Groß 2009, 665, points among other things to the use of the verb ‫ בוא‬in v. 8 where Manoah asks that the messenger may “come to us” and ironically remarks: “Hier wenigstens hat noch kein Ausleger an Gruppensex gedacht!” It cannot be excluded, however, that Butler may have difficulty to accept that the Hebrew Bible is not always as prudish as he may wish, and that Groß here is just as naive as Manoah and does not realize what the woman is trying to say here in guarded terms. It is probably most in line with the tendency of the text not to force a decision here, but to assume that the author is deliberately ambiguous. It is safe to conclude with Chisholm 2009, 150, that it cannot be stated with certainty that the messenger impregnated the woman, but that “the language used to describe the angel’s visit plays off the idiomatic expression ‘come to’, understood in a sexual sense, to emphasize that God is the one who enables Samson’s mother to conceive”. 13:11–12 11

12

Manoaharoseandwentafterhiswife.Hecametothemanandsaid tohim:“Areyouthemanwhohasspokentothewoman?”Hesaid: “Iam”. Manoahsaid:“Now,shouldyourwordscome(true),whatwillbe thejudgmentoftheboyandhiswork?”

From the gender perspective, which appears to be important not only in this story but in the book of Judges as a whole, it is interesting to note that the man is following the woman. This is emphasized by the repeated references to “woman” and “man” in this verse (cf. Alter 1990, 52). In Talmudic literature this gave rise to discussions about the status of Manoah (b.Ber. 61a). His reputation is saved by stating that he is not literally walking behind his wife, but that he is following her words and her advice. When Manoah addresses the messenger he does not quote his wife by asking whether he is the man who “came” to his wife. Any hint to sexual intercourse is absent, when he asks about his words. Bartelmus 1979, 96, and Bal 1988, 266, n.9, are of a different opinion. Bal states that the word and the deed are the same. According to Bartelmus speaking of a man to an unaccompanied woman is a euphemism for sex. It is more likely, however, that Manoah addresses the man as a prophet. He uses the same expression as in Deut. 18:22, where it is said that a true prophet is recognized by the fact

406

Judges13:1–16:31

that his words “come”, that is, come true. He rephrases his earlier request that the man would “teach” him what to do with the boy. He now asks for a “judgment”. In a Ugaritic text a similar phrase is used in the context of ritual in which a divine being is asked for advice about a sick child: wyšʼal mṯpṭyld, ‘and he asked a judgement of the child” (KTU 1.124:3). Apparently, Manoah accepts that the man functions as an intermediary between the world of the divine and the world of human beings. He attributes to him the same function as Deborah, who was described in 4:4–5 as a prophetess who gave judgements to the people. It is in line with the qualification “man of God”, used both by Manoah (v. 8) and his wife (v. 6). The phrase ‫ יָבֹא ְד ָב ֶריָך‬shows discordance in number between the verb and its subject (cf. also v. 17). This discordance is also found in other verses of the book of Judges (cf. 1:16; 8:6; 9:36, 42, 55). It can be regarded as characteristic of the style of the author. 13:13–14 13 14

ThemessengerofYHWHsaidtoManoah:“FromallthatIsaidto thewomanshemustguardherself. Fromallthatgoesoutfromthevineofwinesheshallnoteat,wine andbeersheshallnotdrink,andallthatisuncleansheshallnot eat.AllthatIhavecommandedhershemustguard”.

Again Manoah does not get precisely what he asks. First the messenger did not come to him, when he appeared for the second time, but to his wife. Now the messenger does not give Manoah the extra information he asks for, but simply repeats part of the words spoken to his wife. Moreover, he does not speak of the boy, but only of the things the woman has to do. He begins and ends his words with the command that she must guard herself, using the verb ‫ שׁמר‬with which he also began his speech to the woman in v. 4. So this word is used three times in this part of the story. In all four lines of his speech the messenger uses the word ‫כּל‬, “all”. Both the corresponding first and last line starts with ‫ כּל‬and end with ‫שׁמר‬, forming an inclusio. These instructions for the woman are given three times (vv. 4, 7, 14), each next time less complicated (cf. Van Wieringen 2007, 244). The first time it was supplemented with the command for the son and the prediction about his future (v. 5), the second time the command for the son was left out, but still something was said about the boy, this final time the boy is not mentioned at all. This is all the more remarkable because Manoah was asking about the boy. The way he is answered by the messenger puts Manoah in the second place. The birth of the coming deliverer of Israel is a matter between YHWH and the woman.

Samson

407

In the LXX the verbs in v. 14 are translated as masculine. This would be more in line with Manoah asking advice about the boy, but in contradiction to the first speech of the messenger. Against this reading (taken over in BHK and judged as interesting by Harlé 1999, 201) also pleads that in this case one would miss the reference to the non-cutting of the hair. 13:15–16 15 16

ManoahsaidtothemessengerofYHWH:“Letusdetainyouand prepareagoat’skidforyou”. ThemessengerofYHWHsaidtoManoah:“Ifyoudetainme,Iwill noteatofyourfoodandifyouprepareanofferingtoYHWH,then offerit”.BecauseManoahdidnotknowthathewasthemessenger ofYHWH.

Manoah shows his hospitality by offering the messenger a meal. It can be compared to Abraham inviting the three men to his tent (Gen. 18:5–8). Like Abraham telling Sarah to prepare the meal Manoah also involves his wife when he speaks of “us”. Comparing these two stories one also notes the differences: Manoah invites his guest only after he interrogated him. In the case of Abraham and his guests it is the other way around: only after the meal the guests deliver their message about the unexpected birth of a boy. Within the book of Judges the theme of hospitality returns prominently in chapter 19. The closest parallel is found again in the story of the calling of Gideon: the meeting with the messenger of YHWH is concluded by the offering of a goat’s kid, which also will be sacrificed on a rock (see the table in the introduction to the exegesis above; cf. also Kübel 1971). A basic difference is that Manoah is not thinking here of a sacrifice to a divine person. As is clear from the way he addressed the messenger in vv. 11–12 he sees him as a human prophet. The messenger gives an extra hint to Manoah by refusing the food and suggesting that he might bring a sacrifice to YHWH instead. Of course, the reader/listener knows the correct identity of the messenger. For those readers/listeners who do not understand that Manoah was still in the dark the author added a remark in v. 16. In BHK and BHS it is suggested to transfer this final line to the end of v. 15, but there are no compelling reasons to do so; certainly not without any support from the textual witnesses. 13:17–19 17 18

ManoahsaidtothemessengerofYHWH:“Who,yourname?Because (when)yourwordscome(true),wemayhonouryou”. ThemessengerofYHWHsaidtohim:“Whydoyouaskaboutmy name.Itiswonderful”.

408 19

Judges13:1–16:31 Manoahtookthegoat’skidandtheofferingandofferedthemupon arocktoYHWHandawonderwasdoneandManoahandhiswife werewatching.

Whereas the woman told that the messenger had not revealed his name (v. 6), now Manoah wants to hear it, just as he tried to learn more about what to do with the boy (v. 12). The way he formulates his question is remarkable: ‫ ִמי ְשׁ ֶמָך‬is a contamination of ‫ ִמי ַא ָתהּ‬and ‫ה־שּׁ ֶמָך‬ ְ ‫( ַמ‬JM § 144b). He seems to be stammering here, as if he is starting to realize that he is dealing with more than a human being (cf. Van Wieringen 2001 and 2006, 245–246). The latter expression is also used in Gen. 32:28, just as the answer given here: “Why do you ask my name?” The parallel with the story about Jacob wrestling with a divine being is obvious. In both stories a name is given to the human being involved: Jacob is named Israel and the boy is named Samson. The divine being remains unnamed. In contrast to Gen. 32 an explanation is given for the rejection in Judg. 13: “it is wonderful”. The word used here (‫)פ ִלאי‬ ֶ is also found in Ps. 139:6: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; too high, I cannot attain it”. Manoah will only be able to understand it when the messenger will perform a wonderful act: ‫וּמ ְפ ִלא ַל ֲעשׂוֹת‬, ַ “and a wonder was done” (v. 19). The expression used in Hebrew is uncommon, as can also be derived from the different attempts in manuscripts of the LXX to make sense of the text: LXX (A): τῷ θαυμαστὰ ποιοῦντι κυρίῳ, “to the Lord who works wonders” (adding a subject); LXX (B): καὶ διεχώρισεν ποιῆσαι, “and he separated to act” (relating it to Aram. ‫ ;פלא‬cf. Harlé 1999, 202; Kabiersch etal. 2011, 690). According to Groß 2009, 646, the Hebrew text is “wohl corrupt”, but suggestions to correct the text are not convincing (cf. BHQ, 91*). The MT can be retained, when we assume that the participle ‫ ַמ ְפ ִלא‬suggests a “vague personal subject” (JM § 155f; cf. Van Daalen 1966, 25). Manoah repeats the phrase he used before: “when your words come true” (cf. v. 12; in the MT the ketiv has the plural “words” as in v. 12; the qere suggests that we should read a singular). There he still assumed that he was dealing with a human person, now it becomes clear that the messenger is superhuman. This coincides with the hearing turned into seeing. The verb ‫ראה‬, “to see”, functions as a key word in this story. It is used in vv. 3, 10, 19, 21, 22, 23 and also in the repeated word ‫מ ְר ֶאה‬, ַ “appearance” in v. 6 (cf. Groß 2009, 675). It will also play an important role in the following parts of the story of Samson (cf. 14:1, 2, 8, 11; 16:1, 5, 18, 24, 27). The special use of the verb ‫ ראה‬within the story as a whole offers also a good explanation why the phrase about Manoah and his wife watching is repeated in v. 20 and should not be regarded as “an erroneous repetition” (BHQ, 91*, following Burney 1920, 349–350).

Samson

409

13:20–23 20

21 22 23

Ithappenedwhentheflamewasgoingupwardfromthealtartothe heaventhatthemessengerofYHWHwentupintheflameofthealtar. Manoahandhiswifewerewatchingandtheyfellontheirfacestothe ground. ThemessengerofYHWHdidnotcontinuetoappearagaintoManoah andhiswife.ThenManoahknewthathewasthemessengerofYHWH. Manoahsaidtohiswife:“Wewillcertainlydie,becausewehaveseen God”. Hiswifesaidtohim:“IfYHWHhaddesiredtokillus,hewouldnot havetakenfromourhandaburntofferingandagrainofferingand he would not have let us see all these things and he would not at (this)timehasmadeushearallthis”.

In v. 20 the details are given of what was already indicated in v. 19. The miracle consists of the messenger going upward in the flame. It is told twice. Together with the repeated remark that Manoah and his wife were watching these lines show a similar structure as in vv. 13–14. Whereas Gideon built an altar after his offering on the rock had been turned into a sacrifice (6:24), here the rock itself has become an altar. In the neighbourhood where this must have taken place there is a tradition connected to a monolith believed to be the altar of Manoah (cf. Hanauer 1885). Compared to the related story in chapter 6 his departure is more spectacular, because it is intended to show Manoah with whom he was dealing, as is indicated in v. 21b. To the remark that Manoah and his wife were watching it is added that they fall down. The role of the messenger is ended with a reference to his introduction in v. 3, repeating the verb ‫ ראה‬nif., “to appear”. Instead of the absolute infinitive ‫ ְל ֵה ָראֹה‬one would expect an infinitive construct here. The text is usually emended this way (cf. BHK, BHS, BHQ). It cannot be excluded that the uncommon use, which is not impossible (JM § 123c), has to with the special occasion. The redundant ‫עוֹד‬, “again”, is reminiscent of the prayer and YHWH’s answer in vv. 8–9 about sending the messenger again. A third appearance is not necessary. As with the remark at the end of v. 16 that Manoah did not know he was dealing with a messenger of YHWH, this remark that the messenger did not return again is a side step, interrupting the flow of the story. ‫אז‬, ָ “then”, is related to the preceding line, about the messenger going up in the flame, and not to the fact that the messenger did not return. Like Gideon, Manoah is shocked when he realizes that he has been in contact with the divine (cf. 6:22; and Exod. 33:20, explaining the reason for his fear of death). Whereas YHWH himself comforts Gideon, it is here his wife who can reassure him (cf. JM § 167k for the construction with ‫לוּ‬

410

Judges13:1–16:31

introducing a condition considered unreal). Reversing the order of the things happened to them she refers to what they have seen and heard from the messenger. The latter is introduced with ‫וְ ָכ ֵעת‬, “and at (this) time”. Because it seems to missing in the LXX, BHK and BHS suggest deleting it, but it is better to retain it as a meaningful indication to the transition from what they saw to what they had heard before: the promise of a son (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 26). 13:24–25 24 25

The woman bore a son and she called his name Samson. The boy grewupandYHWHblessedhim. ThespiritofYHWHbegantostirhiminMahaneh-Dan,betweenZorah andEshtaol.

Manoah is only mentioned by name again at the end of the story, in the report that his son is buried in his grave (16:31). There is no reference to his role in the conception of the boy, which adds to the idea that he was not the real father of Samson. The central role is for his wife, who remains nameless – just like the messenger of YHWH – but who now gives her son a name, just like Hannah (1 Sam. 1:20). According to Greenstein (1981, 241) the name Samson itself is reminiscent of this motif, because it can be related to the Hebrew word for “name”, ‫שׁם‬. ֵ One could also assume a play with this word, mentioned directly before the name of Samson. It is more likely, however, that Samson derives from ‫שׁ ֶמשׁ‬, ֶ “sun”, combined with the same ending –ōn as the names of his predecessors Gideon, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon. There may be a relation with the city of Bet-Shemesh, which was located not far from Zorah and Eshtaol. It was mentioned in 1:33. The name suggests that a “house of Shemesh”, that is a temple for the sungod, was found there (cf. also Ir-Shemesh, a place in this region mentioned in Josh. 19:43). Within the context of Judg. 13–16 there is also a clear association with Delilah, because her name can be translated as “she of the night”. Just as his mother seemed to be aware of his untimely death, the name she gives her son already points to the way he would meet his demise. The related name of the other judges and the relation with Delilah suggest that the name of Samson was made up by the author or that at least he played with the name. Things go very fast in these verses. The period between the announcement and his birth is jumped over and very few words are wasted on the time to reach his manhood. It is told in three steps. It is first noted that he “grew up”, which is normal for every boy. Then it is said that YHWH blessed him. That is something more specific (cf. Gen. 21:20 about Ishmael, and 1 Sam. 3:19 about Samuel, that God/YHWH was with the boy who grew up). Finally, he

Samson

411

receives the very special gift of the spirit of YHWH. This will be repeated in 14:6, 19; 15:14, 19. The same was told of Othniel (3:10), Gideon (6:34) and Jephthah (11:29), but of none of these it is told so many times. In the other verses describing how Samson received the spirit of YHWH other verbs are used. There the spirit was given to Samson on special occasions. This first time it is also told in a more general way. The verb ‫ חלל‬hiphil, “to begin”, was also used in 13:5 and will return in 16:19 and 22, at the turning points of Samson’s life. The verb ‫פעם‬, “to stir”, is unique in this context. LXX (A) translates “a spirit of the Lord began to accompany him”, LXX (B) “to go out with him”. The latter is probably based on relating the verb with ‫פעם‬, “foot”. According to Alter 1990, 49, the verb ‫ פעם‬is used to associate it with the related words for “time” (‫)פּ ַעם‬ ַ and “bell” (‫)פּ ֲעמוֹן‬, ַ to describe Samson “not (as) a judge who is merely taken possession of by the spirit of the Lord but a man in whom it pounds, like the clapper of a bell, a man driven by inward energy in a series of pulsating motions, like the movements of violence, like sexuality itself”. One could also consider the possibility that the verb was chosen to relate it to the word ‫פּ ַעם‬, ַ “time” (cf. 15:3; 16:15, 18, 20, 28), pointing to moments of change (see the remarks on 15:3). Mahaneh-Dan, which can be translated as “the camp of Dan”, is also mentioned in 18:12 and next to Zorah and Eshtaol as well. There the first part of its name is explained as reminding of the fact that the Danite army had “camped” there before going north. According to 18:12 it is located “behind”, that is to the west of Kirjat Jearim. This is not in line with the suggested location in 13:25 “between Zorah and Eshtaol”. A solution would be to suggest that there are two different places called Mahaneh-Dan or that the reference to Mahaneh-Dan in 13:25 is a gloss by a scribe who wanted to make a connection to 18:12 (cf. the discussion by Gaß 2005, 363–364, who concludes that we can only speculate in this matter). It is also possible that we have to take the words in 13:25 literally and not as a place name. The use as place name is evident in 18:12, but this can be taken then as a later development or as a remark added to the text to underline the association with Samson. 14:1–4 1 2

3

SamsonwentdowntoTimnah.HesawawomaninTimnahfromthe daughtersofthePhilistines. Hewentupandtoldittohisfatherandhismother.Hesaid:“Awoman I have seen in Timnah from the daughters of the Philistines. Now, takeherformeasawife”. His father and his mother said to him: “Is there not among the daughtersofyourbrothersandamongallmypeopleawomanthatyou havegonetotakeawomanfromthePhilistines,theuncircumcised?”

412

4

Judges13:1–16:31 Samsonsaidtohisfather:“Takeherforme,becausesheisrightin myeyes”. HisfatherandhismotherdidnotknowthatthiswasfromYHWH: thathewasseekinganoccasionagainstthePhilistines.Inthattime thePhilistineswererulingoverIsrael.

The first four verses of chapter 14 form a unity, as is indicated by the almost verbatim repetition of v. 1a in v. 5b, which takes up the story again. The central theme in these introductory verses is that of the Philistines, who are mentioned five times and afterwards no more in this chapter. The concluding line in v. 5 is that the Philistines were ruling over Israel. The verb ‫משׁל‬, “to rule”, which is also used by the Judeans when they repeat this fact (15:11), is reminiscent of the positive expectations concerning Gideon and his family that they would be good rulers of Israel (8:22). How different things have turned out to be! First the “ruling” offered by Abimelech (9:2) ended in inner-Israelite conflicts and now the Israelites seem to accept the Philistines as their rulers. As was already stated in 10:6, they also venerated their gods. Samson shows no intention to change this; on the contrary, he decides not to fight the Philistines but to associate with them by marriage. His motto seems to be: make love, not war. The town of Timnah is located on the border of Israelite and Philistine territory, about one hour walking from Zorah. The fact that he sees there a Philistine woman suggests that Timnah belonged to the Philistines, although it is not counted among the traditional five cities of the Philistines: Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron (Josh. 13:3). According to Josh. 15:10 it was located on the border of the territory of Judah, according to Josh. 19:43 Timnah belonged to the territory of the tribe of Dan, but in Judg. 1:34 it was also reported that the Amorites had driven the Danites to the mountains. One could say that it was part of a contested area. It is clear, however, that it is associated here in the first place with the Philistines. In his choice for this woman Samson seems not to be inspired by the spirit of YHWH mentioned in the previous verse. He simply follows his eyes. As was remarked above with regard to the repeated reference to his parents seeing the miracle of the messenger (13:19–20), “seeing” plays a central role in this story. Many actions by Samson start with him seeing (cf. also 16:1) and his actions seem to come to an end when he stops seeing (16:21). In the present story it is repeated when he tries to convince his parents by stating that the Philistine woman is “right in my eyes”. That this must have been “evil in the eyes of YHWH”, as was said many times of the behaviour of the Israelites (cf. 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1), does not seem to bother him, although the marriage with sons or daughters from other peoples was strictly forbidden (cf. 3:6). The same expression “to do what is right in their own eyes” is also used in 17:6 and 21:25, describing the immoral

Samson

413

state of the country. Samson’s intentions are far removed from the positive start expressed in the first chapter by the inner-Israelite marriage between Othniel and Achsah, the daughter of Kaleb (1:13). Samson does not make a secret about his desires and tells his parents, apparently without hesitation, about it. The verb used here, ‫ נגד‬hiphil, will return many times in this chapter (vv. 6, 9, 12 [2×], 13, 14, 15, 16 [3×], 17 [2×], and 19) and also in chapter 16 (vv. 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18 [2×]). It clearly functions as a key word in these stories about secrets and giving them away. From the beginning it is clear that telling what is on your mind can cause problems. Samson’s parents are not happy with what he tells them. In vain his father and mother try to keep their son on the right path. BHKand BHS suggest skipping in vv. 2–3 the references to the mother. The argument that in v. 3 the singular ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬does not fit the combination of father and mother, is not convincing (cf. JM § 150c). Such incongruence between verb and subject seems typical of the style of the author (cf. also 5:1; 13:12; 14:5; 21:21). Moreover, the mother played a prominent role in the previous chapter, which also explains why the marriage arrangements are not left, as is usual, to the father (cf. Gen. 34:4). More problematic is that the parents speak of “my people”, whereas one would have expected “our people” (as is found in the Old Latin version). In LXX (A) this problem is solved by changing it into “your people”, whereas LXX (B) follows the MT. We probably have to assume that Manoah here also speaks for his wife. The Philistines are indicates as “uncircumcised”, which is clearly meant disdainful and is most of the time used in situations of conflict (cf. 1 Sam. 14:6; 17:26, 36; 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:20). In an aside, like the one in 13:16, the reader is informed that Samson’s parents did not realize that all this was part of YHWH’s plan. Maybe the spirit of YHWH was active here after all. It can be compared to the role of YHWH pulling the strings as indicated in the story of Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 45:5) and in the conflict with the king of Egypt (Exod. 7:3). We have to assume that also Samson was ignorant in this regard. It is not likely that it was Samson who was seeking an occasion against the Philistines. In that case one would have expected that the subject at the end of v. 4a was explicitly changed after the reference to YHWH. 14:5–6 5

6

Samson went down with his father and his mother to Timnah. TheycameatthevineyardsofTimnahand,look,ayounglionoflions roaringtomeethim. ThespiritofYHWHbecamestrongoverhim.Hetoreitapartasone tearsapartthekid,withnothinginhishand.Hedidnottelltohis fatherandtohismotherwhathehaddone.

414

Judges13:1–16:31

After the added remarks about the Philistines and YHWH the story line is picked up by mentioning Samson’s renewed travel to Timnah. This time he is accompanied by his parents (as in v. 3 there is incongruence between verb and subject). It is suggested that for Samson vineyards are an improper place to be (cf. among others Schneider 2000, 205; McCann 2002, 103). However, the command not to drink or eat anything from the vine was only given to Samson’s mother and probably only concerned the time of her pregnancy. As was discussed above, it is far from certain that Samson was a Nazarite and had to follow the rules as formulated in Num. 6. Within the present context it is more to the point to note that the Philistine territory is associated with fruitfulness. Next to the vineyards also fields of grain and orchards are mentioned in 15:5. Encountering a lion is scary, especially when he or she is roaring, because this means that the lion is hungry. The description of the lion as ‫ְכּ ִפיר ֲא ָריוֹת‬ is uncommon and seems redundant. ‫ ְכּ ִפיר‬is the normal word for a young lion. From Ezek. 19:2–3 we learn that it is older than a cub and younger than the full grown lion. Strawn suggests that ‫ ְכּ ִפיר ֲא ָריוֹת‬is a compound word designating this young lion as nomadic, as a sub adult lion ousted from a pride (Strawn 2009, 157–158). A simpler solution – not assuming this unlikely connection of the two words – is that the added reference to ‫ ֲא ָריוֹת‬will make it easier to make the connection with the riddle and its solution in v. 18, because the word used for lion there is the normal ‫א ִרי‬. ֲ When Samson is attacked by the lion, he seems to be alone. Where were his parents? The problem is solved in the LXX (B) by changing the second verb in v. 5 to singular: ἦλθεν (in LXX [A] it is changed into ἐξέκλινεν, “he turned aside”) or by assuming that the references in vv. 5–10 to the parents are part of a later redaction connecting chapter 13 to the chapters 14–15 (cf. Groß 2009, 652–653). As was indicated in the introduction to the exegesis, the latter solution is very likely. This redactional activity can be ascribed to the author when he gave the old heroic tale about the killing of the lion its place in the story of Samson as part of the book of Judges. The same author made clear that Samson owed the strength with which he could kill the lion with his bare hands to the spirit of YHWH. The phrase that the spirit of YHWH “became strong over him”, using the verb ‫צלח‬, differs from previous stories about the giving of the spirit in the book of Judges (cf. Othniel in 3:10, Gideon in 6:34, and Jephthah in 11:29). It is also used of Samson in 15:14, and after him of Saul in 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6, and of David in 1 Sam. 16:13; 18:10. It can be seen, therefore, as another indication that the story of Samson was written as prefiguring the later stories of the kings of Israel. Very interesting in this connection is the way David presents himself to king Saul as the right man to fight Goliath: just as he has killed

Samson

415

lions and bears, so with the help of YHWH he will be able to defeat this Philistine (1 Sam. 17:34–37). Also the fact that Samson only used his hands seems to point forward to the future king David, who tells that he “caught it by its beard, and struck and killed it” (1 Sam. 17:35). To this can be added that the motif returns in David’s victory of Goliath “without a sword in his hand” (with the words ‫אין ְבּיָ ד‬, ֵ a phrase used only in these two verses; cf. Strawn 2009, 151). In the surrounding cultures many parallels can be found of stories about heroes killing lions (cf. the survey by Groß 2009, 688–690), especially in Greek myths (cf. Nauerth 1985, 97; Margalith 1987, 66–68). The most interesting are those concerning Hercules, of whom it is told that he strangled the invulnerable Nemean lion with his bare hands (Apollodorus, Library II.5.1). It is also told of Hercules that after he reached the age of eighteen he slew the lion of Cithaeron with as a reward the fifty daughters of king Thespius. They were bedded with him one by one, which made Hercules believe that his bed-fellow was always the same (Apollodorus, Library II.4.10). Within its present literary and canonical context the connection with David takes precedence over these parallels. 14:7–9 7 8

9

Hewentdownandspoketothewoman.Shewasrightintheeyesof Samson. Hereturnedaftersometimetotakeher.Heturnedasidetoseethe carcassofthelion.Look,aswarmofbeesinthecorpseofthelion andhoney. Hescrapeditintohispalmsandhewent,goingandeating.Hewent tohisfatherandtohismotherandgavethemandtheyate.Hedid nottellthemthathehadscrapedthehoneyfromthecorpseofthe lion.

For the third time (which is characteristic of the style of the author of the book of Judges) it is told that Samson “goes down”. After vv. 1 and 5 it is not necessary to repeat that his destiny is Timnah. Instead it is repeated that the woman Samson saw there is “right in his eyes”, emphasizing the fact that Samson is following his own judgment; just as he does not let his father do the talking, which would have been the normal procedure in negotiations concerning a wedding. It is not disclosed what Samson said to the woman. Perhaps he “spoke to her heart”, like Shechem to Dinah (Gen. 34:3; cf. Judg. 19:3) in what also seemed to start as a love story crossing the boundaries between different peoples and which ended in bloodshed as well. In the

416

Judges13:1–16:31

same story in Gen. 34 we find what would have been the normal procedure. Shechem asks his father “to take this girl” to be his wife (Gen. 34:4). Also in this respect Samson seems to take things in his own hands, when it is said that he is going “to take her”. The text is unclear with regard to the way the different events take place. According to v. 7 Samson goes on his own to Timnah, according to v. 8 he goes there again, and from v. 9 we learn that this time he went together with his parents. The text remains also vague about the time in between these travels. The expression ‫יָּמים‬ ִ ‫מ‬, ִ “after some time”, in v. 8 was used in 11:4 as the beginning of a new episode, and will be used again in this way in 15:1. In 21:19 it is used differently and has to be translated as “every year”. So, how many times Samson went to Timnah and how much time elapsed between his visits remains unclear. What is more important in the story is that Samson again is distracted by following his eyes. He does not go straight away to his future bride, because he first wants to see what had happened to the corpse of the lion and therefore “turns aside”. This verb ‫ סור‬has negative associations in the book of Judges. In 2:17 it denotes Israel’s deviating from the right path, in 4:18 it describes how Sisera is enticed to “turn aside” and then gets killed by Jael. It will, finally, return in 16:17–20 describing how Samson’s power and YHWH will turn away from Samson. What Samson sees (introduced with ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬, just as his meeting with the lion in v. 5), is the strange phenomenon of bees that had made their home in the corpse of the lion he had killed some time ago. The LXX reads ἐν τῷ στόματι, “in the mouth”. This is probably due to a scribal mistake, replacing the correct σῶμα, “corpse” (cf. BHQ, 92*). With the same hands with which he had killed the lion he now scrapes honey from its carcass. This scraping catches the eye of the reader, because the uncommon verb ‫ רדה‬is repeated at the end of the verse. It also looks very much like the verb ‫ירד‬, “to go down”, used in vv. 1, 5, 7, 10, suggesting wordplay. This is also in line with the threefold repetition of the verb ‫הלְך‬, “to go”, in v. 9, in a very short range, leaving no doubt about it that Samson is on his way. The fact that he gives from the honey to his parents functions primarily as another opportunity to use again the motif of (not) telling: what he has not told to his parents he also want to keep secret from his wife and the guests at the coming wedding. As with his presence in the vineyard there is no clear reason to assume (as is done by many commentators; cf. Crenshaw 1978, 84, 129; Kegler 1985, 103; Block 1999, 429–430; also still by Spronk 2017, 180) that eating from the honey out of a dead animal should be seen as a violation of the laws on the Nazirites. Within the story of Samson this episode about the honey coming from the dead lion is meant to show that Samson is not only very strong, but also very smart. From the extraordinary things he saw and experienced (by

Samson

417

eating from the honey) he deduced an illuminating insight that he formulated in the riddle he presented during his wedding. The phenomenon itself was probably part of an old tradition taken over by the author/editor of the book of Judges. Like the tale of a hero killing a lion with his bare hands it has clear parallels in Greek-Roman literature (cf. Burney 1920, 359–360; Margulies 1974, 62–63; Gese 1985, 270–272; Nauerth 1985, 98–101; survey of the discussion by Groß 2009, 690–691). Although direct influence cannot be proven, it is clear that the idea of honeycombs built by bees in corpses was well known in classical sources. Herodotus tells the following story: To pay Onesilus back for besieging them, the Amathousians cut off his head and took it to Amathous, where they hung it over the city gates. Thus suspended, the head ended up hollowed out and was infested by a swarm of bees, which filled it with honeycombs. When the Amathousians asked an oracle what the significance of this unusual happening might be, they were advised to take the head down and bury it, and offer sacrifices every year to Onesilus as a hero – and that if they did this, their fortunes would enjoy a recovery. The cult of Onesilus was duly maintained – and has been right up to my day. (Histories 5.114; transl. T. Holland)

Even closer are the parallels found in the texts by Virgil on bees, especially when he tells how Aristaeus gets new bees after he had lost his old ones. To his surprise he finds them in carcasses of cattle he sacrificed. And with no halt or hesitation he did all that his mother bid. Come to the temple, he raised the altars as prescribed, led in four bulls, superior in form and frame, and an equal count of heifers, whose neck no yoke has ever touched. And later, when nine days have dawned, he sends his offerings to Orpheus and goes back to the thicket. And there they met a miracle and looked it in the face – from those cattle’s decomposing flesh, the hum of bees, bubbling first, then boiling over and, trailing giant veils into the trees, they hung like grapes in bunches from the swaying branches. (Georgics 4. 547–557; transl. P. Fallon)

14:10–11 10 11

His father went down to the woman. Samson made there a feast, becausethusyoungmendo. It happened when they saw him that they took thirty companions andtheywerewithhim.

Again, the new scene starts with someone “going down”. There is a clear pattern: in v. 1 the subject was Samson going to Timnah, in v. 5 Samson and his parents going to Timnah, in v. 7 Samson going to the woman, and now his father who is also going to the woman. It indicates that the reference to the father is well considered. All the more, then, it is remarkable that the feast, which can only be the wedding feast, is arranged by Samson. The added remark that this is what young men – that is, men of marriageable age (cf. Ruth 3:10)

418

Judges13:1–16:31

do – does not alter the fact that it was customary that such a feast was given by the father of the bride. The best example of this is the feast (indicated with the same word ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ֶתּה‬and also lasting seven days) arranged by Laban on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter(s) with Jacob (Gen. 29:22). Because until now the father of the Timnite woman played no role in the story, one would at least have expected Samson’s father to be more active. The question who is responsible for the feast, also arises in the next verse. It is not indicated who the people are who look at Samson and then organize a special group to accompany him during the feast. It must be Philistines: members of the family of the bride or local citizens. For the first time in the story of Samson it is not Samson or one of his parents who is “seeing”, but the Philistines (cf. the previous remarks on “to see” as a key word). Instead of ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫כּ ְר‬, ִ “when they saw him”, LXX (A) translates ἐν τῷ φοβεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς, “when they were afraid”; LXX (B) follows the MT. In the LXX (A) the verbs ‫ראה‬, “to see”, and ‫ירא‬, “to fear”, seem to have been confused. At this moment in the story there was from the side of the Philistines nothing to be afraid of. They see Samson as their guest. Organizing companionship for Samson should not be regarded as a sign of showing mistrust, as if these men should keep an eye on him. It can be compared again to the wedding party as organized by Laban who assembled all men of the village to participate in the festivities (Gen. 29:22). 14:12–13 12

13

Samsonsaidtothem:“Letmeposeyouariddle.Ifindeedyoutellit(s solution)tomeduringthesevendaysofthefeastandhavefoundit, Ishallgiveyouthirtylinengarmentsandthirtychangesofgarments. And if you are not able to tell it(s solution) to me, you shall give thirtylinengarmentsandthirtychangesofgarments”.Theysaidto him:“Poseyourriddleandwewillhearit”.

At his wedding Samson wants to show his guests that he is a wise man, by posing them a riddle. That is not uncommon on such an occasion. Perhaps the best parallel in the Hebrew Bible is the story of the queen of Sheba testing Solomon’s wisdom via riddles (1 Kgs 10:1). It is more than just a game to pass the time. It is way of describing and unravelling the secrets of life. You show your abilities in this regard by the way you formulate the things you observe in artful language. This is well illustrated in Ps. 49. It discusses the big problem of bad things happening to good people and solves this riddle (using the same word ‫ ִח ָידה‬as in Judg. 14:12) with a proverb (Ps. 49:5). The riddle posed by Samson will also turn out to be a riddle about the way things go in life and the solution will also be given in the form of a comparison (v. 18; cf. Ps. 49:13, 21). It fits to the returning theme within this

Samson

419

story of telling and not telling, which is connected to the repeated verb ‫נגד‬ hiphil (cf. Greenstein 1981, 246; Schipper 2003, 344). In v. 12 this is underlined by paronomasia, using the verb twice: “if telling you are telling me”. It points forward to the question asked to Samson by Delilah: “Tell me whereby your power is so great” (16:6). Samson not only wants to show his wisdom, he also presents himself as a rich man, who is able to set a high price on the solution of his riddle. Thirty sets of clothing is not something a simple man can afford. Even the companions, who only risk that they have to deliver one pair of clothes each, complain that this would impoverish them (v. 15). Moreover, these clothes are described as very precious, using the expression ‫ח ִלפֹת ְבּגָ ִדים‬, ֲ here tentatively translated as “changes of garments”, which is reminiscent of the special garments given by Joseph in Egypt to his brothers and of the royal presents who Naaman wanted to give to Elisha (2 Kgs 5:5). The verb ‫ חלף‬indicates that it is the clothing you use when you want to change into something special (cf. Gen. 41:14; 2 Sam. 12:20; cf. Van Daalen 1966, 27–28). It is also possible that Samson took this very big wager, because he was confident that the companions would fail in their attempt to solve the riddle (cf. Bar 2018, 79). The fact that he chose clothes as the price may have to do with the occasion of a wedding. From Mesopotamian sources we know the custom of sharing out clothes as part of the wedding festivities (cf. Stol 2016, 94). 14:14–17 14

15

16

17

Hesaidtothem:“Fromtheeaterhascomeforthwhatiseatenand from the strong has come forth sweetness”. They were not able to tell(thesolutionof)theriddleforthreedays. IthappenedontheseventhdaythattheysaidtothewifeofSamson: “Seduceyourmanthathemaytelltous(thesolutionof)theriddle orelsewewillburnyouandthehouseofyourfatherwithfire.Isit todispossessusthatyoucalledushere?” The woman of Samson wept before him and she said: “You all togetherhateme,youdonotloveme.Theriddleyouposedtothe sonsofmypeopleandtomeyoudidnottellit(ssolution)”.Hesaid toher:“Look,tomyfatherandtomymotherIhavenottolditand toyouIshouldtellit?” Sheweptbeforehimsevendaysinwhichtheyhadthefeast.Ithappenedontheseventhdaythathetoldher,becauseshehadpressed himhardandshetold(thesolutionof)theriddletothesonsofher people.

The riddle is clearly based on Samson’s surprising find at the carcass of the lion. For someone who has not seen this it seems impossible to solve the riddle. Therefore, the fact that the companions were not able to tell the solution

420

Judges13:1–16:31

comes as no surprise. One could blame Samson for asking something they could impossibly find out (cf. Moore 1895, 335: “it was, in truth, a very bad riddle, and quite insoluble without the accidental circumstance which suggested it”; Groß 2009, 698: “Simson hat ein unfaires Rätsel gestellt, um sich zu bereichern”). It is possible, however, to solve the riddle on linguistic grounds. The solution can be found in the fact that the word ‫ ארי‬is a homonym. Next to the usual reference to a lion it can also denote a kind of honey (cf. Baur 1912; Porter 1962; Gaster 1969, 436; Kim 1993, 252). This suggestion is usually rejected because of the fact that the meaning “honey” is only attested in Arabic, but it is also found in Ugaritic (cf. De Moor 1975). This interpretation is supported by the fact that also in 15:16 we find word play on the basis of a homonym. It can be regarded as Samson’s favourite way of showing his wit. In the older literature one also finds the opinion that originally the riddle and the solution, which is also given in the form of a riddle, were originally not related. According to Greßmann 1922, 244, the solution to the first riddle is not difficult to find: “Während sonst die Speise in den ‘Esser’, der Wein in den ‘Trinker’ hineingeht, soll hier das Essen aus dem ‘Fresser’, das Süße aus dem ‘Gierigen’ herauskommen. Was ist das? – Das sich Erbrechen!” It has also been assumed that the solution to the riddle was not hard to find, because its solution as it was given in v. 18 was a popular proverb (Nel 1985, 542). Yadin (2002) maintains that originally the exchange between Samson and the companion was not a riddle at all, but should be compared to the ancient Greek “capping song”: a kind of competition on weddings which challenged participants to react to a fable told at the feast. Within the present context, however, precisely the fact that the riddle cannot be solved without the help of someone else plays an essential role. It will return in the parallel story of Samson and Delilah. The companions press Samson’s bride to coax the solution of the riddle out of Samson. In many ways their words have a special meaning. When they ask her to “seduce” her husband, they use the same word as the Philistine leaders when they approach Delilah (16:5). The way they threaten the woman is also ominous. They say that they will burn her and her family. Although the woman gives in, she cannot avoid this fateful ending (15:6). The same holds true for the companions. They fear to be “dispossessed”. Ironically, this is precisely what will happen, not only to them, but to all Philistines. The verb used here (‫ )ירשׁ‬is used time and again to denote how the land of the Canaanites will be taken over by the Israelites (cf. Nelson 2017, 248). It is not exactly clear when precisely they approached her. The text suggests that after they realized on the third day of the feast that they could not solve the riddle by themselves they waited four days before they went to the woman (v. 15: “on the seventh day”). It is also told that the woman spoiled the whole feast by weeping all days before Samson to persuade him (v. 17:

Samson

421

“she wept before him seven days”) and that he gave in on the seventh day. When we read these verses chronologically this makes little sense. The problem is only partly solved when one follows (with BHKand BHS) the LXX and reads in v. 15 “on the fourth day”, because this is still not in line with the seven days of the bridal weeping (cf. Stade 1884, 253, who proposes the more radical solution to skip the final two words of v. 14 and the first three words of v. 15). It has also been suggested, already by Rashi, that the “seven days” refers to the remainder of the seven days (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 28; Block 1999, 434, n. 338). According to Ibn Ezra the woman had already begun to bother Samson from the first day out of personal curiosity. The question of the companions would only have been an extra motivation (cf. BHQ, 93*; also suggested by Van Daalen 1966, 100). Camp (2000, 113) suggests that the logical order of the story was disturbed by the wish to make an allusion to the haircutting for a Nazirite, who has encountered a corpse, on the seventh day of his purification (Num. 6:9). According to Groß 2009, 698, the numbers are symbolic and the reference to the seven days of weeping may have been meant to enhance the drama. Again, the relation with the parallel story of Samson and Delilah (note also the fact that both his bride and Delilah question his love for them; 14:16; 16:15) may offer a clue to the right understanding, because also in chapter 16 we find the combination of the numbers three and seven. The combination of seven and three is also found in 2 Sam. 24:13; Num. 19:11, 19; 31:19; Job 1:2; 42:13, but the parallels between Judg. 14 and 16 go further: in both chapters the number three is mentioned once and the number seven is mentioned six and five times. The order shows a chiastic structure, with the number three on the second place from the beginning in chapter 14 and on the second place from the end in chapter 16 (cf. Kim 1993, 257): Chapter 14

Chapter 16

Feast of seven days (v. 12)

Seven fresh sinews (v. 7)

Three days of failure (v. 15)

Seven fresh sinews (v. 8)

The woman is pressed on the seventh day (v. 15)

Seven locks of hair (v. 13)

Seven days of weeping (v. 17)

(Seven locks of hair) (v. 14)

Samson tells his wife on the seventh day (v. 17)

Three times deceived (v. 15)

The men tell Samson on the seventh day (v. 18)

Seven locks of hair shaved (v. 19)

When it comes to the numbers, the way they are ordered in chapter 16 makes most sense. In chapter 14 they indicate that he story is told twice, using different perspectives. This is a technique used before by the author of this book. It was also found in chapters 1–2 and 4–5. The story is first told starting with the companions. They are not able to solve the riddle for

422

Judges13:1–16:31

three days and on the final day of the feast they press the woman to find it out for them. In v. 17 the story is told from the perspective of the woman. She was weeping seven days long and on the seventh day Samson revealed her his secret. In this way the three days of considering by the companions is put over against the seven days of weeping by the woman. It emphasizes the role of the woman and raises questions about her loyalty. She may have been pressed hard by her fellow-countrymen, who threaten to kill her and her family (v. 15), but the way she puts pressure on Samson, questioning his love (v. 16), shows that she also has her own agenda. 14:18 

Themenofthecitysaidtohimontheseventhdaybeforethesunwent down: “What is sweeter than honey and what is stronger than a lion?”Hesaidtothem:“Hadyounotploughedwithmyheifer,you wouldnothavefoundmyriddle.

When “the men of the city” give “their” solution (v. 18), they are no longer called “companions”. Already in the previous verse there were referred to as fellow-countrymen of the woman (“the sons of her people”), underlining the growing distance to Samson. They wait until the final moment, increasְ “before the sun went down”, ing the tension. The phrase ‫בּ ֶט ֶרם יָבֹא ַה ַח ְר ָסה‬, is uncommon (which may explain the translation in LXX [B] with “before the sun rose”). Especially the use of ‫ ֶח ֶרס‬designating the sun is remarkable. Many commentators (following Stade 1884, 253–254; cf. also BHSand HAL) propose to replace it by ‫ה ַח ְד ָרה‬, ַ “her room”, which is also mentioned in 15:1. This would make things even more dramatic: just before Samson would consummate the marriage the men would have spoiled the party. One can also think, however, of good reasons why the author would have used this word. It may have been inspired by the reference to the town of Mount Heres, which was mentioned in 1:35 as part of the Danite territory. Even more interesting is assonance with the verb ‫חרשׁ‬, “to plough”, used by Samson in his reaction to the given solution (cf. Block 1999, 435, n. 341, who also mentions the possibility that the author may have wished to avoid confusion with the name of Samson and, therefore, not used the common word for “sun”: ‫)שׁ ֶמשׁ‬. ֶ The solution they give to the riddle is another riddle. In fact, it looks more like a riddle than the words of Samson in v. 14, which were not a question but a statement (cf. Gunkel 1913, 53). We were not informed about what precisely Samson had said to his wife (as he did to Delilah according to 16:17; cf. Schipper 2003, 347), but it is not likely that the men are repeating precisely what he had told her. Instead, they give a hint about the way they found the solution and outsmarted Samson. In his turn Samson is immediately on

Samson

423

to the fact that he is deceived. For the moment he keeps his composure and replies as wise men do, with another proverb. Both the way the solution is formulated and the reaction by Samson are thought-provoking and seem to be deliberately ambiguous (cf. Bal 1987, 76: it leaves open “all possibilities”; Nelson 2017, 252: “These three riddles provide rich opportunities for readers to interact with the text, because riddles are never completely unpacked […] Riddles continually invite readers to engage in further consideration in order to discover multiple meanings”). In the history of exegesis this has led to different interpretations and many speculations (cf. the surveys by Nel 1985, 536–539; Schipper 2003, 341–343; Groß 2009, 693–697; Bar 2018, 71–83). Most scholars, however, agree that the solution is related to the insight that love is both powerful and sweet. One finds this beautifully expressed in the Song of Songs (cf. 2:3 on the sweetness and 8:6 on its strength; cf. Gunkel 1913, 52–54). Some scholars emphasize the possible erotic associations with oral sex (cf. Herzberg 1953, 230; Camp & Fontaine 1990, 141–142), other scholars want to keep open the possibility that “what comes out of the eater” is the vomit of the party goer (Nelson 2017, 250, although he finds the association with cunnilingus more likely). With his answer Samson shows that he is well aware of the fact that his wife has betrayed his secret. It is suggested that “ploughing with my heifer” has a sexual connotation (cf. Crenshaw 1974, 493–494; Groß 2009, 700), but the point here is in the first place that he blames the men and not his wife. The comparison with a heifer does not seem to be very flattering, but the parallel with the Greek myth of Zeus turning his mortal lover Io into a heifer in order to hide her from his wife Hera points in another direction. In the Peshitta the metaphor is explained: “if you had not seduced my heifer”. The Targumist goes one step further in his explanatory translation: “if you had not cross-examined my wife” (cf. Smelik 1995, 574). The riddle of the men is also an invitation to Samson to look at himself. He had proven to be stronger than a lion, but now had to experience that he is not superior on every terrain. The rest of the story will show that Samson is slow to learn. 14:19–20 19

20

ThespiritofYHWHbecamestrongoverSamson.Hewentdownto Ashkelonandstruckdownthirtymenfromthem.Hetooktheirclothes andgavethechanges(ofgarments)tothosewhohadtold(thesolution to)theriddle.Hisangerflaredupandhewentuptothehouseofhis father. ThewifeofSamsonwas(given)tohiscompanionwhohadbeena companiontohim.

424

Judges13:1–16:31

For the second time (cf. earlier v. 6) the spirit of YHWH “becomes strong” over him. It inspires him to great action. Just as with Jephthah in 11:29 it first incites him to make his way. He goes to Ashkelon. This is well known as one of the five cities of the Philistines. Whereas Timnah could have been regarded as a border town and not purely Philistine territory, it now becomes very clear that the conflict is with the Philistines. It is remarkable that Samson chooses not to go to a Philistine city located nearby, like Ekron, Gath or Ashdod. The two Philistine cities he visits, Ashkelon and Gaza, are the farthest from Timnah and from his hometown. In this regard the story of Samson complements the story of the ark in Ashdod, Gath and Ekron in 1 Sam. 5. Together they show that in all five cities of the Philistines YHWH has manifested himself. It is not told how the men of Timnah reacted to the gift of the second hand clothes and whether they complained that he only gave part of what he had promised (the “linen garments” are left out). We also do not read whether the one chosen to receive Samson’s bride was happy with her. There is some irony in the double reference in the text to this companionship. As was notes in vv. 17–18 they had acted more like his opponents. With these gifts this had certainly not changed again for the better. The emphasis is not on their reaction, but on Samson’s. The phrase that “his anger flared up” was used before primarily of YHWH (2:14, 20; 3:8; 6:39; 10:7) and once of Ebed (9:30). It seems to indicate that Samson is led in the first place by his emotions. However, the fact that his actions start with the gift of the spirit of YHWH reminds of the commentary given in 14:4. There may be a plan of YHWH behind all this. 15:1–2 1

2

It happened after some time in the days of the wheat harvest that Samsonvisitedhiswifewithagoat’skid.Hesaid:“Letmecometo mywifeinthechamber”.Butherfatherdidnotgive(permission)to comein. Herfathersaid:“Isurelysaidthatyouwouldsurelyhateher.Igave hertoyourcompanion.Isnotheryoungersisterbetterthanshe. Letherbeyoursinsteadofher”.

It is not clear how much time passed between the moment Samson left Timnah in great anger and his return. The same expression ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִמיָּ ִמים‬, “it happened after some time”, was used in 11:4 and marked there also a change of scenes. The indicated period of the wheat harvest points forward to the way Samson will punish the Philistines. Apparently, Samson was no longer angry and the present he brings can be seen as a token of respect. A goat’s

Samson

425

kid was also presented by Manoah to the messenger of YHWH (13:15). He has returned under the impression that the woman is still his wedded wife and he now wants to consummate his marriage. With his polite request to let him come to her in the chamber he indicates that he wants to have sex with her. As was remarked in the commentary on 13:9 the expression “to come to a woman” is a common way of denoting intercourse (cf. 16:1; Gen. 16:4; 29:23, 30; 30:16; Ruth 4:13). This meaning is confirmed here by the place where Samson wants to meet her. The chamber he refers to (‫)ח ֶדר‬ ֶ often denotes the bedroom or a private room (cf. Gen. 43:30: 1 Kgs 1:15). In the story of Samson and Delilah it is the place where the Philistines are hiding (16:9, 12). The father, who is mentioned here for the first time in the story, refuses for the good reason that she is already given to someone else. He assumes that Samson’s anger (cf. 14:19) also concerned the woman and that he now hates her, repeating the word used by his daughter when she tried to seduce Samson (14:16). The text suggests that he is very sure of his ground. In the Hebrew text this is indicated by repeating both the verbs “to say” and “to hate”. It could also be a way of hiding his hesitations in this matter. In his reaction to the companions Samson had clearly stated that he blamed them for using his bride and had not held it against her. A lot has been written about ancient Near Eastern parallels which would explain some remarkable elements in the story of Samson’s marriage (cf. the survey by Groß 2009, 681–685). Many scholars point to Mesopotamian legal arrangements referring to the situation that the bride stayed at the home of her father and was visited there by her husband, for instance in the MiddleAssyrian Law (11th century BCE) CoS2.132 A. §27: “If a woman is residing in her own father’s house and her husband visits her regularly, he himself shall take back any marriage settlement which he, her husband, gave to her; he shall have no claim to anything belonging to her father’s house”. On the basis of such laws, which usually have to do with the dowry, it is concluded that the situation described in Judg. 14–15 was not abnormal (cf. Gese 1985, 266: “ein für die Institution der Besuchsehe normaler Vorgang”; cf. also Nelson 2017, 247; a similar parallel is the Arab ṣadīqamarriage; cf. Soggin 1981, 240). Van der Toorn 1994, 74, states that in the case of Samson we should thing of the type of marriage known from Mesopotamian sources in which the bride stays at the home of her father. The bridegroom regularly visits her there to have sex with her. Only when she becomes pregnant she will be taken to the house of her husband. So in the situation of Judg. 14–15 everything would have been normal, until the father of the bride became impatient and gave his daughter to one of the companions. Yadin 2002, 416– 418, states on the basis of Greek parallels (from the middle of the first millennium BCE) that this companion must have been the close friend of the

426

Judges13:1–16:31

bridegroom who according to tradition had the honorary function of doorkeeper of the bridal chamber during the first night together of the married couple. Samson’s expectations would have been “cruelly inverted” when “he finds himself on the outside, while the friend – who was supposed to keep others outside – is himself inside” (p. 418). However, this does not fit to the interruption as told in the story of Samson’s wedding. Whereas these and the other parallels mentioned in the history of interpretation are based on general similarities of wedding practices and suggest that we are dealing with more or less normal procedures, the tendency of the story in Judg. 14– 15 seems to be that what is happening is not normal at all. Moreover, the best parallel is not found in extra-biblical literature, but in the story of Jacob’s marriages. It concerns the fact that the father offers the younger sister as replacement bride, which is reminiscent of Laban arranging that Jacob married the sister of his chosen bride (Gen. 29:21–27). Another interesting parallel is found in the stories about the complicated relationship between Saul and David. First Saul promised his oldest daughter Merab to David, but then he changed his mind and gave her to someone else in marriage (1 Sam. 18:19). Then her younger sister Mikal falls in love with David, whereas Saul allows them to marry on the condition that David brings him the foreskins of hundred (uncircumcised) Philistines (1 Sam. 18:20–29). Because of this remarkable combination of different daughters given in marriage and the killing of many Philistines by the bridegroom this can be seen as another indication that the stories in the book of Judges point forward to the stories in the books of Samuel and Kings and emphasize the positive role of David as Israel’s most successful leader. In chapter 19 we will find another example of this phenomenon. There also the theme of a father offering his daughter will return. 15:3 

Samsonsaidtothem:“IaminnocentthistimebeforethePhilistines, whenIdoeviltothem”.

The justification for what follows now comes from Samson himself. In 14:4 it was described as YHWH’s responsibility. This was confirmed by the fact that Samson’s next actions were initiated by the gift of the spirit of YHWH (14:6, 19). The action following the present declaration by Samson is presented as his own initiative. There is also a link with his future actions through the repetition of the word ‫פּ ַעם‬, ַ “(this) time”, in the story about his struggle with Delilah. There it is used by Delilah when she complains that Samson has deceived her three “times” (16:15) and when she reports that “this time” Samson has told her all that it is in his heart (16:18). It is used twice when Samson mistakenly assumes that “this time” he will be able to free himself

Samson

427

again (16:20) and, finally, when Samson prays to YHWH to help him one more “time” to avenge himself (16:28). It functions as a key word underlining an important aspect of the story, namely the relation between the acts of YHWH and those of Samson. LXX (A) seems to have simplified the text by changing the beginning to καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Σαμψων, “Samson said to him” and the end to ὅτι ἐγὼ ποιῶ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν κακά, “when I do evil to you”. LXX (B) is in line with the MT. 15:4–5 4 5

Samson went and captured three hundred foxes. He took torches, turnedtailtotailandputonetorchbetweentwotails,inthemiddle. Hesetfiretothetorchesandsent(them)inthestandinggrainofthe Philistines.Heset(fire)tothestackedgrain,thestandinggrain,the grovesofolives.

The story of Samson is also a story of animals. After his fight with the lion, the surprise by the bees and the comparison of his wife with a calf, now the central role is played by foxes, whereas in a next story Samson will use a donkey’s jawbone as weapon. The word ‫שׁוּעל‬ ָ can also denote the jackal, but the possible association of a fox’s tail with a torch and the many parallels with similar stories about foxes make the traditional translation (cf. also LXX: ἀλώπεκας) with “fox” more likely. As if it is a simple action, it is told that Samson captured three hundred foxes. This number fits very well in the sequence beginning with the thirty Philistines killed by Samson for their clothes in the previous chapter and ending, after having killed one thousand Philistines, with the three thousand Philistines killed in the following chapter. It is even more astonishing, but also told as something that should be taken for granted, that Samson is able to bind the foxes two by two, with a torch attached to their tails. This may also have to do with the fact that the author and his readers were familiar with such stories. Stories about foxes are well known in folk stories and fairy tales throughout the ages and in many cultures (cf. Gaster 1969, 434–436). Many scholars point to parallels in Greek-Roman literature, especially the story of Ovid, Fasti 4, 679–712, about the custom to let loose foxes with blazing torches attached to their tales, and a fable of Aesop about someone who wanted to punish a fox by setting his tail on fire, but who then had to witness how the fox ran off and set his acres on fire (cf. Gese 1985, 274–275; Bar 2018, 91). Although these stories may have been based on old traditions, a direct parallel to the story of Samson’s foxes is hard to prove (cf. Margalith 1985, 224–225). It is more likely that the author used a well-known motif and extrapolated it to its present grotesque form (cf. Groß 2009, 704).

428

Judges13:1–16:31

Samson’s revenge affects much more than the property of his intended father-in-law. Through the foxes he sets fire to the acres and orchards of all Philistines. He is doing here to their property what he will do to their lives at the end. Taking revenge for what was done to him on the personal level leads to an action that is more in line with his task as someone who was destined to fight the Philistines. The size of the devastation caused by the fire is indicated by the enumeration of the Philistine properties: not only the grain that was already harvested, but also the still standing grain and even the costly olive trees. According to some scholars a copulative (and perhaps also a repeated preposition ‫ ;עד‬cf. BHQ, 94*) seems to be missing in the final words of v. 5 ‫ד־כּ ֶרם זָ יִ ת‬ ֥ ֶ ‫ וְ ַע‬and they translate it like the LXX: καὶ ἕως ἀμπελῶνος καὶ ἐλαίας, “and up to the vineyard and olive trees”. Other scholars assume a double duty role of the preposition ‫ ִמן‬and translate: “and to vineyard from olive tree” (cf. Block 1999, 441, n. 371; Nelson 2017, 254). It is more in line with the style of the author of the book of Judges to assume a parallel to the threefold description of the enemies and the way they suppress the Israelites in 6:2–4. ‫ ֶכּ ֶרם‬usually denotes a vineyard. We have to assume that it is used here in a more general meaning of orchard or that the text refers to olive trees in a vineyard. A similar combination of the two words without a copulative is found in Exod. 23:11 (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 30). 15:6 

ThePhilistinessaid:“Whohasdonethis?”Theysaid:“Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because he has taken his wife and gavehertohiscompanion”.ThePhilistineswentupandburnedher andherfatherwithfire.

The question of the Philistines (‫)מי ָע ָשׂה זֹאת‬ ִ is reminiscent of the exclamation of the messenger in 2:2 (‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫מה־זֹּאת ֲע ִשׂ‬, ַ “what have you done?”). As one easily understands, the Philistines are upset. It is more difficult to understand why they blame Samson’s intended father-in-law and punish him and his daughter so cruelly and thus partly execute the threat uttered before by the companions to his bride (according to 14:15 they had threatened to burn her and her whole family; LXX [A] harmonizes these verses, followed by BHS suggesting to add ‫)בית‬. They do not call him an Israelite or Danite, but refer to the status he wished for himself. They also ignore that Samson had killed thirty Philistines, but only mention what the father of the bride had done to Samson, as if it was within Samson’s right to avenge himself. One might conclude that the Philistines did not dare to enter into a confrontation with Samson, but from the point of view of Samson’s task as opponent of the Philistines it is rather disappointing.

Samson

429

15:7 

Samsonsaidtothem:“Ifyoudothis,IwillnotceaseuntilIhave avengedmyselfuponyou”.

The conversation takes another surprising turn when Samson shows that he is not happy at all with the Philistine suggestion that he stood in his right. He judges them on their acts, just as the Philistines had reacted on what Samson had done. He uses the same words “to do this” as the Philistines when they asked who was responsible for the burning of their grain and olive trees. It is as if his eyes are opened for the true nature of the Philistines and is motivated now to start with what was announced by the messenger of YHWH. However, he presents it not as delivering his people, but as revenge for what was done to him. The same verb will return at the end of his life, when he asks YHWH to help him to avenge his blindness (16:28). Also the way he announces his revenge seems to point forward to this final act. The way it is formulated in Hebrew with a conditional sentence within a conditional sentence is remarkable (cf. Conklin 2011, 73–74). The Greek translators appear to have had trouble with the text. LXX (A) translated ἐὰν ποιήσητε οὕτως οὐκ εὐδοκήσω ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκδίκησίν μου ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ ἑκάστου ὑμῶν ποιήσομαι, “If you act thus, I will not be content unless I take my revenge from each and every one of you”. The final two words of the Hebrew text seem to be left out here. LXX (B) translates (just like the Old Latin) more literally: ἐὰν ποιήσητε οὕτως ταύτην ὅτι εἰ μὴν ἐκδικήσω ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἔσχατον κοπάσω, “If you treat her thus, because I will surely take revenge among you and finally cease”. 15:8a 

Hestruckthem,alegonthigh,aheavyblow.

The meaning of the words, translated literally here, is much debated. Modern translations differ widely. • KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB: “(And) he smote them hip and thigh with (a) great slaughter”. • NASV: “And he struck them ruthlessly with a great slaughter”. • NIV: “He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them”. • JPS (1985): “He gave them a sound and thorough thrashing”. • ZB (2007): “Und er brach ihnen alle Knochen, er brachte ihnen eine schwere Niederlage bei”. • Einheitsübersetzung (2000): “Und er schlug ihnen mit gewaltigen Schlägen die Knochen entzwei”.

430

Judges13:1–16:31

• Bibel in gerechter Sprache (2011): “Er schlug mit gewaltigem Schlag ihre Hüftknochen entzwei”. LXX (B) translates literally: καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτοὺς κνήμην ἐπὶ μηρὸν πληγὴν μεγάλην, “And he struck them shank upon thigh, a great blow”. LXX (A) left out the word for “leg” or “shank”: καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ μηρὸν πληγὴν μεγάλην, “And he struck them on the thigh, a great blow”. In the Targum the words for leg and thigh are taken as a metaphor: “he struck them, riders along with footsoldiers, a great slaughter”. This was probably based on the association with Dan, the tribe of Samson, of whom is said in Gen. 49:17 “that bites the horses” (cf. Smelik 1995, 576–577). It is clear that “a leg on thigh” gives some details about the nature of the blow delivered by Samson. ‫יָ ֵרְך‬, “(upper) thigh or loin”, can also denote one’s genitals as an indication of fatherhood (cf. Gen. 46:26; Exod. 1:5; Judg. 8:30). When somebody strikes another man hard with his leg on that place, it will certainly be experienced as a big blow. It is also humiliating (cf. Van Wieringen 2002 and 2007, 274–275). Some scholars assume a “wrestling idiom” (Block 1999, 442; cf. Palmer 1913, 32). An argument against this suggestion is that wrestlers are not allowed to hit each other (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 32). It is more likely that Samson knees his opponents, hitting them in their private parts, as in an ordinary street fight. This also fits in with the sexual overtones in his reaction to the companions in 14:18. 15:8b–11  9 10

11

HewentdownandstayedinthecleftoftherockofEtham. ThePhilistineswentandcampedinJudah.TheyspreadoutatLehi. ThemenofJudahsaid:“Whyhaveyoucomeupagainstus?”They said:“TobindSamsonwehavecomeup,todotohimwhathehas donetous”. ThreethousandmenofJudahwentdowntothecleftoftherockof Etam.TheysaidtoSamson:“DoyounotknowthatthePhilistines arerulingus?Whathaveyoudonetous?”Hesaidtothem:“Asthey havedonetome,sohaveIdonetothem”.

The precise location of the cleft where Samson withdraws is not clear. What is clear, though, is that he is hiding at a desolate place. The verb ‫ירד‬, “to go down”, is not very helpful here. In the story all movements towards Philistine territory are indicated as going down (14:1, 5, 7, 10, 19; 15:11, 12; 16:21, 31), as can be expected because the Philistines are living in the coastal plain. Moreover, a cleft of a rock is also a place to which one has to descend. The rock of Etam probably has to be located at the only place where one finds cliffs over the Valley of Sorek: near its exit from the Judean

Samson

431

mountains to the coastal plain, not far from Zorah (cf. Gaß 2005, 372–376). At this place later a Byzantine monastery was built (cf. Gass & Zissu 2005). Lehi is probably also mentioned in 2 Sam. 23:11 as a place where a Philistine army gathered against Israel. Its location is not clear. Now for the first time the Philistines act like the previous enemies of the Israelites. They camp in preparation for battle, as was reported before of the Midianites and their allies (6:4) and the Ammonites (10:17). However, they do not seek the confrontation with the Israelites. They only want to capture Samson. The difference becomes even clearer through the reaction of the Judahites. They appear to have accepted the dominance of the Philistines as the ones who are “ruling” them. They use the same verb ‫ משׁל‬as was used by the Israelites when they offered Gideon dynastic rule over Israel (8:22). Their words also stand in striking contrast to the task given to them at the start of this book: they should have led the Israelites at the head of the troops against the Canaanites. They have a big army of three thousand men, but they do not go out against the Philistines like they did according to 1:18 reporting that they captured Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron, but go down to Samson to hand him over to the Philistines. The reproach of the Judahites, ‫ית ָלּנוּ‬ ָ ‫מה־זֹּאת ָע ִשׂ‬, ַ “what have you done to us”, sounds like a refrain. It repeats the question of the Philistines in v. 6 (“who has done this?”) and recalls Samson’s reaction in the next verse (“if you do this”). It is taken up again by both the Philistines and Samson when they declare that they will do to the other what the other has done to them. The repetition is emphasized by its chiastic symmetry, reversing the two parts (cf. Kim 1993, 284): Philistines: “to do to him what he has done to us” Samson: “As they have done to me, so have I done to them”

This is not a high quality discussion, but simply an indication of revenge following on revenge. One could speak of an “almost endless morass of who first did what to whom” (Polzin 1980, 188). It all started with Samson’s unsolvable riddle. It can be compared to the repeating circle of disobedience and punishment, which is characteristic of the book of Judges. 15:12–13 12

13

Theysaidtohim:“Tobindyouwehavecomedown,togiveyouin thehandofthePhilistines”.Samsonsaidtothem:“Sweartomethat youwillnotattackme”. Theysaidtohim,saying:“No,becauseweshallsurelybindyouand giveyouintheirhand,butweshallsurelynotkillyou”.Theybound himwithtwonewropesandledhimupfromtherock.

432

Judges13:1–16:31

The Judahites show how submissive they are. They repeat what the Philistines had told them and make it their own job: they have come to bind Samson. Binding Samson will be a recurring theme from now on. Also in the next chapter attempts will be made to bind Samson. The verb ‫ אסר‬will be used ten times in chapter 16. A returning element is also the use of specific ropes (cf. 16:11: “new ropes”). In the next chapter the role of intermediate will be played by a Philistine woman, which again indicates how low the Judahites have sunk. It is also telling that Samson thinks it is wise to demand that they will not strike him down as soon as he is in his hands. He fears the same fate as the foreign captives killed by Gideon (8:21). The Judahites do their best to convince Samson. In the Hebrew text this is underlined by a double paronomastic construction in v. 13, emphasizing that they are only going to bind him and certainly not going to kill him (cf. JM § 123i). In a similar way Samson’s father-in-law had tried to assure Samson that he was telling the truth (v. 2). 15:14–15 14

15

When he was coming to Lehi and the Philistines shouted meeting him,thespiritofYHWHbecamestrongoverhim.Theropeswhich were on his arms became like flax burning in fire and his bonds meltedoffhishands. Hefoundafreshjawboneofadonkey,reachedouthishand,took itandwithitstruckdownthousandmen.

The Philistines approach them shouting, like the lion in 14:5. And just as happened then, the spirit of YHWH “becomes strong” over Samson. As will be told of the different ropes in chapter 16 they cannot hold Samson back. He does not kill his opponents with his bare hands this time, but with the uncommon weapon of a donkey’s jawbone. McHugh (2018) suggests that it is part of a complex pun based on the different cuneiform signs to write the various title of Taurus. In this way the writer, who must have been well acquainted with Mesopotamian astrology, would have construed the story as a divine combat scene that had taken place on earth. Within the book of Judges, however, it seems more to the point to simply compare it to other uncommon weapons mentioned before: the tent peg by Jael (4:21) and the ox-goad by Shamgar (3:31). Especially the comparison with the latter is interesting here, because Shamgar also fought against Philistines and, as was remarked in the commentary on 3:31, there also seems to be a connection with the report about the fight against the Philistines in Lehi in 2 Sam. 23:11–12. Samson’s action is described in v. 15 in a way which also reminds of Jael’s action. By using three verbs

Samson

433

shortly after one another (“he reached out, took, and struck”) the story slows down, just as in 5:26, emphasizing this particular moment. 15:16–17 16 17

Samsonsaid:“Withthejawboneofthedonkey,aheap,twoheaps, withthejawboneofthedonkeyIhavestruckdownthousandmen”. Ithappenedwhenhehadfinishedspeakingthathethrewthejawbone fromhishand.HecalledthatplaceRamathLehi.

With alliterating rhyme, repeating the letter chetin ‫חמוֹר‬, ֲ “donkey”, and ‫ל ִחי‬,ְ and associating the place name Lehi with the word for “jaw” ‫ל ִחי‬,ְ Samson celebrates his victory. In this way he shows that next to his physical strength he also has literary qualities, like he did on his wedding party. The uncommon use of the dual form is reminiscent of the way the Canaanite women waiting for Sisera were talking about the booty in 5:30. And just as in 5:30 the word “booty”, the word “donkey” is repeated four times. LXX ἐν σιαγόνι ὄνου ἐξαλείφων ἐξήλειψα αὐτούς, “with a donkey’s jawbone crushing I crushed them”, seems to base the translation of the second and third reference to ‫ ֲחמוֹר‬on the verb ‫מחה‬, “destroy” (cf. Kabiersch etal. 2011, 693). Many scholars suggest changing the vocalization of the MT accordingly (cf. BHQ, 95*). MT can be retained when we translate (with the Targum) “a heap, two heaps”, assuming that they are other forms of ‫( ח ֶֹמר‬cf. Exod. 8:10; Groß 2009, 708; Nelson 2017, 255). A similar wordplay with homonyms was used in the riddle in 14:18. Samson sees his victory as a historic event, which should be remembered through its name: “Jawbone Hill”. It can be compared to the way Baal Perazim was given its name by David, relating it to the verb ‫פרץ‬, “to make a breach” (2 Sam. 5:20). It has been suggested that this hill is not a geographical phenomenon, but “the mound he had built with the corpses of the Philistines” (Block 1999, 446). Another speculative suggestion is made by Groß 2009, 708, who assumes wordplay with another word for “to throw”: ‫רמה‬, but he fails to explain why the author used the more common verb ‫ שׁלְך‬instead (he could have mentioned the translation in the Targum with ‫)רמא‬. LXX translates with Ἀναίρεσις σιαγόνος, “Jawbone’s Slaying”. This fits to the context and was probably based on the fact that the verb ἀναιρέω can mean both “to take up” and “to slay” (cf. Kabiersch etal. 2011, 693). 15:18–19 18

HebecameverythirstyandcalledouttoYHWHandsaid:“Youhave giveninthehandofyourservantthisgreatdeliverance,butnowI shalldieofthirstandfallinthehandoftheuncircumcised”.

434 19

Judges13:1–16:31 GodsplitopenthehollowthatwasinLehi,watercameoutofit,he drank, his spirit returned and he revived. Therefore one calls its nameSourceoftheCaller,whichisinLehiuntilthisday.

Fighting makes thirsty. Like Sisera fleeing from the lost battle against the army of Barak (4:19), Samson longs after his fight against the Philistines for something to drink. This time there is no woman to help him. The comparison with the scene of Sisera and Jael is all the more interesting when one realizes that in the end also a woman will be responsible for the death of Samson. There is also a connection with the end of Samson in the fact that next to the present text this is the only moment when Samson seeks contact with his god. In both cases he is in a situation where he faces death by the hands of the Philistines. In more than one way his calling out to YHWH attracts the attention. It is also remininiscent of the previous stories in which it were the Israelites calling out to YHWH to ask for liberation from the enemies. Whereas previous judges were sent by YHWH as a reaction to the prayer by the people, it is now the judge himself who is praying, following the deliverance. It is also the first time that Samson attributes his victory to YHWH. The other places where the phrase ‫שׁוּעה ַהגְּ ד ָֹלה‬ ָ ‫ה ְתּ‬, ַ “the great deliverance”, is used in the Hebrew Bible are all in texts about victories over the Philistines: 1 Sam. 19:5; 2 Sam. 23:10, 12; 1 Chron. 11:14. Especially the parallel in 2 Sam. 23 with the victory by Shammah at the same place Lehi, is interesting here. He was already mentioned in connection with Shamgar (3:31). It is very well possible that the list of heroes in 2 Sam. 23 is one of the sources used by the author of the book of Judges to compose this history as prefiguration of the stories of the later kings. In comparison with the stories of the previous judges and deliverers there is especially a clear difference with the story about Gideon. Gideon had to learn to trust in YHWH before starting the fight against the Midianites. A lively communication between YHWH and Gideon is necessary before he has the courage to take up his task. Samson does not feel weak like Gideon at first. He does not ask divine reassurance. The story does not tell us whether he was aware of the fact that he repeatedly had received the spirit of YHWH. He had to learn to acknowledge his vulnerability. It goes together with his confession of faith, crediting YHWH for the victory. This can be compared to Gideon speaking of YHWH as the ruler of Israel (8:23) and Jephthah calling YHWH judge (11:27). Samson calls himself “servant” of YHWH, using the title given to Joshua (2:8). Within the book of Judges it also reminds of the rare situation mentioned in the introduction to the story of Jephthah that Israel no longer served other gods but returned YHWH (10:16). In his turn YHWH now also reacts positively.

Samson

435

The word ‫יד‬, “hand”, appears to be used here to underline the change in the situation of Samson (cf. Kim 1993, 296). Already in vv. 12–13 Samson is in danger to fall “in the hands of the Philistines”. In the next verses Samson is able to take away this threat. His hands cannot be bound (v. 14). He takes a jawbone in his hand (v. 15). After he has thrown away the jawbone from his hand (v. 17), he declares that YHWH has given the victory into his hand (v. 18a). However, now he is again in danger to fall into the hand of the Philistines (v. 18b). As with Gideon, YHWH answers his prayer and just as with Gideon he shows his powerful assistance by a water miracle (cf. 6:36–40). Instead of the name YHWH the text speaks of “God”. The same sequence is found in 13:8–9: Manoah prays to YHWH and God sends the messenger again. Also in the miracle story in 6:36–40 the word “God” is used. Because of the uncertain translation of ‫ ַמ ְכ ֵתּשׁ‬as either a geographical feature (a hollow in a rock) or part of the jawbone (a molar tooth), it is not exactly clear where the water comes from. In the translation given above it is assumed that ‫ ְל ִחי‬refers to the place and that God split the rock (cf. Isa. 48:21 with also the verb ‫ בקע‬and YHWH as subject). It is also possible that it refers to the jaw, which after functioning as a weapon now was turned into a drinking cup. This could be compared then to the phenomenon Samson had observed earlier: the lion who had first threatened to kill him had turned into a container of life giving honey. In the history of interpretation the second interpretation can be found in the old translations and, for instance, also in the famous painting by Reni showing Samson drinking from the jawbone (cf. Spronk 2014, 198). For the second time in this short story the importance of the event is emphasized by giving the place a special name relating it to what had happened there. This time it is not given by Samson but it is stated more generally, as is indicated by the addition “until this day” (cf. also the passive translation in the LXX and the Targum). This time the emphasis is not on Samson’s miraculous victory but on the fact that he realized that the support by YHWH is the decisive factor. The name “Source of the Caller” should remind future generations of the importance to turn to YHWH. It can be seen as the positive counterpart of the name given to the place of Bochim (2:1–5), explaining why the Israelites started weeping as they realized that they had forgotten YHWH. According to Polzin (1980, 190–191; cf. also Schipper 2003, 345, n.20) the text is deliberately ambiguous here, because it is not certain that the verb ‫ קרא‬refers to Samson “calling” to YHWH (“Crier’s Spring”). It can also refer to Samson “naming” the place after his victory over the Philistines (“Namer’s Spring”). However, within the stories of Samson as a whole the remark about the name fits best to the positive remarks about YHWH being in charge (cf. 14:4). In this way it emphasizes the importance

436

Judges13:1–16:31

of maintaining a good relation with YHWH. This will be demonstrated again at the end of the story, when Samson once more will call out to YHWH for help (16:28). The suggestion that the name originally meant “partridge spring”, relating it to ‫ק ֵֹרא‬, “partridge” (cf. Moore 1895, 347; Burney 1920, 375; Groß 2009, 708), is an unnecessary speculation. 15:20 

HejudgedIsraelinthedaysofthePhilistines,twentyyears.

In many ways this is a remarkable statement. It differs from related notes about the previous judges and saviours in the fact that Samson’s period of leadership is not placed after the defeat of the enemy but during the period of the dominance of the enemy. This is in line with the prediction made in 13:5 that Samson would (only) make a beginning with the deliverance from the Philistines. Another remarkable fact is that this note is repeated in 16:31. The verb used there indicates that it refers to the same period of twenty years. As was explained in the introduction to the exegesis, the note at the end of chapter 15 does not have to be explained as something the editor of the text overlooked and failed to skip when hen added an extra chapter. It can be compared to the repetition of the report in Josh. 24:29–31 of the death and burial of Joshua in Judg. 2:6–9. It signals that in chapter 16 the same period is described from a different angle. 16:1–3 1 2

3

SamsonwenttoGaza.Hesawthereawoman,aprostitute,andhe cametoher. TotheGazitesitwassaid:“Samsonhascomehere”.Theysurrounded andlayinambushforthewholenightatthegateofthecity.They keptstillthewholenight,saying:“Atthelightofthemorningweshall killhim”. Samsonlayuntilthemiddleofthenight.Hearoseinthemiddle of the night, seized the doors of the gate of the city and the two doorposts, pulled them up with the bolt and placed (them) on his shoulders.Hetookthemuptothetopofthemountainoveragainst thefaceofHebron.

The beginning of this new episode is described in telegram style. Translators feel forced to add words. In LXX (A) v. 1 is connected to the previous story with ἐκεῖθεν, “from there”. In the next verse all versions of the LXX add a verb in the beginning: καὶ ἀπηγγέλη, “and it was told” (cf. BHK and BHS

Samson

437

suggesting to insert ‫ וַ יֻּ גַּ ד‬before ‫;ל ַעזָּ ִתים‬ ֽ ַ BHQ, 96*, is more reluctant here). The reason for this remarkable short introduction can be found in the comparison with the related story in chapter 14. As was remarked in the introduction, the chapters 14–15 and 16 are built up in the same way. Both begin with Samson going to a Philistine town, where he sees a woman. In chapter 14 this is followed by a long story telling how Samson tried to make her his wife. When he, finally, thinks he can “come to her”, that is, have sex with her (15:1), he finds out that this has become impossible. In the present story Samson does not take the detour of a marriage arranged by his parents. He comes to her right away. The lapidary way of telling underlines the difference. Something similar can be said about Samson’s contact with the Philistines. This time there is no elaborate communication as there had been during the wedding. They come to the point, that is, the inevitable conflict, right away. The short story of Samson in Gaza also functions as an introduction to the more elaborate story about Samson and another woman, Delilah. This ends in the same Philistine city (16:21), which enhances the contrast between the present story about the strong Samson and the next story where Samson is weakened. The first ambush (v. 2) poses no problem to Samson, but the later ambushes (vv. 9, 12) eventually will. In Gaza Samson keeps his guard and does not sleep, in the next story he will fall asleep time and again indicating that he is totally off guard. Samson is not explicitly condemned for the fact that he visits a prostitute. It seems to be accepted as something normal, as with Jacob (Gen. 38:15–16), the two spies in Jericho (Josh. 2:1), and the father of Jephthah (Judg. 11:1). According to Wong (2006a, 232) “in trying to bring out Samson’s compulsive involvement with foreign women, the Gaza episode becomes critically important”. It would show the true nature of Samson who only wants quick sex and whose love for Delilah must also be questioned. In all this Samson would symbolize the people of Israel in their whoring after other gods. It is probably more to the point, however, to assume that this story was simply told to illustrate Samson’s superhuman power. It can be compared to the story about the foxes (15:4–5) in which also any reference to (the spirit of) YHWH is lacking. A returning theme is also that Samson’s actions against the Philistines are just his reaction to things happening to him and not – as one would expect of a true leader – a well-considered plan of delivering his people. The Gazites feel secure in their city. Its walls help them to surround Samson and its gate helps them to keep him trapped. They do not think it is necessary to use the advantage of surprise during the night. In their turn they are surprised by Samson who in the middle of the night, at the moment when they expect him to be sleeping, succeeds in escaping. This moment is emphasized by the double repetition of the reference to the night. It recalls

438

Judges13:1–16:31

the earlier actions during the night, in the stories of Gideon and Abimelech (6:27; 9:34), but also points forward to “the woman of the night”, Delilah. In that story the Philistines will also show that they have learned from their mistake: when they attempt to overcome Samson they now do it when he is sleeping. Samson leaves the city not through a window like the spies in Jericho (Josh. 2:15), but through the gate. He takes the gate doors with him, showing his strength and thus also showing the Philistines that they no longer can feel secure in their cities. The fact that Samson carries the doors of the gate towards the region of Hebron can be regarded as a prophecy. Hebron is the city where David will start his career as king of Israel (2 Sam. 2:11; 5:3) and David is the one who will bring the definitive deliverance from the Philistines, which had started with Samson (13:5). 16:4 

It happened afterward that he loved a woman in Nahal Sorek. HernamewasDelilah.

Delilah is the third woman with whom Samson starts a relation. This relation is described here as more affectionate than the previous two. Whereas in 14:1 and 16:1 it was indicated that he followed his eyes, he now seems to follow his heart. It is clear that going to a prostitute (16:1) is not a matter of love. With the woman from Timnah things were different. Twice Samson declares that she is “right” in his eyes (14:3, 7), but that is not the same as love. When the woman uses the word “love”, it is to put pressure on Samson (14:16). Delilah will do the same (16:15), but for the reader it is clear from the beginning that this is really a love story. The location of Nahal Sorek, “valley of grapes”, is not known. The fact that the Philistine leaders appear to have easy access there, suggests that it like Timnah and Gaza is part of the Philistine territory. The name also fits to the vineyards and the fields of grain mentioned in the previous stories, associating the Philistines with agricultural wealth. Delilah is the first woman in Samson’s story who is given a name next to Samson and Manoah. It is hard not to associate her name with ‫ליְ ָלה‬,ַ “night” (cf. Wietzke 1888, 45, and many others). It is probably also no coincidence that the word “night” was used four times in the previous story (cf. Crenshaw 1978, 19, who notes that the name Delilah makes “smooth transition between the two unrelated episodes”). It is also functional here as the opposite of the “sun” (‫)שׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ֶ in the name of Samson. Other associations are possible (cf. Segert 1984, 460; HAL, 213), explaining the name as “with dangling curls” (relating it to ‫דלל‬, “dangle”) or as “flirtatious” (relating it to Arabic dalla), but within the present context they are less likely.

Samson

439

16:5 

The princes of the Philistines came up to her and said to her: “Seducehimandseewherebyhispower(is)greatandwherebywe prevailoverhim,bindhimandsubduehim.Asforus,wewillgive you,(each)man,elevenhundred(piecesof)silver.

The Philistine leaders who visit Delilah are called ‫ס ֶרן‬, ֶ a name used in the Hebrew Bible for Philistines only. Their function can be compared to that of the elders in Israel (cf. Wagner 2008). We have to assume that they came to her the five of them, because they are usually related to the five cities of the Philistines (cf. Josh. 13:3). Their request to Delilah looks very much like the one by Samson’s companions to his bride. They ask her to seduce him and divulge his secret. This time it does not concern his wisdom but his power. This time they do not threaten the woman but convince her by offering an enormous amount of money. The total of 5500 shekels of silver is more than three times the weight of gold collected by Gideon (8:26) and 110 times the amount of money payed by David as the full price for a threshing floor and (probably) a pair of oxen (2 Sam. 24:24). This price on the head of Samson shows how much the Philistines had learned to fear him. They had also learned from the experience of the previous attempt to bind Samson (15:13–14). They realize that they have to find the source of his power before they can really bind him and subdue him. The latter term (‫ )ענה‬has the connotation of “inappropriate sexual dominance” (Sperling 2009, 88–89), which will become clear in v. 19. The same verb will be used again in 19:24 and 20:5 (just as in the stories of rape in Gen. 34:2 and 2 Sam. 13:14). 16:6–9 6 7 8 9

DelilahsaidtoSamson:“Tellmewhereby(is)yourpowergreatand wherebyyoushouldbeboundtosubdueyou”. Samsonsaidtoher:“Iftheybindmewithsevenfreshsinewsthat havenotbeendried,Iwouldbeweakandbelikeanyman”. TheprincesofthePhilistinesbroughtuptohersevenfreshsinews thathadnotbeendriedandsheboundhimwiththem. Withtheambushlaidoutwithherinthechamber,shesaidtohim: “Philistinesuponyou,Samson!”Hetoreapartthesinewsasistorn apartastringoftowwhenitsmellsfire.Hispowerwasnotunderstood.

In Delilah’s urgent question (indicated by the added ‫ )נׇ א‬the verb ‫ נגד‬hiphil, “to tell”, returns. It was a key word in the story about the riddle (14:2, 6, 9, 12–17, 19) and will take the same function here again (16:6, 10, 13, 15,

440

Judges13:1–16:31

17–18). In the story in chapter 14 Samson initially frankly told his parents about the woman he had seen and now wanted to marry. Gradually he had become more reluctant in telling what had happened to him and cherished his secrets. In chapter 16 things will go the other way around, ending with complete openness. The author presents this change of heart in a thrilling or – using a within this context more appropriate term – captivating story, in which Samson step by step comes closer to revealing the secret of his life which will also be the cause of his death. Delilah simply copies the two questions of the Philistines. Samson only answers the second. He keeps the source of his power a secret and gives a suggestion for binding him. This has the air of something magical, because fresh sinews are not the normal material for a rope. The association with animals is in line with the many references to animals in the previous scenes, especially Samson’s use of the “fresh” jawbone (15:15). Samson seems to sense that it is not only her own curiosity that motivates Delilah’s question. In his answer he speaks in the plural of people binding him, indicating that he realizes that her question has to do with his conflict with the Philistines who previously had tried to bind him (15:10). The author does not tell us how many people were waiting in ambush. The word ‫הא ֵֹרב‬, ָ “the one lying in ambush”, is singular, but the warning cry by Delilah suggests that more men are expected. The location of the bedchamber (cf. also 15:1), which is usually not so big, suggests that there may have been room for one spy only. The first test goes as expected. Samson tears the sinews. His strength is like burning fire. A similar comparison was made in describing the first failed attempt to bind Samson (15:14). Thus, the second question, about the way Samson should be bound, remains unanswered. An answer to the first question, about the source of his strength, is even more out of sight. The phrase ‫וְ לֹא‬ ‫נוֹדע כֹּחוֹ‬ ַ is often translated by adding a word: “So the secret of his strength was not known”. It has also been suggested that originally the verb was ‫ רעע‬nif.: “and his strength was not broken”, but it is probably best to assume an extension of the usual meaning of ‫ ידע‬niphal as “understood” (Emerton 1991, 160). 16:10–12 10 11 12

DelilahsaidtoSamson:“Look,youhavedeceivedmeandyouhave spokenliestome.Now,tellmewherebyyoushouldbebound”. Hesaidtoher:“Iftheysurelybindmewithnewropeswithwhich noworkhasbeendone,Iwouldbeweakandbelikeanyman”. Delilah took new ropes, bound him with them and said to him: “Philistines upon you, Samson!”, with the ambush laid out in the chamber.Hetorethemapartfromoffhisarmslikeathread.

Samson

441

Delilah makes things more personal by blaming Samson that he has offended her by telling her lies. She is starting to take things in her own hands (cf. Bader 1991, 369–370). She does not need the Philistines any more. She takes the ropes herself this time (v. 12) and the ambush is no longer presented as something related to her (note the difference between vv. 9 and 12). Samson pretends to be more sincere by the emphasis on his words, repeating the verb ‫אסר‬, “to bind” (v. 11). The second experiment is in fact a repetition of the first attempt to bind Samson at Lehi. Only the comparison used in the description is different. 16:13–14 13

14

DelilahsaidtoSamson:“Untilnowyouhavedeceivedmeandyou havetoldmelies.Tellmewherebyyoushouldbebound”.Hesaidto her:“Ifyouweavethesevenlocksofmyheadinawarp”. Shedrove(them)withapeginthewall.Shesaidtohim:“Philistines uponyou,Samson!”Heawokefromhissleep,pulledoutthepeg, theloomandthewarp.

Many scholars assume that parts of the original Hebrew text were lost through homoioteleuton/homoioarcton between ‫מ ֶסּ ֶכת‬, ַ “warp”, at the end of v. 13 and the middle of v. 14 (cf. O’Connell 1996, 474; BHQ, 96–97*). The text is restored according to the LXX (B) with the additions between square brackets: He said to her: “If you weave the seven locks of my head in a warp [and drive them with a peg into the wall, I would be weak and be like any man.]” 14 [It happened that when he went to sleep, Delilah took the seven locks of his head, wove them in a warp,] and drove (them) with a peg in the wall.

It cannot be excluded, however, that the scribe deliberately shortened the text, because any reader would understand what was going to happen after Samson’s hint concerning his hear (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 36; Bader 1994; Groß 2009, 720f.). It would be another example of the lapidary style we encountered at the beginning of the chapter. It would also enhance the tension in the story and pictures Delilah as someone who cannot wait to follow Samson’s suggestion, as she senses that Samson is close to revealing his secret. Be this as it may, for the reader it is clear that Samson by bringing his hair into play moves himself in a very dangerous situation (see on the seven locks the remarks on v. 17). This is furthered by the reference to a peg being driven in and to Samson falling asleep, which both remind of the way Sisera found his demise by the hand of a woman (4:21). Unlike Sisera, Samson gets a chance to escape when Delilah wakes him up.

442

Judges13:1–16:31

As was already noted with regard to the previous scene, the role of the Philistines is fading. Any reference to them lying in ambush or handing over the necessary material is now missing. Delilah is acting on her own. The phrase ‫יְתד ָה ֶא ֶרג‬ ַ ‫ ַה‬is problematic both lexically and grammatically. The word ‫ ֶא ֶרג‬is used only here and in Job 7:6 and is difficult to translate. It probably refers to a loom or a part of it. The first word can more easily be translated as “peg”, but has the problem that it is determined both by the construct state and by the article. In the ancient versions and in the commentaries these problems are solved in many ways, without reaching a convincing solution (cf. Groß 2009, 718–720). Therefore, it is probably best to retain the MT. It can be interpreted as an unusual construct state (cf. GK § 127g for other examples). It is also possible that the second word was meant as specification of the first. 16:15–17 15

16

17

Shesaidtohim:“Howcanyousay:‘Iloveyou’andyourheartis notwithme?Threetimesnowyouhavedeceivedmeandnottold mewherebyyourpower(is)great”. It happened because she had pressed him with her words all the daysandimportunedhimthathissoulbecameimpatientuntothe death. Hetoldherallhisheart.Hesaidtoher:“Arazorhasnotbeenupon my head, because I have been consecrated to the deity from the wombofmymother.IfIamshavenmypowerwillturnawayfrom me,Iwillbeweakandbelikeeveryman”.

As was already clear by the diminishing role of the Philistines in the previous scenes, Delilah is taking the quest more and more personal. Like Samson’s bride she casts doubt on his love for her (cf. 14:16). She now also comes to the point and returns to the real question about the source of his strength. Samson gives in, just as he had done during the wedding. The parallel is indicated by the repetition of the verb ‫צוק‬, “to press” (cf. 14:17) and by the reference to the long time Samson had to endure her pressure (“all the days” like the seven days in 14:17). Samson’s reaction looks like the way YHWH reacted to the Israelites in 10:16 (“his soul became impatient”), but even more like his despair in 15:18 when he feared to die of thirst. Samson counters the reproach that his heart would not be with her by “telling her all his heart”. He tells her the secret he shared with his mother, using exactly the same words spoken by the messenger of YHWH to his mother (13:5). The way how at this “moment suprême” the different elements

Samson

443

of the story come together illustrate “the writer’s exquisite control over the minute verbal means of the narrative” (Alter 1990, 54). Samson adds to the words of the messenger a reference to his mother and also a useful instruction about the best way to take his strength from him. For the third time he speaks of becoming weak like any man. In vv. 7 and 11 he spoke of “one man” (‫)כּ ַא ַחד ָה ָא ָדם‬, ְ this time of “every man” (‫ל־ה ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫)כּ ָכ‬. ְ This is the first time in the story where Samson’s strength is explicitly related to his hair. In the history of interpretation there is much discussion about the parallels of this phenomenon in other cultures, sometimes also related to the seven locks mentioned in vv. 13 and 19. The concept of a man’s strength residing in the hair and losing it when the hair is cut, is often found in Greek mythology (cf. Gaster 1969, 438–439; Margalith 1986a, 232–233; Witte 2000, 540). A close parallel is found in the story of Nisus, king of Megara, who had a lock of purple hair that granted him invincibility. This lock was cut off by his daughter, who had fallen in love with the enemy. This killed Nisus. (The story can be found with Aeschylus, TheLibation Bearers, 612ff.; Apollodorus, Library,3.15.8; and Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8. 44ff.). In Mesopotamian iconography many examples are found of the hero with six or eight curls (cf., for instance, the colossal human figure with long hair extending in ringlets to his shoulders in ANEP,615, with a description on p. 323). According to Mayer-Opificius (1982) the way Samson is pictured in the book of Judges goes back to related traditions. Wenning & Zenger (1982) suggest that the number of his locks was changed to seven as part of a Yahwistic adaptation of these traditions. However, the parallel with the ancient Near Eastern six-locked heroes remains superficial, because there is no clear connection between hair and power (cf. Groß 2009, 737). Then there is also the difference in number. As was indicated in the remarks to 14:14– 17, the use of the number seven can very well be explained as element in the structure of the story. 16:18–20 18

19

20

Delilahsawthathehadtoldallhisheart.Shesentandcalledthe princesofthePhilistines,saying:“Comeupthistime,becausehe has told me all that is in his heart. The princes of the Philistines wentuptoherandbroughtthesilverintheirhand. Shelethimfallasleeponherknees,calledtheman,shavedtheseven locksofhisheadandbegantosubduehim.Hispowerturnedaway fromhim. Shesaid:“Philistinesoveryou,Samson!”Heawokefromhissleep and said: “I will go out as other times and shake myself (free)”. HedidnotknowthatYHWHhadturnedawayfromhim.

444

Judges13:1–16:31

A second and a third time it is noted that Samson “had told all his heart”, first as something noticed by Delilah, who then reports it to her employers. In the translation we follow with all versions the qere (“to me”), because the ketib (“to her”) seems to be a mistake. The Philistines who had left the stage in the previous scene now return, together with the reward. They are invited by Delilah who knows for sure that Samson has spoken the truth. The perfect ‫ וְ ָעלוּ‬seems to be irregular here and is usually replaced here by an imperfectumconsecutivum (cf. BHQ, 97*), but it can be explained as influenced by the imperfectum consecutivum of the same verb ‫( עלה‬now in hiphil) in the same line (cf. Van Daalen 1966, 37). That Samson falls asleep on her knees can be interpreted as indication that Delilah had mothered him (cf. 2 Kgs 4:20; Isa. 66:12; cf. Nelson 2017, 269), like Jael had treated Sisera like her child (4:19). This correspondence with especially 5:27 was probably also in the mind of the Greek translator responsible for LXX (A) who added the detail that he was lulled to sleep “between her knees” (cf. Galpaz-Feller 2006b, 175). It is also possible, however, and in the context of this love affair even more likely to think here of sleep postcoitum. To this can be added that the Hebrew word for “knees” can also be used as an euphemism for the lower part of the body, including the genital parts (cf. Job 3:12). As was remarked above on v. 5, the verb ‫ענה‬, “to subdue”, can also have sexual connotations. There is much discussion about the question whether Delilah cut Samson’s hair herself or whether she had a man execute the job. In the history of interpretation of this popular scene both interpretations are found (cf. Houtman 2014, 72–84; Léglu 2018, 12–15). The Hebrew seems to indicate that it was Delilah, although it is not impossible to translate ‫ וַ ְתּגַ ַלּח‬with “she had him shaved” (cf. Houtman 2014, 67–70; O’Connell 1996, 474, and Block 1999, 460, n. 418, suggest revocalizing it to ‫וַ ַתּגְ ַלּח‬, changing it into a hiphil form). That would explain the presence of the man called by Delilah. LXX (A) solves the problem by translating “she called a barber and he shaved off …” LXX (B) leaves out the explicit reference to a barber but also makes a man do the shaving. Some commentators propose to emend the Hebrew accordingly and change the verb into a masculine form (cf. Moore 1895, 356; Burney 1970, 383). Sasson (1988, 338) suggests that Delilah did not call someone from outside. She would have shouted at Samson to be certain that he was fast asleep before she dared to start cutting his hair. Delmaire (2004) suggest that the man was called up as a witness, to make sure that Delilah had told the truth. The most likely interpretation is that Delilah called the man to hand her the razor and then cut Samson’s hair with her own hand (cf. Boling 1975, 246). In this way Delilah “begins to subdue” Samson. The words used here clearly have a special meaning. “To begin” is reminiscent of the promise by

Samson

445

the messenger of YHWH that Samson would “begin to deliver” the Israelites (13:5) and of the moment the spirit of YHWH “began to stir him” (13:25). Now the loss of his secret seems to signal the beginning of his downfall. Fortunately, there will also be a reversal in Samson’s life, when his hair will “begin to grow” again (v. 22). The verb “to subdue” was also used by the Philistines when they gave their task to Delilah. It means that they wanted more than just capture Samson. Delilah makes a good start. Already the cutting of the hair is humiliating (cf. Nelson 2017, 270, referring to 2 Sam. 10:4; Isa. 7:20), even more so when it is done by the woman who spurned his love. This makes Samson sink even deeper than Sisera or Abimelech. When Samson awakes he realizes that he is betrayed. It is formulated negatively: “he did not know that YHWH had turned away from him” (v. 20). After vv. 17 and 19 this is the third time the verb ‫סור‬, “to turn aside”, is used; first by Samson indicating how his strength might leave him, the second time when this happens, and now it indicates that the real source of this strength was the support by YHWH. This is something Samson still has to learn. To know (‫ )ידע‬the ways of YHWH is a returning topic in this story. It took Manoah a long time before he knew that he was dealing with a messenger of YHWH (13:21). Samson’s parents did not know YHWH’s plan (14:4) and now Samson also proves to be ignorant in this matter. 16:21–22 21

22

ThePhilistinesheldhimdownandgougedouthiseyes.Theybrought himdowntoGazaandboundhimintwobronzefetters.Heusedto grindatthemillintheprisonhouse. Thehairofhisheadbegantogrowafterithadbeenshaven.

In Hebrew the name of the Philistines is usually found without the article, but we still have to translate here “the” Philistines (cf. JM § 137c). The way their action is formulated leaves room for different interpretations. When the verb ‫ אחז‬is used with ‫ את‬it means “they captured him”, and with the preposition ‫“ ב‬they held him down”. In v. 21 the pronominal object is attached directly to the verb, which leaves room for ambiguity (cf. JM § 125bc). The second interpretation seems to suit the situation best, as is well illustrated in the famous painting of this scene by Rembrandt (who also suggests that it was Delilah who cut Samson’s hair). Samson suffers the same fate as Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, who was also blinded, bound in bronze fetters and brought to the city of his opponents, in his case the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kgs 25:7, which uses the same words). In this way Samson’s life mirrors the whole period of the kings of Israel and

446

Judges13:1–16:31

Judah. In his birth and dedication to YHWH he is like Samuel. Being driven by the spirit of YHWH he acts like the first king, Saul. His death foreshadows the sorry fate of the last king. As was noted in “Essentials and Perspectives” above, the fact that they take his eyesight is interpreted in rabbinic literature as punishment for simply following his eyes (cf. 14:1; 16:1). It is also in line with the use of the verb “to see” as a key word in chapters 13–16 (see the remarks on 13:19). There is a contrast with his name, which is related to the sun, and a parallel with the name of Delilah, which can be related to the night. They take Samson to Gaza, to the city he had left some time earlier taking the doors of the gate with him (v. 3). His return at the same place emphasizes how much things have changed. Samson is forced to grind flower. The participle used indicates that it is something he has to do continuously (cf. JM § 121f). It is a common treatment of prisoners of war in ancient Greece and Rome (cf. Moore 1895, 357) and Mesopotamia (cf. Van der Toorn 1986). It is humiliating because it is associated with the work of slaves (cf. Exod. 11:3). To this should be added the aspect that it also seen as woman’s work (cf. Hasegawa 2012). This fits well not only to the story of Samson, who is defeated by a woman, but also to the book of Judges as a whole. Time and again women have to show men the way or stop them on their wrong ways. A close parallel is the story of Abimelech killed by a woman with a millstone. As was remarked on 9:53 this was not a heavy millstone but a relatively small domestic tool. It is only natural that hair continues to grow after it has been cut or shaven. In this case, however, this seemingly superfluous remark has a deeper meaning. Especially the use of the verb “to begin” is telling, because it reminds of 13:5, 25; 16:19 and thus raises expectations. 16:23–24 23

24

TheprincesofthePhilistineshadgatheredtoofferagreatsacrifice toDagontheirgodandtorejoice.Theysaid:“Ourgodhasgivenin ourhandSamsonourenemy”. The people saw him and they praised their god, yes, they said: “Our god has given in our hand our enemy, the destroyer of our land,whomademanyourslain”.

The Philistines show more religious sensitivity than Samson. The first thing they do after their victory over Samson is to thank their god. It had taken Samson more time to acknowledge the decisive role of YHWH in his previous successes. The god Dagon is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible only here and in the story about the ark in 1 Sam. 5, which speaks of a temple of Dagon in

Samson

447

Ashdod (also mentioned in 1 Macc. 10:83–84). Whether the scenes described in Judg. 16 also take place in a temple, remains unclear. In extra-biblical sources Dagon is often mentioned as an important Canaanite god (cf. Healey, DDD, 216–219). We do not get further details here about Dagon. The emphasis is on his worshippers, their happiness and the way they feel united in their victory over their enemy. This is well rendered by the rhyming victory cry, launched by the leaders and taken over and expanded by the people. The reader gets an image of the masses continuously chanting these slogans. Next to the repeated first person plural pronoun (sounding enu in Hebrew) there is also alliteration with the r- and b- sound in the words ‫מ ֲח ִריב‬, ַ “destroyer”, and ‫ה ְר ָבּה‬, ִ “made many” in v. 24. Samson appears to be not the only one in this story who can play with words. As was remarked a number of times before, the verb “to see” functions as a key word in this story. It underlines the change or roles. Whereas it was first primarily said of Samson (14:1, 2, 8; 16:1), the Philistines are gradually taking over (14:11; 16:5, 24, 27). 16:25–27 25

26 27

Ithappenedwhentheirheartwasgoodthattheysaid:“CallSamson andheshallamuseus”.TheycalledSamsonfromtheprisonhouse andheamusedthem.Theyplacedhimbetweenthepillars. Samsonsaidtotheboywhoheldhishand:“Letmerestandfeelthe pillarsonwhichthehouseisstandingandIwillleanagainstthem. Thehousewasfilledwithmenandwomen.Therewerealltheprinces of the Philistines. Upon the roof about three thousand, man and woman.TheywerelookingatSamsonamusing(them).

With the Masoretes (qere) we read ‫כּטוֹב‬, ְ “when …” instead of ‫כּי טוֹב‬, ִ “because (their heart) was good”. The phrase returns (with the verb ‫ )יטב‬in 18:20; 19:6, 9 and indicates that they are in good spirits, probably after drinking (cf. 1 Sam. 25:36; 2 Sam. 13:28; Est. 1:10). The situation can be compared to Samson’s wedding. On that occasion Samson’s attempt to amuse his guests with a riddle ended with the death of thirty Philistines. This time the forced amusement by Samson will lead to its hundredfold. LXX (A) translates ἐνέπαιζον αὐτῷ, “they mocked him”. LXX (B) has ἔπαιζεν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν καὶ ἐρράπιζον αὐτὸν, “he played for them and they beat him”. This makes Samson look more like a martyr. The translation may have been influenced here by the cultural background of the translators who were familiar with this form of torture by the Seleucids (cf. Fernández Marcos 2014, 97). For the Philistines it was amusing that the once mighty Samson is now led by a boy. This will remind the reader

448

Judges13:1–16:31

of the boy accompanying Gideon (7:10–11), or his son who did not dare to kill the prisoners, “because he was only a boy” (8:20), or the boy killing Abimelech, who was not able to kill himself (9:54). In all these stories the boy symbolizes weakness. This is underlined by the use of the verb ‫ חזק‬hiphil in the phrase “who held his hand”. It literally means “to strengthen” and will be used again in v. 28. The precise interpretation of ‫ימ ֵשׁנִ י‬ ִ ‫( וַ ֵה‬qere ‫ וַ ֲה ִמ ֵשׁנִ י‬from ‫ )מושׁ‬is a matter of dispute. BHKand BHSsuggest to read ‫ וַ ֲה ִמ ֵשּׁנִ י‬from ‫משׁשׁ‬. In both cases it can be translated as “to feel”. Also the function and form of the building remains uncertain. The praise given to Dagon there suggests that it is a temple, but according to some scholars it looks more like a big reception hall (cf. Groß 2009, 728: “Festhalle”) than a temple. The two pillars remind of the temple of Solomon with its two pillars named Jachin and Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21). Together with the fact that Samson is pictured like king Zedekiah this also recalls the moment when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. In the report about this destruction much attention is paid to the two pillars (2 Kgs 25:16–17). When the story of Samson is read as foreshadowing the fate of Zedekiah, this “battle of the temples” (Van Wieringen 2007, 298) contains the hopeful message that even supreme powerful enemies and their gods cannot hold out against YHWH. In older commentaries it is suggested that the references to the princes and the three thousand men and women on the roof are a later scribal addition (cf. Moore 1895, 361–362; and also BHKand BHS). This would explain the place in the present text of the participle + article ‫הר ִֹאים‬, ָ “those who were seeing”, which should be related to the men and women mentioned at the beginning of the verse. The uncommon grammatical construction can also be explained, however, as a way to emphasize the final remark about the activity of the spectators, using the key word “to see” to point to the reversal of the roles: they are looking at Samson who can no longer follow his eyes. Three thousand is the culmination of the series of numbers, mostly in triplicate, in this story: thirty Philistines, killed by Samson for their clothes (14:19), three hundred foxes, used by Samson to destroy the fields of grain (15:4), and thousand Philistines killed by Samson at Lehi (15:15). Other versions of the story give different numbers in this verse; LXX (B): “about seven hundred”, L.A.B.43.8: forty thousand. The second time the text speaks of Samson “amusing” the Philistines the author uses another verb: ‫ שׂחק‬instead of ‫ צחק‬in v. 25. This could be a pun by the author who calls up the association with the verb ‫שׁחק‬, “to crush” (cf. 2 Sam. 22:43), pointing forward to where this amusing will take them. As with the shibboleth/sibbolet story in chapter 12 this is a matter of different /s/-sounds (cf. Halton 2009).

Samson

449

16:28–30 28

29

30

SamsoncalledtoYHWHandsaid:“MylordYHWH,rememberme, makemestrongonlythistime,God.ThatImaytakerevenge,one revengeformytwoeyesfrom(the)Philistines”. Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house was foundedandhepushedagainstthem,onewithhisrighthandand onewithhislefthand. Samsonsaid:“Letmysouldiewith(the)Philistines”.Hestretched with power and the house fell down on the princes and on all the peoplewhowereinit.Thedeadwhosedeathhehadcausedwithhis deathweremorethanthosewhosedeathhehadcausedinhislife.

The story takes a turn when Samson turns himself to YHWH. This can be compared to what happened after the fight at Lehi when Samson was starving from thirst (15:18): “In this first prayer to God, Samson asked for his life and he was revived. By contrast, his second prayer asked for his death and his wish was granted” (Bar 2018, 119). Samson uses many names. Whereas in 15:18 Samson had not called YHWH by his name, this time he not only addresses him as ‫אד ֹנָ י יהוה‬, ֲ “my lord YHWH”, but also as “God”. The final reference to God is missing in LXX (A) and it is suggested that it is a gloss in the MT (BHQ, 99*). It is more likely, however, that a Greek translator left out the word, because he considered it as superfluous. Samson also expresses his wish with many words, repeating the words for revenge. He was motivated by feelings of revenge before (cf. 15:7). This brings to mind that on that occasion he had declared: “I will not cease until I have avenged myself upon you”. This can be interpreted now as a prediction which is about to be fulfilled. In the history of interpretation Samson is praised, especially in rabbinic literature (cf. Cohen 2008), as a martyr who gave his life for his fellow countrymen. In the text, however, the emphasis is on his personal conflicts. With regard to his relation to YHWH the text is more positive. In 15:19 it is told that YHWH acted answering his prayer. This time there is no explicit reference to YHWH acting, nor to his spirit coming over Samson. However, when Samson takes action it is also clear that the return of his power is a sign that he found the support of YHWH again. In v. 19 it was told that his power had turned away from him and in the next verse this was explained as YHWH turning away. Now his power has returned, this must also be the work of YHWH. The number of dead is not mentioned, but the number of references to death in this verse is overwhelming. No less than four times the word is used. The phrase “the dead whose death he had caused with his death” is

450

Judges13:1–16:31

reminiscent of the way the word for “(making) king” was used in the story of Abimelech (9:6). With Abimelech Samson also shares the fact that he ends his life himself, just as they both were supported by a boy at the end of their lives. The basic difference is that Samson turned to YHWH (cf. Galpaz-Feller 2006, 324). 16:31 

Hisbrothersandallofthehouseofhisfatherwentdown.Theylifted himup,broughthimupandburiedhimbetweenZorahandEshtaolin thegraveofManoahhisfather.HehadjudgedIsraelfortwentyyears.

The burial notice resembles those of the “minor judges” and Jephthah (cf. 10:2, 5; 12:7, 10, 12, 15) but is also more detailed. For the first time we hear of his brothers. Apparently, their relation was better than the relation between Abimelech and Jephthah and their brothers. The short description of their action is in the style of the author: with three consecutive verbs: “they lifted him up, brought him up and buried him” (cf. 4:21, 22, 27; 6:2–4). By referring to Zorah and Eshtaol and to Manoah, the end of the story is reminiscent of its beginning. There is a clear contrast with the childlessness of the beginning. The situation with regard to the Philistines, however, has not really changed. Two times it is told now that Samson had judged for twenty years (cf. 15:20). The story of Samson’s leadership has been told in two more or less parallel stories with changing success (chapters 14-15 and chapter 16). In the history of interpretation there is much discussion about the question how Samson should be judged. The text seems to be deliberately ambiguous in this regard, but it also lays down one criterion for determining good leadership: a good relation with YHWH (cf. Spronk 2018). In a number of ancient Greek, Syriac and Latin manuscripts the story of Shamgar (3:31) is placed after 16:31. See for a discussion defending the MT (with BHQ, 99*) the commentary on 3:31.

JUDGES 17:1–18:31

THE DANITES

TRANSLATION 17:1 2

3

4

5 6 7 8

9

10

11 12 13

TherewasamanfrommountEphraim.HisnamewasMicaiah. Hesaidtohismother:“Theelevenhundred(piecesof)silverthat weretakenfromyou–youutteredacurseandalsosaid(it)inmy ears–look,thesilver(is)withme.Ihavetakenit”.Hismothersaid: “BlessedismysonbyYHWH”. He returned the eleven hundred (pieces of) silver to his mother. Hismothersaid:“IhavesurelyconsecratedthesilvertoYHWHfrom myhandformysontomakeanidolandcastimage.NowIreturn ittoyou”. Hereturnedthesilvertohismotherandhismothertooktwohundred (piecesof)silverandgaveittothesmelter.Hemadeitintoanidol andcastimage.ItwasinthehouseofMicaiah. ThemanMicahhadahouseofgod.Hemadeanephodandteraphim. Hefilledthehandofoneofhissonsandhewasforhimapriest. InthosedaystherewasnokinginIsrael.Amandidwhatwasright inhiseyes. TherewasaboyfromBethlehemofJudah,fromtheclanofJudah. He(was)aLeviteandhewassojourningthere. The man went from the city, from Bethlehem of Judah to sojourn whereverhefound(aplace).HecametomountEphraim,tothehouse ofMicah,tomakehisway. Micahsaidtohim:“Fromwherehaveyoucome?”Hesaidtohim: “ALevite(am)I,fromBethlehemofJudah.Iamgoingtosojourn whereverIfind(aplace). Micahsaidtohim:“Staywithmeandbeformeafatherandapriest andIwillgiveyouten(piecesof)silverperyear,asetofclothingand yourboard”.TheLevitewent. TheLeviteagreedtostaywiththeman.Theboywasforhimasone ofhissons. MicahfilledthehandoftheLeviteandtheboywasforhimapriest. HewasinthehouseofMicah. Micahsaid:“NowIknowthatYHWHwilldogoodtome,because theLevitehasbecomeapriestforme”.

452 18:1

2

3

4 5 6 7

8 9

10

11 12

13 14

Judges17:1–18:31 InthosedaystherewasnokinginIsraelandinthosedaysthetribe oftheDaniteswasseekingforitselfaninheritancetosettlein,because untilthatdaynonehadfallentoitinthemidstofthetribesofIsrael asinheritance. ThechildrenofDansentfromtheirclanfivemen,outoftheirtotality, powerfulmenfromZorahandfromEshtaol,tospyoutthelandand toexploreit.Theysaidtothem:“Go,exploretheland”.Theycame tomountEphraim,tothehouseofMicahandspentthenightthere. BeingnearthehouseofMicah,theyrecognizedthevoiceoftheboy, theLevite.Theyturnedasidethereandsaidtohim:“Whobrought you here? What are you doing in this (place)? What do you have here?” He said to them: “Like this and like that Micah has done to me. HehiredmeandIhavebecomeapriestforhim”. Theysaidtohim:“InquireofGodthatwemayknowwhetherour wayonwhichwearegoingwillprosper”. Thepriestsaidtothem:“Goinpeace.BeforeYHWHisyourway onwhichyouaregoing”. ThefivemenwentandcametoLaish.Theysawthepeopleinitsmidst, settlinginsecurityinthemanneroftheSidonians,quietandsecure, no one was humiliating something in the land taking possession violently.TheywerefarfromtheSidoniansandhadnodealingswith anyone. TheycametotheirbrothersinZorahandEshtaolandtheirbrothers saidtothem:“What(do)you(think)?” Theysaid:“Ariseandletusgoupagainstthem,becausewehave seentheland.Look,itisverygood.Youaresilent.Donotbesluggish togo,tocomeandtakepossessionoftheland. Whenyoucomethere,youwillcometoapeople(thatfeels)secure andthelandisspacious.Yes,Godhasgivenitinyourhands.Aplace wherethereisnolackofallthethingsonearth”. Theymarchedfromthere,fromtheclanoftheDanitesfromZorah andfromEshtaolsixhundredmen,girdedwithbattlegear. They went up and encamped at Kiriath-Jearim in Judah. Therefore they call that place Mahaneh-Dan until this day. Look, it is behind Kiriath-Jearim. TheypassedfromtheremountEphraimandtheycametothehouse ofMicah. ThefivemenwhohadgonetospythelandofLaishspokeupand saidtotheirbrothers:“Doyouknowthatinthesehousesthereare anephod,teraphim,carvedandmoltenimages?Now,youknowwhat mustdo”.

TheDanites 15 16 17

18

19

20

21 22

23

24

25

26 27

28

29

453

Theyturnedasidethereandcametothehouseoftheboy,theLevite, thehouseofMicah.Theyaskedhimafterhiswelfare. Sixhundredmengirdedwiththeirbattlegearhadstationedthemselves attheentranceofthegate.TheywerefromthechildrenofDan. Thefivemenwhohadgonetospythelandwentup,camehereand took the carved image, the ephod, the teraphim, and the molten image.Thepriesthadstationedhimselfattheentranceofthegate (with)thesixhundredmengirdedwithbattlegear. WhenthesehadcometothehouseofMicahandhadtakenthecarved image,theephod,theteraphim,andthemoltenimage,thepriestsaid tothem:“Whatareyoudoing?” Theysaidtohim:“Bequiet,putyourhandoveryourmouth,gowith usandbefatherandpriestforus.Isitbetterforyoutobepriestfor thehouseofonemanortobepriestforatribeandclaninIsrael?” (To) the heart of the priest (it felt) good and he took the ephod, theteraphim,andthecarvedimageandhecameinthemidstofthe people. They turned and went and they put the small children, the cattle, andthevaluablepropertyinfrontofthem. They had gone far from the house of Micah, when the men who wereinthehousesthatwerebythehouseofMicahwereassembled. TheyovertookthechildrenofDan. They called out to the children of Dan. They turned their faces andsaidtoMicah:“What(isthematter)withyouthatyouhave assembled(them)?” Hesaid:“Mygod,thatIhavemade,youhavetakenandthepriest andyouhavegoneoff.What(else)doIhaveandwhatisthisthat yousaytome:what(isthematter)withyou?” ThechildrenofDansaidtohim:“Donotmakeyourvoiceheard amongus,lestmenbitterofsoulattackyou.Thenyouhavetogather yoursoulandthesoulofyourhouse”. ThechildrenofDanwentontheirway.Micahsawthattheywere strongerthanheandheturnedandwentbacktohishouse. TheytookwhatMicahhadmadeandthepriestthathehad.Theycame toLaish,toapeoplequietandsecureandtheystruckthemwiththe mouthoftheswordandburnedthecitywithfire. Therewasnosaviour,becauseitwasfarfromSidonandtheyhadno dealingswithanyone.ItwasinthevalleyofBeth-Rehob.They(re)built thecityandtheysettledinit. TheycalledthenameofthecityDanafterthenameofDan,their father,whohadbeenborntoIsrael.However,Laish(was)thename ofcityatfirst.

454 30

31

Judges17:1–18:31 ThechildrenofDanerectedthecarvedimageforthemselves.Jonathan, thesonofGershom,thesonofMoses/Manasseh,heandhissonswere priestsforthetribeofDanuntilthedayoftheexileoftheland. TheysetupforthemselvesthecarvedimageofMicah,whichhehad made,allthedaysthatthehouseofGodwasatShiloh. ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Y. Amit, “Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges XVII–XVIII”, VT 40 (1990), 4–20; idem, HiddenPolemicsinBiblicalNarrative (Biblical Interpretation Series 25), Leiden 2000; U.F.W. Bauer, “Eine synchrone Lesart von Ri 18,13-18”, in: E. Talstra etal. (eds), NarrativeandComment:ContributionstoDiscourseGrammar and Biblical Hebrew (Fs Schneider), Amsterdam 1995, 53–63; idem,‘Warum nurübertretetihrSEINGeheiß!’:EineSynchroneExegesederAnti-Erzählungvon Richter17–18, Frankfurt 1998; idem, “Judges 18 as an Anti-Spy Story in the Context of an Anti-Conquest Story: The Creative Usage of Literary Genres”, JSOT88(2000), 37–47; idem, “Eine metaphorische Ätiologie in Richter 18:12”, in J. Dyk et al. (eds), UnlessSomeOneGuideMe...(Fs Deurloo, ACEBTSup 2), Maastricht 2001, 107–113 (ET: “A Metaphorical Etiology in Judges 18:12”, JHS3, art. 5 [2001]); idem, “Richteren 17–18 als ‘anti-verhaal’ van teksten uit Genesis – 2 Koningen”, ACEBT 19 (2001), 139–157; C.T. Begg, “Judges 17–18 as Retold in the Biblical Antiquities of the pseudo-Philo: What Might It Tell Us About his Approach to the Bible?”, in: E. Tigchelaar (ed.), OldTestamentPseudepigraphaandtheScriptures (BETL 270), Louvain 2014, 173–182; D.J.H. Beldman, TheCompletionofJudges: StrategiesofEndinginJudges17–21, Winona Lake 2017a; J.S. Bray, SacredDan: ReligiousTraditionandCulticPracticeinJudges17–18, New York 2006;B.D. Cox, S. Ackerman, “Micah’s Teraphim”, JHS 12, art. 11 (2012); D.R. Davis, “Comic Literature – Tragic Theology: A Study of Judges 17–18”, WThJ 46 (1984), 156– 163; C.A. Faraone etal., “Micah’s Mother (Judg. 17:1– 4) and a Curse from Carthage (KAI 89): Canaanite Precedents for Greek and Latin Curses against Thieves?”, JNES 64 (2005), 161–186; L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’s Portrayal (Antiquities 5.136– 174) of the Benjaminite Affair of the Concubine and its Repercussions (Judges 19– 21)”, JQR90 (1999–2000), 255–292 (reprinted in JudaismandHellenismReconsidered[JSJ Sup 107], Leiden 2006, 637–675); A. Fernández, “El santuario de Dan: Estudio critic-exegetico sobre Jud. 17–18”, Bib15 (1934), 237–264; I. Finkelstein et al., “Excavations at Kiriath-jearim near Jerusalem, 2017: preliminary report”, Sem60 (2018), 31–83; W.S. Fox, “Old Testament Parallels to TabellaiDefixionum”, AJSL30 (1913–1914), 111–124; S. Frolov, “ ‘Days of Shiloh’ in the Kingdom of Israel”, Bib76 (1995), 210–218; J.G. Gager, CurseTabletsandBindingSpellsfrom theAncientWorld, New York 1992; S. Gillmayr-Bucher, “Images of Tranquility in the Book of Judges”, in: I.D. Wilson, D.V. Edelman (eds), History,Memory,Hebrew Scriptures(Fs Ben Zvi), Winona Lake 2015, 35–48; M.D. Goulder, ThePsalmsof theSonsofKorah(JSOT Sup 20), Sheffield 1983; F.E. Greenspahn, “An Egyptian Parallel to Judg 17.6 and 21.25”, JBL101 (1982), 129–130; W. Groß, “Michas überfüllte Hauskapelle. Bemerkungen zu Ri 17+18”, in: W. Groß, E. Gaß, Studienzum RichterbuchundseinenVölkernamen, Stuttgart 2012, 72–88; J. Halévy, “Recherches Bibliques XXI: L’histoire de Michée”, REJ 21 (1890), 207–217; M. Haran, Temples andTemple-ServiceinAncientIsrael, Oxford 1978; J. Harvey, “The Structure of

TheDanites

455

the Deuteronomistic History”, SJOT20 (2006), 237–258; N. Hays, “Family Disintegration in Judges 17–18”, CBQ 80 (2018), 373–392; J.H. Hutton, “Levitical Aspirations and Saintly Foundation Stories in Judges 17–18”, in: J. Aviram et al. (eds), LawrenceE.StagerVolume(Eretz Israel 33), Jerusalem 2018, 98*–108*; D. Johnston, “Setting the Book of Ruth in its Literary Contact with Special Reference to the Epilogue of the Book of Judges”, IrishBiblicalStudies27 (2009), 156–162; R. Jost, “Die Fluch der Mutter: Feministischsozialgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu Ri 17,1– 6”, in: U. Bail (ed.), GottandenRändern:SozialgeschichtlichePerspektivenauf dieBibel(Fs Schottroff), Gütersloh 1996, 17–23; M. Leuchter, “ ‘Now There Was a [Certain] Man’: Compositional Chronology in Judges–1 Samuel”, CBQ69 (2007), 429–439; J. Lübbe, “The Danite Invasion of Laish and the Purpose of the Book of Judges”, OTE 23 (2010), 681–692; A.A. MacIntosh, “The Meaning of MKLYM in Judges XVIII 7”, VT 35 (1985), 68–77; A. Malamat, “The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern”, Bib51 (1970), 1–16; idem, “…‘After the Manner of the Sidonians… And How They were Far from the Sidonians’ (Judges 18:7)”, AvrahamBiranVolume(Eretz Israel 23), Jerusalem 1992, 194–195 (Hebr.); D. Marcus, “In Defense of Micah: Judges 17:2: He Was Not a Thief”, Shofar6 (1987), 72–80; A.D.H. Mayes, “Deuteronomistic Royal Ideology in Judges 17–21”, BibInt 9 (2001), 241–258; J.G. McConville, “Priesthood in Joshua to Kings”, VT 49 (1999), 73–87; P. McMillion, “Worship in Judges 17–18”, in: M.P. Graham etal. (eds), WorshipandtheHebrewBible (JSOTSup 284), Sheffield 1999, 225–243; M.S. Moore, “Role Pre-emption in the Israelite Priesthood”, VT46 (1996), 316–329; D.Z. Moster, “The Levite of Judges 17-18”, JBL 133 (2014), 729–737; E.A. Mueller, TheMicahStory:AMoralityTaleintheBookofJudges (Studies in Biblical Literature 34), New York 2001; A. Murtonen, “Some Thoughts on Judges XVII sq”, VT1 (1951), 223–224; N. Na’aman, “The Danite Campaign Northward (Judges xviixviii) and the Migration of Phocaeans to Massalia (Strabo iv 1,4)”, VT 55 (2005), 47–60; H.-D. Neef, “Michas Kult und Jahwes Gebot: Jdc 17,1–18,31: Vom kultischen Pluralismus zur Alleinverehrung JHWHs”, ZAW 116 (2004), 206–222; H.M. Niemann, DieDaniten:StudienzurGeschichteeinesaltisraelitischenStammes(FRLANT 135), Göttingen 1985; idem,“Zorah, Eshtaol, Beth-Shemesh and Dan’s Migration to the South: A Region and its Traditions in the Late Bronze and Iron Age”, JSOT 86 (1999), 25–48; M. Noth, “The Background of Judges 17–18”, in: B. Anderson, W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’sPropheticHeritage (Fs Muilenburg), New York 1962, 68–85 (original German text: “Der Hintergrund von Richter 17-18”, in: AufsätzezurbiblischenLandes- undAltertumskunde.Band1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 133–147); D.T. Olson, “Buber, Kingship, and the Book of Judges: A Study of Judges 6–9 and 17–21”, in: B.F. Batto, K. Roberts (eds), DavidandZion (Fs Roberts), Winona Lake 2004, 199–218; P. Pitkänen, CentralSanctuaryandCentralizationofWorshipinAncientIsrael:FromtheSettlementtotheBuildingofSolomon’sTemple, Piscataway 2003; J. Raskas, “The Book of Ruth: A Contrast to the End of the Book of Judges”, JBQ 43 (2015), 223– 232; A. Rofé, “The History of Israelite Religion and the Biblical Text: Corrections Due to the Unification of Worship”, in: S.M. Paul etal. (eds), Emanuel:Studiesin Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls (Fs Tov), Leiden 2003, 759–793; P. Satterthwaite, “ ‘No King in Israel’: Narrative Criticism and Judges 17–21”, TynB44 (1993), 75–88; H. Schmoldt, “Der Überfall auf Michas Haus (Jdc 18,13–18)”, ZAW105 (1993), 92–98; S. Schulz, DieAnhängezumRichterbuch:Einekompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Ri 17-21 (BZAW 477), Berlin 2016; T. Seidl, Vermittler vonWeisungundErkenntnis:PriesteraußerhalbderPriesterschrift.EineTextstudie, St. Ottilien 2006; D. Slager, “How Many Idols Did Micah Have? (Judges 17.1–18.31)”,

456

Judges17:1–18:31

BiTr 65 (2014), 337–348; F.A. Spina, “The Dan Story Historically Reconsidered”, JSOT 4 (1977), 60–71; F. Stavrakopoulou, “The Blackballing of Manasseh”, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), GoodKingsandBadKings, London 2005, 248–263;T.J. Stone, TheCompilationalHistoryoftheMegilloth, Tübingen 2013; idem, “The Canonical Shape and Function of the Writings”, in: D.F. Morgan, The Oxford Handbook of theWritingoftheHebrewBible, New York 2019, 414–429;H.M. Szpek, “ ‘Do Not Reject Your Mother’s Teaching?!’ – The Function of Micah’s Mother in Judges 17”, WomeninJudaism:AMultidisciplinaryJournal4/2 (2007); S. Talmon, “ ‘In Those Days There was no ‫ מלך‬in Israel’ ”, in: King,Cult,andCalendarinAncientIsrael: Collected Studies, Jerusalem 1986, 39–52; K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia,SyriaandIsrael:ContinuityandChangeintheFormsofReligiousLife, Leiden1996; S. Weitzman, “Reopening the Case of the Suspiciously Suspended Nun in Judges 18:30”, CBQ 61 (1999), 448–460; J.-W. Wesselius, “Towards a New History of Israel”, JHS3 (2000) (also published in: E. Ben Zvi (ed.), PerspectivesonHebrew Scriptures, Piscataway 2006, 235–249; M.K. Wilson, “ ‘As You Like It’: The Idolatry Of Micah and the Danites (Judges 17–18)”, The Reformed Theological Review 54 (1995), 73–85; G.A. Yee, “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body”, in: G.A. Yee (ed.), Judges&Method:NewApproachesinBiblical Studies.SecondEdition, Minneapolis 2007, 138–160; L. van der Zee – Hanssen, “Richteren 17–18: een verhaal voor de goede verstaander”, Alef-Beet 21/1-2 (2011), 3–8; J. Zsengellér, “Forgiveness as an Exegetical Solution: A Short Note on Judges 17, 1–5”, BN 159 (2013), 9–26.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES With the story about Micah, his mother, his idols, his priest and the Danites, begins a new and different part of the book of Judges. There are no more saviours and judges. The individual persons who play a part are not presented as leaders. The tribes are acting without a leader, illustrating the refrain that there was no king in Israel (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). In the first and last occurrence of this refrain it is followed by the remark that everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes. This is a variant on the refrain in the first part of the book of Judges that the Israelites were doing what was evil in the eyes of YHWH. Although the character of the stories differs from those in the previous chapters, the style of the author shows the same characteristics. There are also some interesting Greek parallels (see introduction § 3.4). The two stories in this final part of the book are built up in the same way. Both start with a story about an individual experiencing deceit and loss. Chapter 17 tells of Micah who robbed his mother, makes an idol of the money he returned, and then is robbed himself of the idol and of the Levite he had appointed as priest. It is the introduction to the story of the migration of the Danites in chapter 18, which also tells about the origin of their sanctuary in Dan with Micah’s idol and priest. The second story starts in chapter 19 with the story of a Levite, losing his wife, getting her back again, but finally

TheDanites

457

definitively losing her when she is killed by the men of Gibeah. It is the introduction to the story of the Benjaminite war in chapters 20–21. Both stories also mention a priest with a famous grandfather: Jonathan, son of Gershom, son of Moses (18:30) and Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron (20:28). This places both stories in the second generation after the death of Joshua. This generation was mentioned in 2:10 as the generation of the Israelites in the period of the judges. Chronologically the reference to these two grandsons in the final part of the book of Judges is problematic. It is also possible however, to see the final chapters 17–21 as the second part of a diptych. After of a first panel with the stories of the saviours and judges (chapters 3– 16) follows a second panel with the stories of the Danites and the Benjaminites. They tell a similar story of forgetting the ways of Moses and Joshua and make the reader think about what is good leadership. Just as with the stories of the saviours and judges, the stories of the second panel can be read as foreshadowing the later stories of the kings. In chapters 17–18 there is a connection with the acts of king Jeroboam who installed idolatrous cultic centres in Bethel and Dan. The sanctuary in Dan is associated with robbery and an opportunistic priest. The relation with the later sanctuary is not explicitly indicated and there is no explicit judgment of the actions by Micah, the Levite, or the Danites. The text seems to be ironic and sometimes deliberately ambiguous, which leaves much room for discussion and controversy in the history of interpretation. In the ancient retellings there is a remarkable difference between the way the story of the Danites is retold by Pseudo-Philo (cf. Begg 2014) and by Josephus. Whereas the latter leaves out the story of Judg. 17 and only partly refers to the story of chapter 18, the former only refers to the story of chapter 17 but gives it extra attention. In L.A.B.44 the story about Micah begins with an interesting adaptation of Judg. 17:6. It does not speak of the absence of a king, but states more generally that there was no leader in Israel. This is in line with the view defended in the present commentary concerning the evaluation of kingship: the book of Judges is not about the question whether kingship is good or bad, but about the criteria for good leadership. It is also interesting that in L.A.B.44 the connection is made with the preceding story of Samson by naming the mother of Micah Delilah (in some manuscripts: Dedila). In a manuscript of the Targum this is made explicit in a gloss to v. 2: “(the eleven hundred Selas of silver) which the Philistines had given you in exchange because you persuaded Samson, so that he told you wherein his great strength lay” (cf. Smelik 1995, 593). According to Pseudo-Philo she incites her son to make golden idols and become a priest. Many details are given about the worship around these idols. We are also informed of God’s reaction. He refers to the commandments he gave the Israelites and observes that they did not keep them. He announces that he will wipe out

458

Judges17:1–18:31

his creation. The dead will outnumber the living, Micah will be delivered to fire and his mother to rotting. Among those who will be punished the tribe of Benjamin is singled out. The Benjaminites are blamed of being the first to follow Micah in his adultery. In this way a connection is made with the stories in Judg. 19–21 (cf. the rabbinic tradition, in S.ʽOlamRab.12 and Esth.Rab.37.7, that Micah’s idol was set up on the day the war against the Benjaminites began). The story of the migration of the Danites in Judg. 18 is left out. Josephus treated these stories in another way. In his Antiquities he placed the stories of Judg. 19–21 after his retelling of chapters 1–2 and then briefly refers to the migration of the Danites, conflating what was told in Judg. 1:34 with the story of chapter 18 (Ant.5.175–178). Then he continues his retelling with his version of chapter 3 (this is also suggested by modern commentators, like Talmon 1986, 52, attempting to reconstruct a more convincing chronology). Josephus may have suppressed the story of Micah for apologetic reasons (cf. Feldman 2006, 639), just as he had omitted the story of the golden calf in Exod. 32. As somebody who was proud of being a priest, he may have felt embarrassed of the actions of the Levite, who even is presented as a grandson of Moses in 18:30. In the Masoretic tradition this is solved by changing the name of Moses to Manasseh. Josephus seems to have chosen the more radical option of omitting the whole story. Among the ancient rabbis there was much discussion about the question whether Micah’s actions had to be considered idolatrous (cf. Smelik 1995, 594–596). In later interpretation (cf. the survey by Gunn 2005, 234–242) the story of Micah played a role in the discussion between Roman Catholics and Protestants about the legitimacy of images in worship. This can be related to the scholarly discussion about the question whether the description of Micah’s sanctuary is meant positively, negatively or just a neutral description of an old custom.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS With Samson the last judge has disappeared from the book of Judges. However, two more judges are mentioned in 1 Samuel: Eli (4:18) and Samuel (7:15). This makes Judg. 17–21 look like an intermezzo. To this can be added that the stories in these chapters also differ on other points when compared to the previous chapters. The focus is no longer on specific leaders. The pattern of disobedience, YHWH punishing by sending a foreign enemy, and the deliverance by a saviour/judge sent by YHWH, is abandoned. The view on kingship seems to be more positive. The stories themselves are more complicated and sometimes confusing. On the basis on these formal differences and the

TheDanites

459

apparent contradicting views on kingship Buber states that in fact we are dealing with two books: Doch ist es offenbar, daß das monarchistische Buch dem antimonarchischen nachgefolgt ist, wie eine Bestreitung der bestrittenen These folgt. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit, Festigkeit und Verworrenheit, aber auch Kunde und Berichtigung, religiös-politische Lehre und ihr “reinpolitischer” Widerpart, jedenfalls Setzung und Gegensetzung, so stehen die beiden Bücher beieinander, die ein merkwürdiger Ausgleichsgeist zusammengeschlossen hat, der gleiche Geist, aus dem dann der Kanon entstand. (Buber 1932, 34–35)

In the history of interpretation we find very different proposals concerning the origin of these stories and their function within the present context (cf. the surveys by Bauer 1998, 57–110; Mueller 2001, 26–35; Bray 2006, 4–15; Butler 2009, 371–376; Groß 20009, 754–763; Schulz 2016, 123–128; Beldman 2017a, 10–15). In the older historical critical literature Judg. 17–18 was considered as reliable source of the period it describes. Wellhausen (1899, 227) states: Wenn der kritische Grundsatz allgemeine Geltung hat, dass wir uns innerhalb der Tradition über die alte Zeit vorzugsweise an solche Punkte zu halten haben, welche von den späteren Vorstellungen und Gebräuchen abweichen, so ist die Erzählung Jud. 17. 18 eine der historisch wertvollsten im ganzen Alten Testament. Die Art und Weise, wie die einzelnen Stämme zu ihrem besonderen Gebiete kommen, ist zwar hier in Übereinstimmung mit Jud. 1, aber ganz anders wie im Buch Josua dargestellt.

The way the cult of YHWH is pictured here, describing practices that were later condemned, would have been more realistic than what we read in the laws of the Pentateuch. Moore agrees with Wellhausen about the historical value of these chapters (1895, 370): “The picture of the social and religious state of the times which they contain is full of life, and bears every mark of truthfulness”. He assumes that they were composed of two different sources. The oldest version tells the story of the sanctuary of Dan with a positive view on the Danites. The second, not much younger version, can be found in 17:2–4 and explains the costly idol as “an exvoto for the recovery of the money”. According to other scholars this negative view was already present in one of the sources. Budde (1897, 112) assumes “dass eine gehässige spätere Fassung B mit einer älteren, unbefangenen A redaktionell verschmolzen ist”. The common view of scholars in the first part of the 20th century is represented by Burney (1920, 416): the story of Micah and the Danites presents a combination of two ancient narratives from J and E which were, in all essentials, strikingly similar. The whole complexion of the story, in both traditions, is naive and archaic. With the exception of E’s account of the origin of the graven image in 172-4, there is nothing in either narrative which suggests disapproval of Micah’s proceedings in establishing a private sanctuary for the practice of an idolatrous form of Yahweh-cultus.

460

Judges17:1–18:31

This view is still found with Murtonen (1951), be it that he distinguishes an old story in 17:1–5; 18:27–31 and probably in 18:1–2, 8–14, which was combined with two younger stories. A more detailed division between a J and an E source is given by Simpson (1957, 63–73). Most scholars agree that the notes in 17:6 and 18:1 about the absence of a king should be explained as “the comment of an editor, who felt it necessary to explain how such lawless doings went unrestrained and unpunished” (Moore 1895, 369; cf. Wellhausen 1899, 233; Burney 1920, 410; Simpson 1957, 144). With the increasing dominance of the theory of the Deuteronomistic History the views on the provenance of the final chapters of the book of Judges changed radically with a remarkable increase of diversity of opinions, as will become clear in the following concise survey of recent research. With Noth many scholars assume that they were a late addition with no direct relation to the sources of the Pentateuch. Noth pays special attention to the negative elements concerning the sanctuary of Dan. In his view these are not aimed at the sanctuary established by Jeroboam. Instead, it would have been a polemic against the older Danite shrine which Jeroboam wanted to replace (Noth 1962, 82; 1971, 144). The indirectly positive remarks about kingship in 17:6 and 18:1would have been part of the original text (Noth 1962, 79; 1971, 141– 142). The final verses of chapter 18, on the other hand, should be regarded as later additions idealizing the period before the time of the kings (Noth 1962, 83–85; 1971, 145–147). Crüsemann (1978, 161–163) assumes that the story together with the next three chapters dates from the time of Solomon and was meant to legitimize kingship and to explain why sometimes civil war is necessary. On the basis of 18:30, which seems to refer to the deportation by the Assyrians, Soggin (1981, 269) dates the story shortly before the reform by Josiah. It would have been meant to explain why this important sanctuary with its Mosaic priesthood was destroyed. Niemann (1985, 130) assumes, in line with older research, that the original story represents a historically reliable report about the migration of the Danites and the establishment of their sanctuary. In line with Noth’s thesis, he assumes a later “Jerobeam-Redaktion” would have added amongst others the disqualifying details of 17:2–4 (p. 131). A second redaction, after 733 BCE, would have been more negative about Jeroboam’s sanctuary. A similar hypothesis is defended by Bartusch (2003, 185–202). Becker is convinced of a different date: “(es) handelt sich im Grundbestand um ein recht junges literarisches Produkt, das aufgrund der Sprache und der Intention mit einiger Sicherheit aus spat-dtr Kreisen hergeleitet werden konnte” (Becker 1990, 296). Also Bray sees “the post-exilic period as the most likely time for the final redaction of the text” (Bray 2006, 27). This “pro-monarchical” redaction would have consisted of the addition of 17:6; 18:1, 31. The original story dates in his opinion from the time immediately after the fall of Dan (p. 28).

TheDanites

461

Amit (1990) also assumes this date for what is in her opinion a “hidden polemic” against Bethel. It would have been written after the destruction of Dan in 732 and before the reformation of Josiah in 622. While the sanctuary in Bethel was still in use and supported by the king more open criticism would have been avoided. According to Bauer, however, the story was written to explain the Assyrian and Babylonian exile “als Folge des Götzendienstes und der antijhwhistisch missverstandenen Landnahme” (Bauer 1998, 443). It should be read as an “anti-spy story in the context of an anti-conquest story”, inverting central texts and subjects in the books of Genesis to Kings (Bauer 2001). This is related to the view of Malamat (1990), who notes the many parallels of this narrative in the book of Judges with the conquest stories in Joshua. According to Na’aman (2005, 60) the story was composed in the 5th century and aimed against the northern kingdom and its founder. Groß (2009, 763–765; 2010, 84–86) maintains that the original story was based on the Deuteronomistic version of the story of the kings (“ein nicht-dtr Text, der die dtr bearbeiteten Königsbücher voraussetzt” (2009, 765). From the start it would have been negative about the sanctuary in Dan. He finds only minor later additions in 17:6; 18:1a, 12, 17, 30 and in the added references to idols in 17:3, 4; 18:14, 17, 18. According to Schulz chapters 17–18 received their present form together with redactions of the story in chapter 19, which was meant as a prefiguration of the conflict between David and Saul and of the sins of Jeroboam. This relative late text in chapter 19 (referring to older traditions in Gen. 18–19 and 1 Sam. 11) was enclosed by the story of Micah in 17:1–4, 6 and the story of the girls of Shiloh in 20:48; 21:1, 15–23, 25, putting it in a negative framework: “Durch die Rahmung mit kultischen Vergehen kennzeichnet die Fortschreibung einen Verfall gegenüber Ri 19f”. (Schulz 2016, 190). In a next redaction the stories of the theft of the priest and the statue in 17:7– 18:31 would have been added to emphasize the negative role of Dan. With the added details about the ephod and teraphim in 17:5; 18: 14, 18, 20 the cultic transgressions would have been accentuated and with 18:30 placed back to the time of the second generation after Moses. Later additions Schulz finds in 18:11, 12 and 16, which connect it to the story of Samson. In her opinion the final chapters together with the first chapter of the book of Judges came into being separate from the collection of the stories of the judges and saviours and show two completely different views on kingship: “Der theologischen Diskrepanz entspricht hierbei eine literarische Naht: Die Rahmenkapitel des Richterbuches (Ri 1.17– 21) und dessen Korpus (Ri 2,6 – 16,31) bilden unabhängig voneinander entstandene, je für sich redaktionell gewachsene Kompositionen” (Schulz 2016, 245). In the scholarly literature much attention is paid to the place of this story in the reconstruction of the history of Israelite religion (cf. Haran 1978,

462

Judges17:1–18:31

28–31; Goulder 1983, 52–59; Van der Toorn 1996, 246–251; Pitkänen 2003, 241–269; Neef 2004; Samuel 2014, 327–335). Van der Toorn (1996, 250– 251) assumes “a certain degree of historical plausibility” of the tale about Micah’s shrine on the basis of a parallel with an Old Babylonian record of the foundation of a chapel by someone who donated a chapel, apparently in appreciation to the blessing of a deity, and appointed a priest. In his monograph on Judg. 17–18 Bray concludes that the text “almost certainly contains reliable information about cultic life in the late pre-exilic period” and that it helps to “obtain a relatively clear picture of Hebrew cultic life at Dan before its final fall to the Assyrians” (2006, 138). As will become clear from the suggested reconstruction of the text below, the present commentary works on the basis of the outcome of the interpretation of the previous chapters, namely that it makes sense to read these stories as reflecting on the history of the kings of Israel. It cannot be excluded that parts of these stories originate in the period they describe, but it was almost certainly not the primary aim of the author to give an accurate picture of the religious practices in southern Levant in the period between the exodus and the monarchy. One of the few things most scholars agree upon is that the stories in chapters 17–21 are closely related. The story of Micah in chapter 17 functions as the introduction to the story about the Danites in chapter 18. Next to the repeated formula in 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, chapters 17–18 and 19–21 share many themes (cf. the surveys by Block 1999, 474–475; Nelson 2017, 344–345). To this can be added that the same holds true for the book of Ruth. According to Johnston (2009) Ruth can be seen as an alternative epilogue to the book of Judges. All three stories share the geographical setting, with a special place for Bethlehem. In many ways the story of Ruth is the positive counterpart of the stories at the end of the book of Judges full of lawlessness and deceit (cf. Raskas 2015; Ziegler 2015, 27–58). According to Stone (2013, 130) the story of Ruth “frames David’s house as the answer to Judges’ darkness” (cf. also Stone 2019, 417). One could also take the parallels between these stories as argument for dating them in the same period. Together they form a series of stories about the time before the kings but also foreshadowing the future kings, both positively and negatively. The story of the Danites is centred around the city of Dan and points forward to king Jeroboam (cf. already Halévy 1890, 215–217, and more recently Na’aman 2005, 48–51), the story of the murder of the concubine and the war against the Benjaminites is centred around the city of Gibeah and points forward to king Saul, the story of Ruth is centred around the city of Bethlehem and points forward to king David. Originally they were probably separate stories, but in the process of cohesion and separation which led to the biblical books the first two stories got their place at the end of the book of Judges (cf. Levin 2011, 137; Nelson 2017, 345). The story of Ruth did not fit in, because its happy ending was

TheDanites

463

not in line with the tendency of the book of Judges. The two stories were connected to their new environment by adding a number of details. The first was related to the story of Samson by the reference to the eleven hundred pieces of silver (17:2; cf. 16:5) and to the places of Zorah and Eshtaol (18:2, 8; cf. 16:31). In a similar way the second was related to the first chapter: YHWH tells that Judah has to go first (20:18; cf. 1:1), banning a city (21:11; cf. 1:17). All stories are related through the use of the same introductory formula (13:2; 17:1, 7; 19:1). In its present form the book of Judges can be seen as a diptych, with after the introduction two panels. As one of the structuring elements functions the reference to the two grandsons in 18:30 (Jonathan, grandson of Moses) and 20:28 (Phinehas, grandson of Aaron). They are representatives of the second generation after Joshua. This was mentioned first in 2:10. The reference to the two grandsons at the end of the book is chronologically confusing, but can be explained when we assume that the stories in chapters 17–21 function as a parallel to the previous part in chapters 3–16. From a different perspective and in different ways both parts tell the story of what happened after a new generation came up after the generation that had lived under the guidance of the good leader Joshua (Amit 1999, 315, finds here another example of “the principle of cyclicity”; cf. also Beldman 2017a, 138). All this can be used as an argument in favour of the idea that in chapters 17–21 we are still dealing with the work of the author/redactor who is responsible for the rest of the book. The difference in character of the stories can be ascribed to the use of different sources. The way they are put together shows much coherence, both in form and in contents. The often mentioned contrast with regard to the view on kingship is relative. One cannot simply state that the final five chapters of the book of Judges are positive and the rest of the book (with a few exceptions) is negative or speak with Buber (1935, 33) of a “Gegenchronik” in chapters 17–21. What connects most stories is that they in one way or another can be related to the following kings of Israel and Judah, pointing to the different aspects of good and bad leadership. These references to kingship are implicit in the first part of the book, for instance, in the way the story of Samson foreshadows both the beginning (Samuel) and the end (Zedekiah) of the period of the monarchy. In the final chapters the reference to kingship is more explicit, be it that it is only given indirectly in the remark about the absence of kings. Continuing lines can also be found in a number of themes and formal features. An important theme is that of brotherhood. It was present already in the song of Deborah and Barak, focussing on the participation of the different tribes. It returned in the story of Abimelech who was primarily involved in inner-Israelite conflicts. In the stories of Gideon and Jephthah we encountered the problems with the Ephraimites, which eventually led to bloodshed. The

464

Judges17:1–18:31

action by the Judahites against Samson (15:10–13) can be read as foreshadowing the civil war against the Benjaminites in chapters 20–22 under the command of the Judahites. Another returning theme is that of the changing role of the women: from the very active role of the women in the first part of the book (Achsah, Deborah, Jael) to the women become more and more victims of bad leadership, culminating in the murder of the concubine in chapter 19 and the theft of the girls of Shiloh in chapter 21. Of the returning formal features one can mention the continuing use of triads: YHWH is mentioned three times in chapter 17; three times it is stated in chapter 18 that Micah made the ephod himself; three times the tribes go up against the Benjaminites in 20:19–29; three times the curse over giving wives to Benjamin is mentioned in chapter 21. Finally, one can point to the fact that both stories have parallels in Greek literature, a phenomenon observed many times before in our study of the book of Judges.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS 17:1–2 1 2

TherewasamanfrommountEphraim.HisnamewasMicaiah. Hesaidtohismother:“Theelevenhundred(piecesof)silverthat weretakenfromyou–youutteredacurseandalsosaid(it)inmy ears–look,thesilver(is)withme.Ihavetakenit”.Hismothersaid: “BlessedismysonbyYHWH”.

This story begins almost in the same way as those of Samson (13:2) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1): “There was (one) man from … and his name was …” (cf. Leuchter 2007). The introduction with the reference to mount Ephraim evokes mixed expectations. The reader will recall the negative role of the Ephraimites in the previous stories of Gideon and Jephthah, but mount Ephraim is also associated with Joshua (Josh. 19:50; 24:30) and Deborah (Judg. 4:5). In the following verses it will become clear that Micaiah will set up a sanctuary which eventually will be located in Dan and is foreshadowing the cult organized there by king Jeroboam, next to one in Bethel. The fact that Micaiah comes from mount Ephraim can be associated with the latter, because Bethel and mount Ephraim are closely connected in 4:5. So there may be also a “hidden polemic” against the later sanctuary in Bethel (cf. Amit 1990; Schulz 2016, 149). For the moment, however, the tone is positive. For the first time in the book of Judges we encounter someone with a theophoric name pointing at YHWH. This is emphasized by the repeated extended form Micaiah, which can be translated as “who is like you, YHWH” (also in v. 4). From v. 5 on the shortened form Micah is used. The name of YHWH is also explicitly

TheDanites

465

mentioned twice in vv. 2–3, but then already some doubts have been raised about this man. We are told that he stole a big amount of money from his mother. He appears to have it returned to her fearing the curse she uttered. The twice mentioned number of silver pieces is precisely the same as what each of the Philistine leaders had promised to give Delilah (16:5). It is not likely, however, as is suggested in L.A.B.44 (the link is also noted by Rashi and Ralbag), that Micaiah’s mother was Samson’s lover. Next to the location also the name of her son does not coincide with Delilah’s Philistine background. What remains is the negative association with the number eleven hundred. The same goes for the rest of the history behind the sacred objects in this story: they have their origin in theft within the family. Micah’s reaction to his mother’s curse can be explained on the basis of Lev. 5:1: “If a person sins in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter – if he does not tell it, he bears guilt”. Apparently, the woman had laid a curse over the one who had stolen her silver. Interesting parallels for this are found in Greek and Latin imprecations against thieves. These so called defixiones, which are known from the 3rd century BCE on, are a way of seeking justice and revenge. The stolen goods are consecrated to the deity, turning the theft into a religious transgression. The thief could save himself from the anger of the deity by returning the goods to the temple. There the owner could reclaim it by paying a fee to the deity (cf. Gager 1999, 175–199, for the texts and their interpretation). Precisely this situation seems to be hinted at in the words of the mother of Micah and in her subsequent action (cf. Fox 1913–1914; Faraone etal. 2005, 170–179). Some scholars assume also a relation with a curse text found in a 7th or 6th century cemetery in Carthage (KAI89; cf. Faraone etal. 2005, 165–169), but this text is aimed against “every person who rejoices at my expense about the loss of this money” (ll. 5–6) and presupposes another situation. Therefore, also the discussion about possible “Canaanite” influence on the Greek and Roman curses against thieves (Faraone etal. 2005, 180– 185) seems to be superfluous. Instead, the clear parallel to the Greek texts can be used as another argument for the relatively late date of the book of Judges in its present form. As soon as Micah has returned the silver, his mother turns the curse into a blessing. According to Marcus (1987) it is unlikely that a blessing is used to reverse a curse. In his opinion the phrase ‫ח־לְך‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֶכּ ֶסף ֲא ֶשׁר ֻל ַקּ‬should be translated as “the silver set aside for you” and the verb ‫ ָא ָלה‬as “make an oath”. Micah would not have stolen the silver, but simply brought back the silver his mother had dedicated to YHWH. It is difficult to explain, however, why this simple action of Micah deserves mentioning here. Marcus is right in stating that this use of a blessing is uncommon, but within the present context this makes sense as emphasizing the dubious origin of the sanctuary in Dan. A parallel for a curse turned into a blessing can be found in the story

466

Judges17:1–18:31

of Saul and David. Saul blesses his deadly enemy David with the same formula ‫ליהוה‬,ַ “(blessed) by YHWH”, in 1 Sam. 23:21(see on this construction JM § 121p). The text suggests that not all words spoken by the mother are reproduced. The phrase ‫א ַמ ְר ְתּ ְבּ ָאזְ נַ י‬, ָ “you said in my ears”, looks like an introduction to the curse she pronounced. The problem is solved by rearranging the text, for instance by Soggin 1981, 264–265, who claims that the logical and probable sequence is vv. 2aα, 3bα, 2aß, 3bß, 2b, 3a. He has to admit, however, that there is no support for this from the old text witnesses. Moreover, he fails to explain how the Hebrew could have become disturbed. A more plausible explanation for the present text, which is grammatically not impossible (cf. Groß 2009, 752), is that the lapidary style indicates that the son feels uncomfortable in this situation. The conversation between Micah and his mother can be compared to the one between Samson and Delilah in 16:14–15, where we also come across a remarkably short text. With the story about the conversation between Jephthah and his daughter (11:35–38) the present text shares the emphasis on the relation between parent and child. No less than six times we read “his mother” in vv. 2–4. One can also note the contrast with the story about a father and his daughter in 1:11–15 (cf. Beldman 2017a, 107) 17:3–4 3

4

He returned the eleven hundred (pieces of) silver to his mother. Hismothersaid:“IhavesurelyconsecratedthesilvertoYHWHfrom myhandformysontomakeanidolandcastimage.NowIreturn ittoyou”. Hereturnedthesilvertohismotherandhismothertooktwohundred (piecesof)silverandgaveittothesmelter.Hemadeitintoanidol andcastimage.ItwasinthehouseofMicaiah.

The command of the mother to her son to use the silver, which she consecrated to YHWH, “to make an idol and cast image” turns the blessing into a curse again. According to Deut. 27:15 the Levites had to call out before the men of Israel: “Cursed is the one who makes an idol and cast image, an abomination to YHWH, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret”. The phrase “an idol and cast image” is probably a hendiadys, describing one statue (cf. the singular in 18:30–31; the matter is discussed extensively by Groß 2009, 758–761). The first (‫פּ ֶסל‬, ֶ “idol”) points to the prohibition in Exod. 20:4 and Deut. 5:8 to make idols and venerate them, the second (‫מ ֵסּ ָכה‬, ַ “cast image”) is an expression that can be related to the story of the golden calf (Exod. 32:4) and especially to the images set up by king Jeroboam in the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 14:9).

TheDanites

467

The house of Micaiah/Micah is explicitly mentioned at the end of v. 4 as the home of the idols. In this and the following chapter it will be the stage where everything takes place. It is mentioned more than ten times, next to other houses nearby (18:14, 22) and the house of God (17:5; 18:31). This makes it a “Leitwort” (Groß 2009, 788), emphasizing the storyline from the house of Micah in the beginning to the house of God in Shiloh at the end of the story. Micah and his mother are often blamed for greediness or hypocrisy, because they only used part of the silver consecrated to YHWH for making a statue. This is partly based on the consideration that the mother had consecrated the silver to YHWH after her son had returned it. The Hebrew text of v. 3, which describes this action with a figuraetymologicausing a perfect ‫ה ְק ֵדּשׁ ִה ְק ַדּ ְשׁ ִתּי‬, ַ leaves open the possibility that it has to be translated as a past perfect. The Greek translators using an aorist (LXX [a]: ἁγιασμῷ ἡγίασα) or a perfect (LXX [B]: ἁγιάζουσα ἡγίακα) also suggest that they thought that the consecration already had taken place. It would also be in line with the situation behind the related Greek curses against thieves (cf. Faraone etal. 2005, 164, 172): only after the stolen goods had been consecrated to the deity, a curse could be spoken. After the rightful owner had got his property back, he would thank the deity by giving him/her part of the goods. This is probably also what happened here. It is supported by the fact that no explicit negative comment is given about the amount of silver. In some manuscripts of the LXX and in the Old Latin version the number two hundred is left out (cf. O’Connell 1996, 475), making the discussion about the numbers superfluous. 17:5–6 5 6

ThemanMicahhadahouseofgod.Hemadeanephodandteraphim. Hefilledthehandofoneofhissonsandhewasforhimapriest. InthosedaystherewasnokinginIsrael.Amandidwhatwasright inhiseyes.

Whereas the previous verse ended with a reference to Micaiah, using his full name, the present verse starts with the shorter form: Micah. This is underlined by its placement at the beginning of the clause (casuspendens). There also seems a deliberate, chiastically arranged opposition between “the man Micah” and the following “a house of god”: man // god. This could also explain why the Yahwistic element in his name is downplayed: the god of this house has little to do with YHWH (cf. Block 1999, 478). The house looks like a real temple, with the right objects and personnel. The ephod and teraphim belong to the customary inventory (cf. Hos. 3:4). According to Exod. 28 the ephod is a priest’s garment adorned with gold

468

Judges17:1–18:31

and precious stones. It was used for divination, as can be derived from the stories in 1 Sam. 23:9–12 and 30:7–8, where it is used by the priest Abjatar to ask YHWH’s advice for David. As had become clear at the end of the life of Gideon an ephod could also be used in a dubious way, when Gideon placed in his own glory an ephod in the city where he was born (8:27). Teraphim are described as small statues in the story of Jacob and Rachel in Gen. 31. They probably originally represented venerated ancestors. The Hebrew word is a plural form, but it can also denote a singular statue which is much bigger than the teraphim mentioned in Gen. 31. According to 1 Sam. 19:13 Michal used such a statue to deceive the men who were trying to capture her husband David. In cultic use teraphim functioned, just as the ephod, as a means to get into contact with the deity (cf. Ezek. 21:26). And, just as the ephod, teraphim can also be misused (cf. 1 Sam. 15:23). Micah appoints one of his own sons as the priest in his own sanctuary. The expression “to fill the hand” is the customary expression for the consecration as a priest (cf. Exod. 28:41; 29:9). It is also used in the story of king Jeroboam when he illegitimately appoints priests for his sanctuaries (1 Kgs 13:33; cf. 12:31). Also Micah’s action is not according to rules, because only Levites were allowed to become priests of YHWH. The comparison with Jeroboam shows that having a king is no guarantee for correct cultic institutions. What is needed is a leader who does what is right in the eyes of YHWH. The repeated phrase of v. 6 (cf. 21:25), that there was no king in Israel in these days, cannot be simply read as a positive statement concerning kingship. As is noted by Talmon (1986, 52) there is not a big difference here between judge and king. The term king was used to relate these chapters to the following period of the kings. What is important here is not the title of the leader, but the quality of leadership (cf. Beldman 2017a, 122). The repeated phrase should be connected to the repeated remark in the previous chapters that the Israelites did what is evil in the eyes of YHWH (2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). In the context of the story of Micah the change is intriguing. After the description of the blessing “by YHWH” and the consecration of the silver to YHWH and the establishment of a sanctuary with all kinds of means of connecting to the deity, one would expect that the sins of the people would have been described as acting against YHWH. By changing the formula from “evil in the eyes of YHWH” to “right in his own eyes” it is indicated that YHWH is now completely out of the picture, just as the name of YHWH disappeared from the name Micaiah. This interpretation, which indicates that chapters 17–21 cannot be simply contrasted to the previous part of the book as pro-monarchic versus antimonarchic, takes away the basic reason for Wong to suggest that “king” refers to YHWH rather than a human king (Wong 2006a, 212–223). The comparison with 2 Chron. 15:3–6 describing life without “the true God” is

TheDanites

469

interesting, but does not explain why a divine epithet would have been used in Judg. 17:6. An indirectly positive statement about the human king does not break the coherence of the book, which is defended by Wong, because it is conditional. 17:7–9 7 8

9

TherewasaboyfromBethlehemofJudah,fromtheclanofJudah. He(was)aLeviteandhewassojourningthere. The man went from the city, from Bethlehem of Judah to sojourn whereverhefound(aplace).HecametomountEphraim,tothehouse ofMicah,tomakehisway. Micahsaidtohim:“Fromwherehaveyoucome?”Hesaidtohim: “ALevite(am)I,fromBethlehemofJudah.Iamgoingtosojourn whereverIfind(aplace).

The second part of the story of Micah begins in the same way as the first part: “There was … from…” This also underlines the differences: instead of a man in v. 1 we now hear of a boy and mount Ephraim is replaced by Bethlehem of Judah. Both elements are also emphasized in the following text. The first returns in the remarkable combination of Micah declaring that the boy will be a father to him (v. 10), followed by the remark that the boy became like some of his sons (v. 12). The elaboration of the location is found in vv. 7–8, first by repeating the name of Judah and then by repeating in v. 8 both the location of the origin of the boy and the location of the place he went to. The reference to a boy (‫ )נַ ַער‬is reminiscent of the previous story of Samson in which a boy plays an important role (16:26): like Samson now also Micah will be guided by a boy. Something similar happened when Gideon went to the Midianites in the company of a boy (7:11) and when a boy informed him about the inhabitants of Sukkot (8:14). The age of the boy is not given. In v. 8 he is referred to as “man”, but one may question whether he was old enough to become a priest. According to Num. 8:24 the minimum age is twenty five. The fact that the boy is from Bethlehem is important, because it is told three times in vv. 7–9. It is also important that there should be no mistake that it is the town in the territory of Judah, and not the one with the same name in the territory of Zebulun (Josh. 19:15). As in Ruth it is called “Bethlehem of Judah” instead of the normal “Bethlehem inJudah”, which puts extra emphasis on Judah. Within the book of Judges this comes as no surprise, given the prominent role of this tribe at the beginning and also in the final chapters. Bethlehem was also mentioned in 12:8–10 as the residence of Ibsan, but more important is the role which Bethlehem plays in the story

470

Judges17:1–18:31

in chapter 19 and in the book of Ruth. All three stories (Judg. 17–18; 19–21; Ruth) can be related to the following period of the kings. This makes it very likely that Bethlehem is meant here as the place related to king David. BHS suggest that ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫מ ִמּ ְשׁ ַפּ ַחת י‬, ִ “from the clan of Judah”, is a gloss, referring to the fact that these words are missing in some manuscripts and the Peshitta. To this can be added that they are also missing in LXX (B). According to BHQ, 100*, this can be explained as haplography by homoioteleuton. It may also have to do with the problem that some translators found it difficult to understand how a Levite can be part of a clan of Judah. The situation of this Levite can be related, however, to the situation described in Deut. 18:6–8, which speaks of a Levite “sojourning” in one of the cities of Israel going to “the place which YHWH chooses” to serve there. The same verb ‫גור‬, “to sojourn, to dwell as alien”, is used there, in the same phrase ‫גָּ ר ָשׁם‬, “sojourning there” (Deut. 18:6). It will return indirectly at the end of the story, in 18:30, in the name of his father Gershom. The relation with Deut. 18:6–8 also points to an important difference in the situation. Deut. 18 regulates the service of the Levites in “the place which YHWH chooses”, that is, Jerusalem. In the situation of Micah Jerusalem is still in the hands of the Jebusites, as will be remarked explicitly in 19:11–12. Therefore, the Levite has no other option than to be satisfied with, as is told twice, “whatever place he finds”. This turns out to be the house of god set up by Micah. 17:10–13 10

11 12 13

Micahsaidtohim:“Staywithmeandbeformeafatherandapriest andIwillgiveyouten(piecesof)silverperyear,asetofclothingand yourboard”.TheLevitewent. TheLeviteagreedtostaywiththeman.Theboywasforhimasone ofhissons. MicahfilledthehandoftheLeviteandtheboywasforhimapriest. HewasinthehouseofMicah. Micahsaid:“NowIknowthatYHWHwilldogoodtome,because theLevitehasbecomeapriestforme”.

Micah convinces the Levite to stay with him by honouring him and offering him a salary. The honorific title “father” is usually given to prophets. It is the way Elia and Elisha are addressed (2 Kgs 2:12; 6:21). Within the book of Judges it can be compared to Deborah, who was also a prophetess, being called mother in 5:7. The salary seems reasonable, be it that compared to the previously mentioned amount of eleven hundred pieces of silver the ten offered per year (see on the expression ‫ ַליָּ ִמים‬JM § 135dN) sounds meagre.

TheDanites

471

The title “father” contrasts with the repeated reference to the Levite as a boy, all the more so when in the next verse it is stated that this boy was to him as one of his sons. Here we also find the same combination of “man” and “boy” as was found in the parallel verses 1 and 7, respectively starting with “there was a man” and “there was a boy”. The remark about their relation as father and son also raises the question about the real son of Micah. He had first made him priest and now seems to be totally ignored and replaced by the Levite. After Micah had first robbed his mother he now shows himself not a very good father. In the commentaries there is much discussion about the final words of v. 10: ‫וַ יֵּ ֶלְך ַה ֵלּוִ י‬, “the Levite went” (cf. the survey by O’Connell 1996, 476– 477, and in BHQ, 100*–101*). It seems to make no sense. Why did he go and where did he go to? The problem is solved by deleting it (cf. BHSand Groß 2009, 753). One could also follow the Peshitta and relate the phrase to the first words of the next verse by skipping the reference there to the Levite (cf. O’Connell 1996, 477): “the Levite went and agreed to stay”. This does not explain, however, the MT and the LXX. Another solution would be to relate the verb to an Arabic cognate meaning “to hesitate” (Driver 1962–1963, 18). The suggestion by Barthélemy 1982, 113 (accepted by BHQ and Schulz 2016, 156–157) that the present text suggests that the Levite first went on his way to continue his exploratory excursion but after that returned to accept Micah’s offer, is not as “fantasievoll” as judged by Groß 2009, 753. The triple use of the same verb ‫ הלְך‬within vv. 8–10 is characteristic of the style of the author. It is safe to assume that it is used here in the same way as in the previous verses. What was told elaborately about the going of the Levite in v. 8 and repeated with fewer words by the Levite in v. 9 is now hinted at in a short phrase. It can be compared to a similar phenomenon in 16:13, where the reader can also easily fill in the words on the basis of earlier repetitions within the text. Micah is convinced that YHWH will bless him as promised, for instance, in Deut. 30:5. The reader will question, however, whether Micah also fulfilled the requirements formulated in the book of Deuteronomy. As was indicated above, especially the command concerning the idol and cast image mentioned in Deut. 27:15 seems to have been violated. Hiring a Levite is no guarantee for serving YHWH correctly. Joshua’s warning that YHWH will do harm to the Israelites after having done good (Josh. 24:30) is still relevant here. Micah may not have served foreign gods, but the way he serves YHWH does not seem to be right either. Coming from the story of Samson the reader realizes that “to know” the ways of YHWH is not so easy. The verb ‫ ידע‬functioned there as a key word, emphasizing the problems human beings have in understanding the ways of YHWH. It took Manoah a long time for before he knew that the man he was talking to was a messenger of

472

Judges17:1–18:31

YHWH (13:25). Manoah and his wife did not know that there was a plan of YHWH behind the actions of their son (14:4). Samson does not know that YHWH left him (16:20). Against this background Micah’s statement appears to be very bold and will also prove to be wrong in the next chapter. 18:1 

InthosedaystherewasnokinginIsraelandinthosedaysthetribe oftheDaniteswasseekingforitselfaninheritancetosettlein,because untilthatdaynonehadfallentoitinthemidstofthetribesofIsrael asinheritance.

The opening phrase is just as 19:1 a shortened version of the full phrase in 17:6 and 21:25: “In those days there was no king in Israel. A man did what was right in his eyes”. Just as in 19:1 it is directly connected to the following phrase by the repetition of the first words. By leaving out the second part (“A man did what was right in his eyes”) it seems to function primarily as an indication of time and not as a moral judgment or explanation of what is following. The fact that the Danites are looking for a homeland is in itself not surprising, because it is in line with was reported in 1:34, namely that “the Amorites had pressed the children of Dan to the mountains, because they did not give them (leave) to go down to the valley”. What follows in chapter 18 can be regarded as filling-in of what was told in Josh. 19:47, although there are some differences. According to Josh. 19 the migration of the Danites was due to fact that their territory was too small. The city they capture is called Leshem in Josh. 19; according to Judg. 18:7 it will be Laish, a name which can be interpreted as a variant. The relation between these texts in Joshua and Judges can be compared to the relation between Josh. 10:1 and Judg. 1:5–7 about respectively Adonisedek of Jerusalem and Adonibesek who died in Jerusalem. The difference between Judg. 18 and Josh. 19:47 points to an important aspect in the following story. The Danites are not presented as a weak tribe, but as powerful, as will also become clear in the reference to the men they will send out. 18:2 

ThechildrenofDansentfromtheirclanfivemen,outoftheirtotality, powerfulmenfromZorahandfromEshtaol,tospyoutthelandand toexploreit.Theysaidtothem:“Go,exploretheland”.Theycame tomountEphraim,tothehouseofMicahandspentthenightthere.

In LXX (B), Vulgate and Peshitta the difficult expression ‫צוֹתם ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬ ָ ‫מ ְק‬, ִ seems to have been left untranslated. From the similar words in Num. 22:41,

TheDanites

473

‫ק ֵצה ָה ָעם‬, ְ “the uttermost part of the people”, it can be derived that it denotes that all Danites are involved. According to Josh. 15:33 Zorah and Eshtaol were part of the territory of Judah, but within the book of Judges they remind of the story of Samson, which started and ended at the same places (13:25; 16:31). The importance of this location is underlined by the fact that it is mentioned three times (cf. vv. 8, 11). There is no explicit connection, however, to the deeds of Samson, to a setback after his death, or to a Philistine threat. This suggests that these references have to be seen as editorial activity: they were probably added by the author/redactor of the book of Judges when he connected these stories with that of Samson. Something similar can be observed with regard to the use of the number eleven hundred in 17:1, relating it to the same amount of silver mentioned in 16:5. Sending out spies is reminiscent of the earlier spy stories in Num. 13-14 and Josh. 2. Especially the latter shows some interesting parallels (cf. also the use of the same verb ‫רגל‬, “to spy out”, in Josh. 2:1). Like the two spies sent out by Joshua they spend the night in the first house they encounter in the land they have to explore. There they will receive the message that YHWH shall go with them. Their mission is rather vague. It is not clear which part of the land they have to go to and why they end up first in mount Ephraim. They probably did not have to go far to reach that place, which was located not far north of Zorah and Eshtaol. 18:3–6 3

4 5 6

BeingnearthehouseofMicah,theyrecognizedthevoiceoftheboy, theLevite.Theyturnedasidethereandsaidtohim:“Whobrought you here? What are you doing in this (place)? What do you have here?” He said to them: “Like this and like that Micah has done to me. HehiredmeandIhavebecomeapriestforhim”. Theysaidtohim:“InquireofGodthatwemayknowwhetherour wayonwhichwearegoingwillprosper”. Thepriestsaidtothem:“Goinpeace.BeforeYHWHisyourway onwhichyouaregoing”.

According to Burney 1920, 425, the “obvious meaning” of v. 3a “is that they happened to have known him personally before, when he was living in Judah” (cf. also Bray 2006, 35). However, this cannot be derived from the text. It is more likely to assume another relation with a previous story, namely, the bloody confrontation between the men from Gilead and the Ephraimites

474

Judges17:1–18:31

(12:1–6). The latter were recognized by their northern accent. In the present situation the spies are surprised to hear someone in the region of Ephraim speak with a southern accent (cf. Boling 1975, 263). Their surprise is illustrated by the three questions (according to the style of the author) without waiting for an answer. The Danites have no problem in accepting the story of the Levite and like Micah they are confident that the Levite can act as intermediary with their god. Through the Levite they hope to get divine advice. The verb used here, ‫ שׁאל‬with the preposition ‫ב‬, ְ was also used in the first verse of the book of Judges describing the Israelites asking YHWH to point them the right direction. It will also return in a similar context in 20:18, 23, 27. As was remarked in the comments to 1:1 the expression “to ask from YHWH/God” is one of the criteria in distinguishing good from bad leadership. This will become very clear in the stories about Saul and David. Within the book of Judges things are more ambivalent. The start was clearly good, but the way the contact with YHWH is made here seems to be wrong. The priest and his sanctuary are suspect. This is confirmed first by the fact that the Danites do not use the name of YHWH and, secondly, by the fact that the answer is not given by YHWH as in 1:1, but by the priest who pretends to speak on his behalf. Just like the blessing pronounced in the name of YHWH by Micah’s mother (17:2) and like Micah expecting that YHWH will do him good (17:13), what is said here about YHWH does not seem to come from YHWH. 18:7 

ThefivemenwentandcametoLaish.Theysawthepeopleinitsmidst, settlinginsecurityinthemanneroftheSidonians,quietandsecure, no one was humiliating something in the land taking possession violently.TheywerefarfromtheSidoniansandhadnodealingswith anyone.

The transition to Laish in the far north is remarkable. It must have taken the spies a number of days to reach it. The author does not inform us whether it was their primary goal or something of a last opportunity after a long search. All this adds to the suggestion that the author was more interested in relating this story to the two locations of Bethel (associated with mount Ephraim) and Dan as the two places of Jeroboam’s idolatry. A lengthy but obscure description is given of Laish (cf. the overview of the scholarly discussion by O’Connell 1996, 477–480). The problems are also visible in the ancient translations. There are no compelling textcritical reasons, however, to rearrange or emend the Hebrew text (cf. BHQ, 101*–102*). It is probably no coincidence that precisely this verse about a foreign city

TheDanites

475

stands out because of the number of uncommon words and expressions. The author seems to have wanted it to sound exotic. In this way one can also interpret the word ‫מ ְשׁ ָפּט‬, ִ which normally means “judgement”, but which can also denote someone’s style (cf. 1 Sam. 27:11about David’s way of living among the Philistines; 1 Kgs 18:28 about the manners of the priests of Baal; 2 Kgs 11:14 about royal manners; 2 Kgs 17:33 about the custom of foreign peoples). Laish is associated with the Sidonians, who were mentioned before in 3:3 and 10:12 as one of the peoples of the land, next to amongst others the Philistines and the Canaanites, who had not been driven out by the Israelites (cf. also Josh. 13:2–6). What is most characteristic of the situation of the people of Laish is that they live there “quiet and secure” (‫)שׁ ֵֹקט וּב ֵֹט ַח‬, an expression repeated in v. 27 and partly in v. 10. It is reminiscent of the state of peace the Israelites themselves had according to Josh. 11:23 and 14:15 after the conquest of the land. The same combination of words is used in Ezek. 38:11 in the description of the brutal attack by Gog and Magog on peaceful people. It seems that the roles have changed and that the Danites are now like those powerful evildoers. Harvey (2006, 252) suggests that among the many parallels between Judg. 17–21 and 1 Sam. 9–11 there is also a connection between Laish and the land of Shalishah and Shaalim mentioned in 1 Sam. 9:4. The otherwise unknown geographical references to Shalishah and Shaalim would have been meant as allusions to the story in Judg. 18. Given the relation of Shalishah and Shaalim in 1 Sam. 9:4 to mount Ephraim and Benjamin, this is not very likely. One could also consider a pun on the name of city, which can be translated as “lion” (cf. Isa. 30:6; Job 4:11; Prov. 30:30). A Hebrew reader will note the contrast between the name and the powerlessness of the city. ‫ין־מ ְכ ִלים ָדּ ָבר‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֵא‬is translated here as “no one was humiliating something”. After an elaborate discussion of the philological evidence MacIntosh suggests relating the verb to an Arabic cognate root klm and translates this part of the verse: “There was no one speaking with authority in the land, no one in possession of control” (1985, 76; cf. Frolov 2013, who suggests to translate: “no hereditary power-that-be have authority over anything in the land”). However, his suggestion that the text is about authority does not make more sense than the interpretation which sticks to the usual meaning of ‫כלם‬ assuming that Laish had until now not suffered the humiliation by foreign conquerors. In many old and modern translations the words ‫יוֹרשׁ ֶע ֶצר‬ ֵ ‫ ָבּ ָא ֶרץ‬are (sometimes partly) omitted. The verb ‫ ירשׁ‬is remarkable here, because it has been used many times in the book of Judges to denote the more or less successful occupation of the land by the Israelite tribes. In its present place it is reminiscent of the list in chapter 1 of territories which not had been taken into possession.

476

Judges17:1–18:31

On the basis of LXX (A) it has been suggested to change the final word ‫ ָא ָדם‬into the name of Aram (cf. BHK and BHS). That is certainly possible. A scribe could easily have mistaken a reshfor a dalet. For the interpretation it has no consequences. It is clear that Laish is located within the sphere of influence of Sidon (cf. Malamat 1992), but that at the same time it is far from Sidon, isolated and thus vulnerable. 18:8–10 8 9

10

TheycametotheirbrothersinZorahandEshtaolandtheirbrothers saidtothem:“What(do)you(think)?” Theysaid:“Ariseandletusgoupagainstthem,becausewehave seentheland.Look,itisverygood.Youaresilent.Donotbesluggish togo,tocomeandtakepossessionoftheland. Whenyoucomethere,youwillcometoapeople(thatfeels)secure andthelandisspacious.Yes,Godhasgivenitinyourhands.Aplace wherethereisnolackofallthethingsonearth”.

The spies are received by their Danite brothers with a very short question: ‫מה ַא ֶתּם‬, ָ “what you...?” In the LXX the roles are reversed. There the spies are asking the people in Zorah and Eshtaol: “Why are you sitting down?” This results in a more smooth transition to the next verse. It is not necessary to “improve” the text in this or other ways (cf. the survey by Soggin 1981, 273). The short form shows the anxiousness with which they Danites awaited the report. When one compares the report of the spies to those in the related stories in Num. 13–14 and Josh. 2, one notes that they combine the positive elements. With the ten fearful spies in Num. 13–14 they share the enthusiasm over the land they observed, with the two more confident spies in Num. 13–14 and with the two spies who were in Jericho they share the confidence that with the help of God (just as in v. 5 the name of YHWH is not used) they will be able to conquer the land. To this can be added that with Joshua, one of the confident spies in Num. 13–14 and the leader of the Israelites in Josh. 2, they incite their brothers to take action. Their words remind of the way Joshua stimulated the tribes to take possession of the rest of the land, blaming them their sluggishness (Josh. 18:3). The form in which the spies address their brothers is typical of the style of the author of the book of Judges (cf. introduction § 2.4): with three verbs following each other and all introduced with the same preposition: ‫ל ֶל ֶכת ָלבֹא ָל ֶר ֶשׁת‬,ָ “go, come, take possession”. To the description of Laish given in v. 7 they add that the land is “very good” (v. 9), “spacious”, “and with no lack of all the things on the earth” (v. 10). The latter expression is only used here and in 19:19, but there the

TheDanites

477

reference to the earth is missing. The spies are clear exaggerating here in their attempt to convince their brothers. LXX (A) adds in v. 9 after the first admonition: For we have entered and journeyed about in the land as far as Laisa, and we saw the people who live in it in hope, according to the judgment of the Sidonians: and they were far away, away from Sidon, and they had no word with Syria. But get up, and let us go up against them!

LXX (B) is in accordance with the MT. Apparently, a Greek scribe wanted to bring the report of the spies in line with the description given in v. 7 (cf. Schreiner 1957, 52). It is an attempt to smoothen the text and, therefore, not a strong indication for a better original Hebrew text. Something similar can be observed in vv. 17–18 in LXX (B) (cf. BHQ, 103*). 18:11–12 11 12

Theymarchedfromthere,fromtheclanoftheDanitesfromZorah andfromEshtaolsixhundredmen,girdedwithbattlegear. TheywentupandencampedatKiriath-JeariminJudah.Therefore they call that place Mahaneh-Dan until this day. Look, it is behind Kiriath-Jearim.

The description of the march north by the Danites begins with a number of topographical details. After the repetition of the reference to Zorah and Eshtaol it refers twice to Kiriath-Jearim. The close relation between KiriathJearim and Zorah and Eshtaol is also indicated in 1 Chron. 2:53 listing among the clans of Kiriath-Jearim the Zorahites and the Eshtaolites. The extra information explaining the name of Mahaneh-Dan as encampment of the Danites on their way to the north, functions as an extra connection to the story of Samson, where we find the only text referring to this place (13:25). It is related to Kiriath-Jearim as a border town (cf. Finkelstein etal. 2018, 37). In fact, Mahaneh-Dan lies still within the old territory of Dan. It lies west (“behind”) of Kiriath-Jearim. In this way the reader is not only remembered of the original location of the territory of Dan, but also of the relation between the two tribes. This had not been without problems, as was demonstrated by the attempt of the Judahites to deliver Samson in the hands of the Philistines (15:10–11). They march with six hundred men. According to v. 21 we have to add the women and children. The number is relatively small. It is far less, for instance, than the number of soldiers from Zebulun and Naphtali in the war against the Canaanites (4:14), the same as the remnants of the army of the Benjaminites which originally counted many thousands of soldiers (20:46–47), and only

478

Judges17:1–18:31

double the number of the small army of Gideon (7:6). Apparently, they are only a part of the total of the tribe of Dan. This also seems to be indicated by the fact that they are taken “from the clan (‫)מ ְשׁ ָפּ ָחה‬ ִ of the Danites”. Usually the tribe is reported to consist of a number of clans. The author is not consistent in this matter, because also in 17:7 he seems to have used the word for “clan” where one would expect “tribe” and in 18:19 both words are used next to each other (cf. also 21:24; see on the way this problem returns in the ancient versions Trebolle Barrera 2005, 406–408). 18:13–20 13 14

15 16 17

18

19

20

TheypassedfromtheremountEphraimandtheycametothehouse ofMicah. ThefivemenwhohadgonetospythelandofLaishspokeupand saidtotheirbrothers:“Doyouknowthatinthesehousesthereare anephod,teraphim,carvedandmoltenimages?Now,youknowwhat mustdo”. Theyturnedasidethereandcametothehouseoftheboy,theLevite, thehouseofMicah.Theyaskedhimafterhiswelfare. Sixhundredmengirdedwiththeirbattlegearhadstationedthemselves attheentranceofthegate.TheywerefromthechildrenofDan. Thefivemenwhohadgonetospythelandwentup,camehereand took the carved image, the ephod, the teraphim, and the molten image.Thepriesthadstationedhimselfattheentranceofthegate (with)thesixhundredmengirdedwithbattlegear. WhenthesehadcometothehouseofMicahandhadtakenthecarved image,theephod,theteraphim,andthemoltenimage,thepriestsaid tothem:“Whatareyoudoing?” They said to him: “Be quiet, put your hand over your mouth, go with us and be father and priest for us. Is it better for you to be priestforthehouseofonemanortobepriestforatribeandclan inIsrael?” (To) the heart of the priest (it felt) good and he took the ephod, theteraphim,andthecarvedimageandhecameinthemidstofthe people.

From near Kiriath-Jearim the group of Danites follow the same route as the spies, that is, via the house of Micah. According to v. 14 the spies speak of more than one house. This does not have to be interpreted as a tension in the text, which might point to the combination of different sources. One can easily imagine that Micah’s house was part of a village. It also prepares for the

TheDanites

479

situation described in v. 22, where Micah gathers a group of people to pursue the Danites. As can be expected from proper spies, they tell the people what they can expect to find there. In the LXX the reference to Laish in v. 14 is omitted. According to BHSit is a gloss, but it is more likely that it was left out by the translator as information that is irrelevant in this scene. The focus in these verses is on the cultic statues within the house of Micah. The ephod, teraphim, carved and molten images are mentioned with slight change of order three times within vv. 14–18 and a fourth time, leaving out the reference to the molten image, in v. 20 (cf. Schulz 2016, 173–175, for an elaborate but not convincing attempt to explain the differences in the lists as indications of redactional activities). Two times the spies use the verb ‫ידע‬, “to know”. In the story of Samson this functioned as a key word, pointing to the problem to understand the ways of YHWH. As was remarked above on 17:13 it functions in a similar way in this story. Micah thought that he knew that YHWH was with him. In 18:5 it was told that the spies wanted to know if their journey had God’s blessing. Now they use it in the context of the statues used for divination. They incite their brothers to capture these statues. In fact, they do it themselves. The six hundred are only standing by as a threatening army leaving the priest no other choice than to give in to their wishes. The verses 14–18 are built up according to a chiastic structure, emphasizing the capture of the statues described in the middle: The spies saying to their brothers: “You know what to do” (v. 14) The Levite and six hundred men girded with their battle gear standing at the gate (vv. 15–16) The spies take the statues (v. 17a) The priest and six hundred men girded with battle gear standing at the gate (v. 17b) The priest asking the spies: “What are you doing?” (v.18)

Within this structure the repetitions are functional. They do not have to be ascribed to redactional activities, as is often suggested (cf. the survey by Groß 2009, 762–763, who follows the suggestion by Niemann 1985, 96–98, that v. 17 is a later addition). Frolov (2013, 292) finds a harmonious symmetrical arrangement of the movements of the story in 17:8–18:31, with also 18:17 as its centre. The priest is easily convinced when the Danites offer him to become their “father and priest”, repeating the words used by Micah in 10. The Levite, who is now consistently called priest, is more opportunistic than steady. He feels all right about it: “His heart is good”. The same phrase is used in 19:6, 9 as the result of eating and drinking in a pleasant company (cf. also Ruth 3:7). He clearly feels no remorse about his betrayal.

480

Judges17:1–18:31

18:21–26 21 22

23

24

25

26

They turned and went and they put the small children, the cattle, andthevaluablepropertyinfrontofthem. They had gone far from the house of Micah, when the men who wereinthehousesthatwerebythehouseofMicahwereassembled. TheyovertookthechildrenofDan. They called out to the children of Dan. They turned their faces andsaidtoMicah:“What(isthematter)withyouthatyouhave assembled(them)?” Hesaid:“Mygod,thatIhavemade,youhavetakenandthepriest andyouhavegoneoff.What(else)doIhaveandwhatisthisthat yousaytome:what(isthematter)withyou?” ThechildrenofDansaidtohim:“Donotmakeyourvoiceheard amongus,lestmenbitterofsoulattackyou.Thenyouhavetogather yoursoulandthesoulofyourhouse”. ThechildrenofDanwentontheirway.Micahsawthattheywere strongerthanheandheturnedandwentbacktohishouse.

The Danites have little to fear ahead of them. So they can place the vulnerable people and their belongings at the front. They are the attacking party. They have to be careful, however, for what may approach them from the back, because of what they have left behind. Micah is coming after them with a group of men living in the houses mentioned in v. 14. It is often suggested to add after “the house of Micah”: “and, behold, Micah and …” (cf. BHQ, 103*), following the LXX. The plus in the Greek translation, however, can be explained as a way to smoothen the text. According Trebolle Barrera (2005, 410) ‫א ֶשׁר ַבּ ָבּ ִתּים‬, ֲ “who were in the houses”, is a gloss, which repeats the following words ‫ם־בּית ִמ ָיכה‬ ֵ ‫א ֶשׁר ִע‬, ֲ “that were by the house of Micah”. The original reading, which is partly preserved in the ancient Greek and Latin translations would have been: “Micah and the men that were with him in the house”. However, the present, seemingly redundant Hebrew text makes sense as emphasizing the central role of the house of Micah, which it plays since the first time it was mentioned in 17:4. Their number is not given, but from the outcome of the discussion between Micah and the Danites one has to conclude that they are outnumbered by the six hundred Danite soldiers. It is clear that the matter is solved on the basis of power, not of righteousness. Of course, Micah rightly blames them for stealing his statues and persuading the priest to leave him. The way he formulates his complaint underlines the fact that all this was his own work: “my god, that I have made” (repeated in vv. 27 and 31). The Greek translator probably felt that this was too blasphemous to render it literally and avoids the reference to god (cf. Schreiner 1957, 76). Micah does not formulate his

TheDanites

481

questions to the Danites very well. Some words seem to be missing. Instead of suggesting mistakes in the transmission of the text (cf. BHQ, 104*) it is better to assume that it is a way to render Micah’s confusion (see also the remarks on v. 8). The Danites warn him not to turn them into ‫אנָ ִשׁים ָמ ֵרי נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, ֲ “men, bitter of soul”. This expression denotes sadness, but also uncontrollable rage (cf. 2 Sam. 17:8). By opposing them he risks his life and the life of his family. For someone who is familiar with the style of the author of the book of Judges it comes as no surprise that the word ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is used three times in this verse. 18:27–31 27

28

29

30

31

TheytookwhatMicahhadmadeandthepriestthathehad.Theycame toLaish,toapeoplequietandsecureandtheystruckthemwiththe mouthoftheswordandburnedthecitywithfire. Therewasnosaviour,becauseitwasfarfromSidonandtheyhadno dealingswithanyone.ItwasinthevalleyofBeth-Rehob.They(re)built thecityandtheysettledinit. TheycalledthenameofthecityDanafterthenameofDan,their father,whohadbeenborntoIsrael.However,Laish(was)thename ofcityatfirst. ThechildrenofDanerectedthecarvedimageforthemselves.Jonathan, thesonofGershom,thesonofMoses/Manasseh,heandhissonswere priestsforthetribeofDanuntilthedayoftheexileoftheland. TheysetupforthemselvesthecarvedimageofMicah,whichhehad made,allthedaysthatthehouseofGodwasatShiloh.

When the Danites resume their journey to the far north the two most important elements of the story are repeated: they take the makings of Micah with them and they are going to kill people who live quiet and secure. With this dubious religious support they do not resemble the Israelite tribes guided by Joshua conquering the promised land (using the same formula; cf. Josh. 6:21, 24), but look more like Gog and Magog cruelly finishing off peaceful people (cf. Ezek. 38:11). As was indicated in v. 7 Laish is not supported by the nearby powerful city of Sidon. To this is added here the remark that there was no saviour. Laish did not have someone like Gideon saving his people from the foreign enemy (9:17). This indicates once more that the roles within the book of Judges have been reversed. The Danites now play the role of the foreign oppressors (cf. Gillmayr-Bucher 2015, 44). The founding story of the city of Dan is formulated in the normal way, with some extra topographical information about the precise location in v. 28b (cf. 1:16) and a clarifying remark about its name in v. 29 (cf. 1:10–11).

482

Judges17:1–18:31

However, in its present context it is in the first place the founding story of the sanctuary in the city of Dan with its carved image. The ephod and teraphim are not mentioned any more. Instead we are informed about the identity of the priest: he is a grandson of Moses. In 20:28 we will find a similar note concerning the sanctuary in Bethel. Here the priest is the grandson of Aaron. In this way the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel are related again, which is another indication that the story about the origin of the sanctuary of Dan should be read as prefiguring the acts of Jeroboam who initiated cultic centres in Dan and Bethel as alternative for the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:28–32). In the MT the name of Moses is changed into that of (the infamous king) Manasseh by inserting the letter nun. This intervention is made visible in most manuscripts by suspending this letter. LXX (A) follows the original text, LXX (B) follows the MT (cf. Trebolle Barrera 2005, 408–409). It is usually assumed that relating him to Manasseh was inspired by the reference to the carved image of Asherah which was placed by this king of Judah in the temple according to 2 Kgs 21:7. It is also possible, however, to think here of a later Manasseh, described by Josephus, Ant.11.302–312, as the first high priest of the Samaritan temple on the Gerizim (cf. Weitzmann 1999, 450– 453; Stavrakopoulou 2005, 255–256). Frolov (1995, 213) suggests to relate him to Jonathan, the son of Abiathar (cf. 1 Kgs 1:42). Within the story of Micah there is wordplay with the name of Gershom. In 17:7 the Levite was introduced as someone who was living as a stranger in Judah: “sojourning there” (cf. Frolov 2013, 293). In Hebrew this phrase ‫ר־שׁם‬ ָ ָ‫ ג‬explains the name Gershom, as was also indicated in Exod. 2:22 (this wordplay can be assumed with regard to Shamgar in 3:31 as well). Chronologically the reference to a grandson of Moses is problematic (cf. Wesselius 2000, 14–19, who assumes that the text is deliberately ambiguous). A reference to the second generation after Joshua was already given in 2:10. A grandson of Moses (and also a grandson of Aaron in 20:28) has to be counted to that generation. The many stories told between the beginning of the book and the final chapters suggest that the events recounted in chapters 17–21 took place much later. This problem is solved in ancient Jewish tradition placing the stories of chapters 17-21 to the beginning of the period of the judges (cf. S.OlamRab.12.4–5, assigning them to the time of Cushan Rishataim; and Josephus, Ant. 5.136–178, as noted above). One should take into account, however, that in many places in the book of Judges the author appears to have had no problem in placing different accounts of the same story next to each other (see introduction § 4). Just as 2:6–3:6 can be seen as a second introduction next to chapter 1, and the song of Deborah in chapter 5 tells the same story as chapter 4, and chapters 15–16 tell once more the story in chapter 14 of Samson giving away his secret, so chapters 17–21 can be seen as another

TheDanites

483

version of the story of the new generation of Israelites not going on the path of Moses and Joshua. After the introductory chapters the two parts of chapters 2:6–16:31 and 17–21 thus form a diptych. Just as the first part of this diptych ended with a reference to the beginning of the Babylonian exile (with Samson suffering the same fate as king Zedekiah), so the story of the Danites ends with a reference to the Assyrian exile (2 Kgs 15:29). The reference to Shiloh is unexpected, leading to much scholarly discussion. It would make more sense if Laish was mentioned here. Therefore, it is often suggested to change the text accordingly (cf. BHK,BHS and recently again Rofé 2003, 773–775). The more simple and plausible explanation, however, is that the reference to Shiloh points forward to the following story of Samuel which takes place there (cf. 1 Sam. 1:3). It is in line with the many other connections mentioned above between the stories in the book of Judges and the story of Samuel and the kings of Israel. It pictures the sanctuary in Dan as the negative counterpart of the proper cult at Shiloh, just as Samson was pictured as the negative counterpart of Samuel. Na’aman (2005, 57–60) points to an interesting parallel with the founding story of Massalia by the Phocaeans (cf. also Wajdenbaum 2011, 229–231, and Guillaume 2014, 160–163, who mention many more, but less plausible Greek parallels). It is preserved in Strabo’s GeographyIV.1.4. This was written in the early 1st century CE, but it probably goes back many centuries. Massalia (Marseille) was one of the Greek colonies in the far west, founded around in the middle of the 6th century BCE. Reports about the Phocaeans, who were driven away by the Persians, sailing to this and other places like Tartessus are also found with Herodotus (Hist.1.163). In his version of the story Strabo pays attention to some elements which remind of the story of Micah and the Danites, especially when it comes to the cultic aspects: …when the Phocaeans were setting sail from their homeland an oracle was delivered to them, it is said, to use for their voyage a guide received from the Ephesian Artemis; accordingly, some of them put in at Ephesus and inquired in what way they might procure from the goddess what had been enjoined in a dream. Now the goddess, in a dream, it is said, had stood beside Aristarcha, one of the women held in very high honour, and commanded her to sail away with the Phocaeans, taking with her a certain reproduction which was among the sacred images; this done and the colony finally settled, they not only established the temple but also did Aristarcha the exceptional honour of appointing her priestess; further, in the colonial cities the people everywhere do this goddess honours of the first rank, and they preserve the artistic design of the xoana the same, and all the other usages precisely the same as is customary in the mothercity. (translation H.L. Jones, TheGeographyofStraboVol.II [Loeb Classical Library], 1923)

In this text especially the references to the images stand out. The phrase “a certain reproduction which was among the sacred images” is a translation

484

Judges17:1–18:31

of Ἀφίδρυμά τι τῶν ἱερῶν. This has also been translated as “one of the statues consecrated in her temple”. With regard to the word ξόανα, not translated above, Jones remarks, that strictly speaking, the ξόανα were the primitive wooden images which were supposed originally to have fallen from heaven. Here it is used of a reproduction. Na’aman notes four “unmistakable similarities”: (1) migration from an ancestral place and the foundation of a new city; (2) oracular confirmation for the settlement; (3) taking of a priest and a cult image from a place on their route; (4) image and priest in a temple in the new place. He could have added the similar background of a people being driven away. Na’aman is less certain about how the Greek legend could have been borrowed by the author for his composition, which was in his opinion written in the 5th century BCE. The many Greek parallels noted before and dating the book of Judges in the Hellenistic as suggested in the present commentary period strengthen his case.

JUDGES 19:1–21:25

THE BENJAMINITES

TRANSLATION 19:1

2

3

4 5

6

7 8

9

10

11

It happened in those days – there was no king in Israel – that a LevitemanwassojourningontheflanksofmountEphraim.Hetook forhimselfawoman,aconcubinefromBethlehem(in)Judah. Hisconcubinewhoredagainsthim.Shewentfromhimtothehouse ofherfather,toBethlehem(in)Judah.Shewastheresometime,four months. Herhusbandaroseandwentafterhertospeaktoherhearttohave herreturn.Hisboy(was)withhimandapairofdonkeys.Shebrought himtothehouseofherfather.Thefatherofthegirlsawhimand rejoicedtomeethim. Hisfather-in-law,thefatherofthegirl,entreatedhimandhestayed withhimforthreedays.Theyateanddrankandspentthenightthere. Ithappenedonthefourthdaythattheyroseearlyinthemorning. Hearosetogo.Thefatherofthegirlsaidtohisson-in-law:“Strengthen yourheartwithabitofbread.Afterwardyoumaygo”. Theystayedandate,thetwoofthemtogether,anddrank.Thefather of the girl said to the man: “Agree and spend the night and may yourheartbegood”. The man arose to go and his father-in-law pressed him and he stayedandspentthenightthere. Heroseearlyinthemorningonthefifthdaytogo.Thefatherofthe girlsaid:“Strengthenyourheartandtarryuntiltheday(light)comes toanend”;andthetwoofthemate. Themanarosetogo,heandhisconcubineandhisboy.Hisfatherin-law,thefatherofthegirl,saidtohim:“Look,thedayisdeclining towardevening,spendthenight.Look,thedayisdeclining,spendthe night here, let your heart be good. You can rise early tomorrow on yourwayandgotoyourtent”. The man was not willing to spend the night. He arose and went. HecameoppositeJebus–thatisJerusalem–withhimapairof saddleddonkeysandhisconcubinewithhim. TheywerebyJebusandthedaywasfarspent.Theboysaidtohis lord: “Go and let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spendthenightthere”.

486 12

13 14 15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22

23    24

25

26

Judges19:1–21:25 Hislordsaidtohim:“Weshallnotturnasidetoaforeigncity,here wheretherearenochildrenofIsrael.Wewillcrossoverasfaras Gibeah”. Hesaidtohisboy:“Goandletusapproachoneoftheplacesand spendthenightinGibeahorinRamah”. Theycrossedoverandwent.ThesunsetonthemnearGibeah,which (belongs)toBenjamin. They turned aside there to come and spend the night in Gibeah. Theycameandsatinthetownsquare.Therewasnomantogather themintothehousetospendthenight. Look,anoldmancomingfromhiswork,fromthefield,intheevening. ThemanwasfrommountEphraim.HewassojourninginGibeah. Themenoftheplace(were)Benjaminites. Helifteduphiseyesandsawthewanderingmaninthetownsquare. The old man said: “Where are you going and from where do you come?” He said to him: “We are crossing from Bethlehem (in) Judah to theflanksofmountEphraim.I(am)fromthere.IwenttoBethlehem (in)JudahandtothehouseofYHWHIamgoing.Thereisnoman gatheringmetothehouse. There is even straw and even fodder for the donkeys and there is evenbreadandwineformeandforyourhandmaidandfortheboy withyourservants.Thereisnolackofallthings”. The old man said: “Peace to you. Surely, whatever you lack (is) uponme.Surely,donotspendthenightinthesquare”. He brought him to his house and mixed fodder for the donkeys. Theywashedtheirfeet,ateanddrank. Whiletheyweredoinggoodtotheirhearts,look,themenofthecity, worthlessmen,drewroundthehouse,beatingatthedoor.Theysaid totheoldman,theownerofthehouse,saying:“Bringouttheman whohascomeintoyourhouseandwewillknowhim”. Theman,theownerofthehouse,wentouttothemandsaidtothem:  “No,mybrothers,  donoevilafterthismanhascometomyhouse.  Donotdothisdisgracefulthing. Look,myvirgindaughterandhisconcubine,Iwillbringthemout toyou.Debasethemanddotothemwhatisgoodinyoureyesand tothismandonotthisdisgracefulthing”. Themendidnotwanttolistentohim.Themanseizedhisconcubine and made her go out to them outside. They knew her and abused herallnightuntilthemorning.Theysentherawayatdaybreak. Thewomancametowardthemorningandfellattheentranceofthe houseofthemanwhereherlordwas,until(itwas)light.

TheBenjaminites 27

28 29

30

20:1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8   9 10    11

487

Herlordaroseinthemorning,openedthedoorsofthehouse,and wentouttogohisway.Look,thewoman,hisconcubinefallendown attheentranceofthehouse,herhandsonthethreshold. Hesaidtoher:“Arise,letusgo”.Noone(was)answering.Hetook heronthedonkey.Themanaroseandwenttohisplace. He came to his house and took the knife. He seized his concubine andcutherup,toherbones,intotwelvecut-pieces.Hesentherto alltheterritoryofIsrael. Ithappenedthatallwhosawitsaid:“Therehasnotbeenandthere hasnotbeenseen(anything)likethisfromthedayofthechildrenof Israel going up from the land of Egypt until this day. Take it for yourselves,getcounselandspeak”. AllthechildrenofIsraelwentoutandthecommunityassembledas onemanfromDantoBeershebaandthelandofGilead,toYHWH atMizpah. Thecornerstonesofallthepeople,allthetribesofIsraeltooktheir stanceintheassemblyofthepeopleofGod,fourhundredthousand sword-wieldingfootsoldiers. ThechildrenofBenjaminheardthatthechildrenofIsraelhadcome uptoMizpah.ThechildrenofIsraelsaid:“Speak:howdidthisevil comeabout?” TheLeviteman,themanofthemurderedwoman,answered.Hesaid: “To Gibeah, that (belongs) to Benjamin, had I come, me and my concubine,tospendthenight. ThelordsofGibeahstoodupagainstmeandsurroundedthehouse againstmeatnight.Metheyintendedtokillandmyconcubinethey debasedandshedied. Iseizedmyconcubineandcutherupandsentherthroughallthe fieldsoftheinheritanceofIsrael,becausetheydidadisgracefulthing inIsrael. Look,you(are)allchildrenofIsrael,giveyourselveswordandadvice here”. Allthepeoplearoseasoneman,saying:  “Wewillnotgo,amantohistent  andwewillnotturnaside,amantohishouse. Now,thisisthethingthatwewilldotoGibeah:againstitbylot.  WewilltaketenmenperhundredforallthetribesofIsrael  andhundredperthousand  andthousandpertenthousandtotakeprovisionsforthepeople, todoforthosecomingtoGebahofBenjamin,accordingtoallthe disgracethatithasdoneinIsrael”. AllthemenofIsraelgatheredagainstthecity,asoneman,companions.

488 12 13

14 15

16

17 18

19 20 21 22

23

24 25

26

27

Judges19:1–21:25 ThetribesofIsraelsentmenamongallthetribesofBenjaminsaying: “Whatisthisevilthathascomeaboutwithyou? Now,givethemen,theworthless,who(are)inGibeah,andwewillkill them and root out evil from Israel”. The children of Benjamin were notwillingtolistentothevoiceoftheirbrothers,thechildrenofIsrael. ThechildrenofBenjamingatheredfromthecitiestoGibeah,togo outtobattlewiththechildrenofIsrael. ThechildrenofBenjaminweremusteredonthatdayfromthecities, twenty-sixthousandmenwieldingthesword,besidestheinhabitants ofGibeahwhomusteredsevenhundredchosenmen. Fromallthispeople(therewere)sevenhundredchosenmenrestricted intheirrighthand;eachoftheseslingingastoneatahairandnot miss. ThemenofIsraelweremustered,exceptforBenjamin,fourhundred thousandmenwieldingthesword,eachofthemamanofwar. TheyaroseandwentuptoBethelandinquiredofGod.Thechildren ofIsraelsaid:“Whoshallgoupforusfirstinthebattlewiththe childrenofBenjamin?”YHWHsaid:“Judahfirst”. ThechildrenofIsraelaroseinthemorningandencampedagainst Gibeah. The men of Israel went out to battle with Benjamin. The men of IsraeldrewupinbattleorderagainstthematGibeah. ThechildrenofBenjaminwentoutfromGibeah.Theybroughtruin amongIsraelonthatday:twenty-twothousandmentotheground. The people, the men of Israel, strengthened themselves and again drewupinbattleontheplacewheretheyhaddrawnuponthefirst day. The children of Israel went up and wept before YHWH until the evening.TheyinquiredofYHWH,saying:“ShallIagainapproach forbattlewiththechildrenofBenjamin,mybrother?”YHWHsaid: “Goupagainsthim”. ThechildrenofIsraeldrewneartothechildrenofBenjaminonthe secondday. BenjaminwentouttomeetthemfromGibeahontheseconddayand they brought ruin among the children of Israel: another eighteen thousandmentotheground,allofthesewieldingthesword. AllthechildrenofIsraelwentupandallthepeople.Theycameto BethelandweptandsattherebeforeYHWH.Theyfastedonthatday untiltheevening.Theyofferedburntofferingsandpeaceofferings beforeYHWH. ThechildrenofIsraelinquiredofYHWH–therewasthearkofthe covenantofGodinthosedays

TheBenjaminites 28

29 30

31

32

33

34 35

36

37 38 39

40

41 42

489

andPhineas,sonofEleazar,sonofAaron,wasstandingbeforeit inthosedays–saying:“ShallIonceagaingooutforbattlewith thechildrenofBenjamin,mybrother,orshallIstop?”YHWHsaid: “Goup,becausetomorrowIshallgivehiminyourhand”. IsraelplacedambushersforGibeah,allaround. ThechildrenofIsraelwentupagainstthechildrenofBenjamin onthethirddayanddrewupinbattleagainstGibeahasother times. The children of Benjamin went out to meet the people. They were drawnawayfromthecity.Theybegantostrikedown(some)ofthe people,slainasothertimesonthehighways,ofwhichonegoesup toBethelandonetoGibeah,inthefield,aboutthirtymeninIsrael. ThechildrenofBenjaminsaid:“Theyarebeatenbeforeusasthe firsttime”.ThechildrenofIsraelsaid:“Letusfleeanddrawthem awayfromthecitytothehighways”. AllthemenofIsraelstoodupfromtheirplaceanddrewupinbattle orderatBaal-Tamar.TheambushofIsraelburstforthfromitsplace, fromthebaresideofGeba. FromoppositeGibeacametenthousandchosenmenfromallIsrael. Thebattle(was)heavy.Theydidnotknowthatevilwasreachingthem. YHWHbeatBenjaminbeforeIsraelandthechildrenofIsraelbrought ruinamongthechildrenofBenjaminonthatday:twenty-fivethousand onehundredmen,allofthesewieldingthesword. ThechildrenofBenjaminsawthattheywerebeaten.ThemenofIsrael gaveroomtoBenjamin,becausetheytrustedtheambushthatthey hadsetagainstGibeah. TheambushershurriedandattackedGibeah.Theambushersdeployed andstrucktheentirecitywiththemouthofthesword. TheappointmentofthemenofIsraelwiththeambusherswastosend uparisingmassofsmokefromthecity. ThemenofIsraelturnedroundinthebattle.Benjaminhadstarted tostrikedown:theslainamongthemenofIsrael(were)aboutthirty men,becausetheysaid:“Surely,heiscertainlydefeatedbeforeus asinthefirstbattle”. Therisingmasshadbeguntogoupfromthecity,acolumnofsmoke. Benjaminturnedaroundtoitsrearand,look,theentirecitywentup (insmoke)totheheavens. The men of Israel turned around and the men of Benjamin were terrified,becausetheysawtheevilthathadreachedthem. TheyturnedfrombeforethemenofIsraeltotheroadofthedesert. Thebattlecaughtupwiththemand(those)whowerefromthecities werebringinghimtoruininitsmidst.

490 43

44 45

46 47 48

21:1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

9 10

11

Judges19:1–21:25 They surrounded Benjamin, pursued him from the resting place, forcedhimalongupto(aplace)oppositeGibeah,fromtherisingof thesun. OfBenjaminfelleighteenthousandmen,alltheseweremenofvalour. They turned and fled to the desert, to the rock of Rimmon. They dealtwiththemonthehighways,fivethousandmen.Theyovertook themasfarasGidomandstruckdowntwothousandmenofthem. IthappenedthatallthosewhofellfromBenjaminweretwenty-five thousandmenwieldingtheswordonthatday,allthesemenofvalour. Theyturnedandfledtothedesert,totherockofRimmon,sixhundred menandtheystayedattherockofRimmonforfourmonths. The men of Israel returned to the children of Benjamin and struck themwiththemouthoftheswordfromthecitypeopletothecattle,to allthatwasfound.Alsoallthecitiesthatwerefoundtheysetonfire. ThemenofIsraelhadsworninMizpah,saying:“Nomanofuswill givehisdaughteraswifetoBenjamin”. The people came to Bethel and sat there until the evening before God.Theyraisedtheirvoiceandwept,agreatweeping. Theysaid:“Why,YHWH,godofIsrael,hasthishappenedinIsrael, thattodayonetribeismissinginIsrael?” Ithappenedonthenextdaythatthepeopleroseupearlyandbuilt thereanaltarandofferedupburntofferingsandpeace-offerings. ThechildrenofIsraelsaid:“Whohasnotgoneupintheassembly fromallthetribesofIsraeltoYHWH?”Becausetherewasagreat sworn-oathagainstanyonewhohadnotgoneuptoYHWHatMizpah, saying:hemustsurelydie. ThechildrenofIsraelfeltsorryforBenjamin,theirbrother.Theysaid: “TodayonetribeiscutofffromIsrael. Whatshallwedoforthosethatremainregardingwives?Wehave swornbyYHWHnottogivethem(anyof)ourdaughtersaswives”. Theysaid:“WhoistheonefromthetribesofIsraelthatdidnotgoup toYHWHatMizpah?”Look,notamanhascometothecampfrom Jabesh-Gileadtotheassembly. Thepeopleweremusteredand,look,therewasnomantherefrom theinhabitantsofJabesh-Gilead. Thecommunitysenttheretwelvethousandmenoftheviolentones andchargedthem,saying:“Goandstrikedowntheinhabitantsof Jabesh-Gileadwiththemouthoftheswordandthewomenandthe littleones. This(is)thethingthatyouhavetodo:everymaleandeverywoman whoknowslyingwithamaleyoushalldevotetotheban”.

TheBenjaminites 12

13

14

15 16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23

24 25

491

They found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred virgin girls who had not known a man by lying with a male. They broughtthemtothecampatShilohwhich(is)inthelandofCanaan. Thewholecommunitysent(messengerswho)spoketothechildren ofBenjaminwho(were)attherockofRimmon.Theycalledtothem: “Peace”. Benjaminreturnedatthattime.Theygavethemthewomenwhom theyhadkeptalivefromthewomenofJabesh-Gilead.Theydidnot findenoughforthem. The people felt sorry for Benjamin, because YHWH had made a breachamongthetribesofIsrael. Theeldersofthecommunitysaid:“Whatshallwedoforthosethat remain regarding wives, because the women have been wiped out fromBenjamin?” Theysaid:“(Theremustbe)aninheritanceofescapeforBenjamin. AtribeshouldnotbewipedoutfromIsrael. Wecannotgivethemwivesfromourdaughters”–becausethechildren of Israel had sworn, saying: “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin”– They said: “Look, (there is) a festival of YHWH at Shiloh, every year,whichisnorthofBethel,towardtherisingofthesunfrom the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah”. TheychargedthechildrenofBenjamin,saying:“Goandlieinambush inthevineyards. Youmustsee,look,whenthedaughtersofShilohgoouttodancein aring,youmustgooutfromthevineyardsandseizeforyourselves amanhiswomanfromthedaughtersofShilohandgototheland ofBenjamin. Itshallbewhentheirfathersortheirbrotherscometodisputetous, weshallsaytothem:‘Showbecauseofusfavourtothem,because wehavenottakenamanhiswomaninbattle,becauseyouhave notgiven(them)tothem,asatthattimeyouwouldhavebecome guilty’”. The children of Benjamin did thus: they took wives according to theirnumberfromthedancerswhomtheyrobbed.Theywentand returned to their inheritance and built the cities and settled in them. ThechildrenofIsraelwentfromthereatthattime,amantohistribe andtohisclan.Theywentoutfromthere,amantohisinheritance. InthosedaystherewasnokinginIsrael.Amandidwhatwasright inhiseyes.

492

Judges19:1–21:25 ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. Ackerman, “The Women of the Bible and of Ancient Near Eastern Myth: The Case of the Levite’s ‫”פילגש‬, in: J.J. Collins etal. (eds), Worship,Women,andWar (Fs Niditch), Providence 2015, 215–226; A. Amit, “The Concubine in the Gibeah Episode as a Hidden Polemic Against Saul’s Kingdom and its Supporters (Judges 19–21)”, BetM37 (1991–1992), 109–128 (Hebr.); idem, “Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19–21”, in: H.G. Reventlow etal. (eds), PoliticsandTheopolitics (JSOTSup 171), Sheffield 1994, 28–40; idem, HiddenPolemicsinBiblicalNarrative, Leiden 2000; C.B. Anderson, “Biblical Interpretation as Violence: Genesis 19 and Judges 19 in the Context of HIV and AIDS”, in: S. Scholz, P.R. Andiňach (eds), La Violencia andtheHebrewBible, Atlanta 2016, 121–136; P.M. Arnold, Gibeah:The SearchforaBiblicalCity(JSOTSup 79), Sheffield 1990; W.R. Arnold, Ephodand Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews, London 1917, 95–122; M. Avioz, “The Role and Significance of Jebus in Judges 19”, BZ 51 (2007), 247–256; A. Bach, “Rereading the Body Politic: Women and Violence in Judges 21”, BibInt6 (1998), 1–19 (reprinted in A. Bach [ed.], WomenintheHebrewBible, New York 1999, 389–401); M. Bal, “A Body of Writing: Judges 19”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), AFeministCompaniontoJudges, Sheffield 1993, 208–230; C.T. Begg, “Josephus’s Account of the Benjaminite War”, LA48 (1998), 273–304; idem, “The Retelling of the Story of Judges 19 by Pseudo-Philo and Josephus: A Comparison”, EstBib 58 (2000), 33–49; D.J.H. Beldman, TheCompletionofJudges:StrategiesofEnding inJudges17–21, Winona Lake 2017a; J. Berman, NarrativeAnalogyintheHebrew Bible:BattleStoriesandTheirEquivalentNon-battleNarratives, Leiden 2004; D.I. Block, “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature: A Study in Judges 19”, WThJ52 (1990), 325–341; K.G. Bohmbach, “Conventions/Contraventions: The Meaning of Public and Private for the Judges 19 Concubine”, JSOT 83 (1999), 83–98; R.G. Boling, “Some Conflate Readings in Joshua-Judges”, VT16 (1966), 293–298; L.M.A. van Buuren, “Het raadsel van de ‘bijvrouw’ in Richteren 19”, ACEBT 19 (2001), 159–175; M. Carden, “Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah: A Response to Ken Stone”, JSOT 82 (1999), 83–96; J.H. Coetzee, “The ‘Outcry’ of the Dissected Woman in Judges 19–21: Embodiment of a Society”, OTE15 (2002), 52–63; P.R. Davies, “The Trouble with Benjamin”, in: R. Rezetko etal. (eds), Reflectionand Refraction:StudiesinBiblicalHistoriography(Fs Auld; SVT 113), Leiden 2007, 93– 111; S. Delany, “ ‘This Borrowed Language’: Body Politic in Judges 19”, Shofar 11 (1993), 97–109; F. Dexinger, “Ein Plädoyer für die Linkshänder im Richterbuch”, ZAW89 (1977), 268–269; S. Doane, “Gang bang et démembrement: Quatre lectures de Juges 19”, SeE66 (2014), 177–188; C. Edenburg, DismemberingtheWhole:CompositionandPurposeofJudges19-21 (Ancient Israel and its Literature 24), Atlanta 2016; R. Egger-Wenzel, “Jiftachs Tochter (Ri 11,29–40) – Die Töchter von Schilo (Ri 21, 19–25)”, BN 129 (2006) 5–16; O. Eissfeldt, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund der Erzählung von Gibeas Schandtat (Richter 19-21)”, in: A. Weiser (ed.), Festschrift GeorgBeer, Stuttgart 1935, 19–40 (reprinted in KleineSchriftenII, Tübingen 1963, 64–80); A. Eversmann, “Gottesbefragung und Bruderkrieg in Ri 20”, BN 136 (2008), 17–30; J.C. Exum, FragmentedWomen:Feminist(Sub)versionsofBiblicalNarratives (JSOTSup 163), Sheffield 1993; E. Eynikel, “Judges 19–21, an ‘appendix’: rape, murder, war and abduction”, CV 47 (2005), 101–115; L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’s Portrayal (Antiquities 5.136–174) of the Benjaminite Affair of the Concubine and its Repercussions (Judges 19–21)”, JQR90 (1999–2000), 255–292 (reprinted in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered [JSJSup 107], Leiden 2006, 637–675); W.W. Fields,

TheBenjaminites

493

“The Motif ‘Night As Danger’ Associated with Three Biblical Destruction Narratives”, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), “Sha`areiTalmon”:StudiesintheBible,Qumran,and the Ancient Near East (Fs Talmon), Winona Lake 1992, 17–33; idem, Sodom and Gomorrah:HistoryandMotifinBiblicalNarrative(JSOT Sup 231), Sheffield 1997; M. Fishbane, BiblicalInterpretationinAncientIsrael, Oxford 1988; D. Flanders, “A Thousand Times, No: ‫ אלף‬Does Not Mean ‘Contingent’ in the Deuteronomistic History”, Bib99 (2018), 484–506; J.P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19”, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), “Sha`areiTalmon”:StudiesintheBible, Qumran,andtheAncientNearEast (Fs Talmon), Winona Lake 1992, 33–45; S. Frolov, “Dismembering Judges”, HebrewStudies57 (2016), 423–437; F.J. Gaiser, “Which Bethlehem? A Tale of Two Cities”, W&W33 (2013), 349–356; D. Garber, D. Stallings, “Awakening Desire Before it is the Season: Reading Biblical Texts in Response to the Sexual Exploitation of Children”, Review & Expositor 105 (2008), 453– 470; D.A. Glatt, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBL DS 139), Atlanta 1993; R. Gnuse, “Abducted Wives: A Hellenistic Narrative in Judges 21?”, SJOT 22 (2007), 228–240; N. Graetz, “The Concubine of Gibeah: The Case for Reading Intertextually”, in: J.T. Greene, M.M. Caspi (eds),IntheArmsof BiblicalWomen, Piscataway 2013, 121–143;F.E. Greenspahn, “An Egyptian Parallel to Judg 17.6 and 21.25”, JBL101 (1982), 129–130; M. Güdemann, “Tendenz und Abfassungszeit der letzten Kapitel des Buches der Richter”, MGWJ18 (1869), 425– 453; G. Hammond, “The Bible and Literary Criticism – Part II”, CriticalQuarterly25 (1983), 3–15; J.E. Harding, “Homophobia and Rape Culture in the Narratives of Early Israel”, in: C. Blyth etal. (eds), RapeCulture,GenderViolence,andReligion:Biblical Perspectives, Cham 2018, 159–178; G. Hentschel, C. Nießen, “Der Bruderkrieg zwischen Israel und Benjamin (Ri 20)”, Bib89 (2008), 17–38; I. Himbaza, “Israël et les nations dans les relectures de Juges 19,22–25: débats sur l’homosexualité”, BN131 (2006), 5–16; A. Hock-Soon Ng, “Revisiting Judges 19: A Gothic Perspective”, JSOT 32 (2007), 199–215; R. de Hoop, “Saul the Sodomite: Genesis 18–19 as the Opening Panel of a Polemic Triptych on King Saul”, in: E. Noort, E. Tigchelaar (eds), Sodom’s Sin: Genesis 18-19 and its Interpretation (ThBN 7), Leiden 2004, 17–26; D.M. Hudson, “Living in a Land of Epithets: Anonymity in Judges 19–21”, JSOT 62 (1994), 49–66; U. Hübner, “Jerusalem und die Jebusiter”, in: U. Hübner, E.A. Knauf (eds), KeinLandfürsichallein:StudienzumKulturkontaktinKanaan,Israel/PalästinaundEbirnâri(Fs Weippert; OBO 186), Freiburg 2002, 31–42; F.F. Hvidberg, WeepingandLaughterintheOldTestament:AStudyofCanaanite-IsraeliteReligion, Leiden 1962;K. Jones-Warsaw, “Toward a Womanist Hermeneutic: A Reading of Judges 19-21”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Judges, Sheffield 1993, 172–186;J. Joosten, “Les Benjaminites au milieu de Jérusalem: Jérémie VI1ss et Juges XIX-XX”, VT49 (1999), 65–72; H.W. Jüngling, Richter19–EinPlädoyer fürdasKönigtum:StilistischeAnalysederTendenzerzählungRi19,1–30a; 21,25 (AnBib 84) Rome 1981; idem, “Propaganda für das Königtum”, BibelundKirche38 (1983), 64–65; A.A. Keefe, “Rapes of Women/War of Men”, Semeia 61 (1993), 79–97; K. von Kellenbach, “Am I a Murderer? Judges 19–21 as a Parable of Meaningless Suffering”, in: T. Linafelt (ed.), StrangeFire:ReadingtheBibleaftertheHolocaust, Sheffield 2000, 176–191; F. Landy, “Between Centre and Periphery: Space and Gender in the Book of Judges in the Early Second Temple Period”, in: E. Ben Zvi, C. Levin (eds), CentresandPeripheriesintheEarlySecondTemplePeriod(FAT 108), Tübingen 2016, 133–162;S. Lasine, “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World”, JSOT29 (1984), 37–59; D.G. Lawrie, “Figuring it and Figuring it out: The Historical Imagination at Work in and on Judges 19–21”, Scriptura 96

494

Judges19:1–21:25

(2007), 425–440; B. Lee, Marginal(ized)ProspectsthroughBiblicalRitualandLaw: LectionsfromtheThreshold, Cham 2017; Y. Leshem, “The Date of the Composition of the Narrative Material in Judges: The ‘Concubine at Gibeah’ Story (Judges 19– 21)”, BetM46 (2001), 128–145 (Hebr.); M. Liverani, “Messages, Women, and Hospitality: Inter-tribal Communication in Judges 19–21”, in: Z. Bahrani, M. Van De Mieroop (eds), Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography, Ithaca 2004, 160–192; J.M Matheny, “Mute and Mutilated: Understanding Judges 19–21 as a ‫ משל‬of Dialogue”, BibInt25 (2017), 625–646; A.D.H. Mayes, “Deuteronomistic Royal Ideology in Judges 17–21”, BibInt 9 (2001), 241–258; V.H. Matthews, “Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 19 and Genesis 19”, BTB 22 (1992), 3-11; M.E. McCullough, BeyondRevenge:TheEvolutionoftheForgivenessInstinct, San Francisco 2008; P. van Midden, “Gibea op het toneel van Rechters”, in: B. Becking etal. (eds), Tussen Caïro en Jeruzalem (Fs Dijkstra & Vriezen), Utrecht 2006, 99–106; G.P. Miller, “Verbal Feud in the Hebrew Bible: Judges 3: 12–30 and Judges 19–21”, JNES 55 (1996), 105–117; M. Miller, “Notes on Benjaminite Place Names”, JNSL25 (1999), 61–73; R. Mills, SeeingSodomyintheMiddleAges, Chicago 2015; G.B. Miles, “The First Roman Marriage and the Theft of the Sabine Women”, in: R. Hexter, D. Selden (eds), InnovationsofAntiquity, New York 1992, 161–196; S.J. Milstein, “Saul the Levite and His Concubine: The ‘Allusive’ Quality of Judges 19”, VT 66 (2016), 95– 116; O. Minka, “The Story of the Benjaminites’ Marriage with the Surviving Daughters of Jabesh Gilead (Judges 21) in Light of Its Legal Background”, BetM62 (2017), 254–288 (Hebr.); D.Z. Moster, “The Levite of Judges 19–21”, JBL 134 (2015), 721– 730; I. Müllner, “Lethal Differences: Sexual Violence as Violence Against Others in Judges 19”, in: A. Brenner (ed.), Judges. A Feminist Companion (Second Series), Sheffield 1999, 126–142; S. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges l9–20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration”, CBQ 44 (l982), 365–378; M. Noth, DasSystemderzwölfStämmeIsraels, Stuttgart 1930;W. Reedijk, H. Tigchelaar, “Een vrouw verkracht – Joodse commentaren op een bijbelverhaal”, Mara 6/2 (1993), 24–35; R. Reich, “Anonymity as a Literary Device in Judges 19–21”, BetM 158 (1999), 256– 260 (Hebr.); P.T. Reis, “The Levite’s Concubine: New Light on a Dark Story”, SJOT 20 (2006), 125–146; E.J. Revell, “The Battle with Benjamin (Judges XX 29–48) and Hebrew Narrative Techniques”, VT35 (1985), 417–433; A. Rofé, “The History of Israelite Religion and the Biblical Text: Corrections Due to the Unification of Worship”, in: S.M. Paul etal. (eds), Emanuel:StudiesinHebrewBible,Septuagintand DeadSeaScrolls(Fs Tov; SVT 94), Leiden, 2003, 759–793; P.E. Satterthwaite, “Some Septuagintal Pluses in Judges 20 and 21”, BIOSCS24 (1991), 25–35; idem, “Narrative Artistry in the Composition of Judges XX 29ff.”, VT 42 (1992), 80–89; idem, “ ‘No King in Israel’: Narrative Criticism and Judges 17–21”, TynB44 (1993), 75– 88; S. Scholz, “How to Read the Bible in the Belly of the Beast: Abuse of Politics of Biblical Hermeneutics in the United States of America”, in: S. Scholz, P.R. Andiňach (eds), La Violencia andtheHebrewBible, Atlanta 2016, 137–161; W. Schottroff, Der altisraelitischeFluchspruch(WMANT 30), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969; J.A. Schroeder, Dinah’sLament:TheBiblicalLegacyofSexualViolenceinChristianInterpretation, Minneapolis 2007; S. Schulz, Die Anhänge zum Richterbuch: Eine kompositionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungvonRi17-21 (BZAW 477), Berlin 2016; K.-D. Schunck, Benjamin:UntersuchungenzurEntstehungundGeschichteeinesIsraelitischenStammes (BZAW 86), Berlin 1962; A.F. Segal, “The Concubine of the Levite: A Complete Horror”, in: Sinning in the Hebrew Bible: How the Worst Stories Speak for Its Truth, New York 2012, 100–122; S. Shnitzer, “Political Propaganda in Judges 19–21”,

TheBenjaminites

495

BetM35 (1989–1990), 20–31 (Hebr.); M.J. Smith, “Reading the Story of the Levite’s Concubine Through the Lens of Modern-day Sex Trafficking”, AshlandTheologicalJournal 41 (2009), 15–33; K.E. Southwood, MarriagebyCaptureintheBook ofJudges:AnAnthropologicalApproach, New York 2017; S. Springer, NeuinterpretationimAltenTestament:UntersuchtandenThemenkreisendesHerbstfestesundder KönigspsalmeninIsrael, Stuttgart 1979; K. Spronk, “The Story of a Gang Rape as a Means of Liberation: A Contextual Reading of Judges 19”, in: R. Ganzevoort etal. (eds), ReligiousStoriesWeLiveBy:NarrativeApproachesinTheologyandReligious Studies, Leiden 2014, 109–116; K. Stone, “Gender and Homosexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame?”, JSOT 67 (1995), 87–107; H.M. Szpek, “The Levite’s Concubine: The Story That Never Was”, Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal5(2007); J. & P.F. Theron, “Die vlees het Woord geword”, NGTT43 (2001), 406–415; T. Thornton, “Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus’ Retelling of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges”, JThS47 (1996), 125–130; P. Trible, TextsofTerror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, Philadelphia l984; J. Unterman, “The Literary Influence of ‘The Binding of Isaac’ (Genesis 22) on ‘The Outrage at Gibeah’ (Judges 19)”, HAR 4 (1980), 161–166; T. Veijola, VerheissunginderKrise: StudienzurLiteraturundTheologiederExilszeitanhanddes89.Psalms, Helsinki 1982; G. Wallis, “Eine Parallele zu Richter 1929ff. und 1. Sam. 115ff. aus dem Briefarchiv von Mari”, ZAW23 (1952), 57–61 (reprinted in: MeinFreundhatteeinWeinberg:Aufsätze undVorträgezumAltenTestament, Frankfurt a.M. 1994, 23–30); W.G.E. Watson, “A Note on Staircase Parallelism”, VT33 (1983), 510–512; E. van Wolde, “Does ʽinnâ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word”, VT 52 (2002), 528– 544; G.A. Yee, “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body”, in: G.A. Yee (ed.), Judges&Method:NewApproachesinBiblicalStudies.Second Edition, Minneapolis 2007, 138–160; Y. Yoo, “Han-Laden Women: Korean ‘Comfort Women’ and Women in Judges 19–21”, Semeia78 (1997), 37–46.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES The stories in chapters 19–21, together with the stories in chapters 17–18, form the second panel of the diptych in the book of Judges which describes the period from the second generation after Joshua until the time of the monarchy beginning with Samuel. In the first panel the second generation was explicitly mentioned in 2:10 as the generation that came after the people who had experienced God’s acts during the exodus and the conquest. In the second panel this generation is represented by Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (18:30), and by Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron (20:28). Like the first panel, the second panel is built up according to a repeating pattern. Whereas in the first panel this was the returning cycle of apostasy, punishment and liberation, in the second panel it is the refrain stating that there was no king (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 20:25) to which is added in the beginning and the end that everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes. This is reminiscent of the repeated remark in the first panel that the people did what was evil

496

Judges19:1–21:25

in the eyes of YHWH. Within this framework the two parts, chapters 17–18 and 19–21, are built up in the same way. They start with a story about a conflict within the family: a son stealing from his mother and a domestic quarrel. The problems are solved but also initiate a chain of events with important repercussions for a whole tribe, first the Danites and later the Benjaminites. The two stories are also related in other ways. In both stories a Levite plays an important role. The first is sojourning in Bethlehem and travels to mount Ephraim, the second is sojourning in mount Ephraim and travels to Bethlehem. The two grandsons mentioned in chapters 18 and 20 function as priest, respectively in Dan and Bethel. These are the two places mentioned in 1 Kgs 12 as the places where king Jeroboam installed cultic centres intended to replace the temple of Jerusalem. This indicates that like so many stories in the first panel the stories in the second panel can be read as foreshadowing the period of the monarchy. In chapters 17–18 the founding story of the sanctuary in Dan points forward to king Jeroboam. In chapters 19–21 the events taking place in Bethlehem and Gibeah point forward to the rivalry between the future kings David of Bethlehem and Saul of Gibeah. The fact that the Levite cuts his wife into twelve pieces sending them to all tribes has a parallel in Saul doing the same with his oxen. Also the reference to the city of Jabesh in the story of the Benjaminites taking its virgins has a parallel in the story of Saul. The fact that the Benjaminites disturb a cultic festival in Shiloh to get more wives relates this story to the following books of Samuel. The temple in Shiloh is the place where Samuel receives his calling. In this way a contrast is created between the positive story about Samuel and the negative story about the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul belongs. The period of the kings also looms in the background in the theme of the unity of the tribes. In chapters 20–21 this unity is emphasized many times. It is something that will play a prominent role in the books of Samuel and Kings. In the book of Judges it is also present in the position of the tribe of Judah. Already in the first verse Judah was called by YHWH to go up first against the Canaanites. In chapter 20 it is given the same role by YHWH, but this time to go against the tribe of Benjamin. All this can be seen as pointing forward to David from the tribe of Judah, who will be able to unite the tribes, but who also had his troubles with Saul from the tribe of Benjamin. The story in chapter 19 about the men of Gibeah threatening to rape the foreigners visiting the city has a clear parallel in the story about the guests of Lot in the city of Sodom. It characterizes Gibeah as a city that deserves to be doomed. In both stories the crime concerns the lack of hospitality and not – as is often suggested in the history of interpretation – the association with homosexuality. Another similarity with the story in Gen. 19 concerns the sequel. In both cases the problem comes up of the continuation of the family, respectively the tribe. In Gen. 19 the daughters of Lot lost their

TheBenjaminites

497

husbands, in Judg. 20–21 the Benjaminites lost their wives. In both cases the solution to this problem is disgraceful: raping the father and stealing wives. Another parallel with a previous story concerns the way in which the Israelites succeed in defeating the Benjaminites and taking the city of Gibeah. In many ways it looks like the problems the Israelites had in defeating the outnumbered people of Ai according to Josh. 8. It took more than one attempt, many casualties, and a similar trick to achieve the victory. The parallel also shows how things have gone wrong with the Israelites. Fighting the Canaanites has turned into a bloody civil war. The time has come for a new and better leader. The first panel of the diptych was full of saviours and judges, the second panel did not mention one particular leader. They both gave different answers to the question about the qualities of good leadership. The reader is now well prepared to judge the leaders in the following books. In the history of interpretation (cf. the surveys by Gunn 2005, 243–275; Schroeder 2007, 101–152; Groß 2009, 885–886) much attention is paid to the motives behind the actions of the men of Gibeah violating the woman and the men in the house sacrificing the woman. It is obvious that the rapists are condemned, but with regard to the Levite and his host we find different opinions. The same goes for the reason why the concubine of the Levite had left him and for the judgment about the fate of the women of Jabesh and Shiloh who were forced to marry the remaining Benjaminites. There is also much discussion about the necessity of the civil war and about the role of God who seems to have allowed or even orchestrates so much bloodshed among the Israelites before finally arranging their victory over the Benjaminites. In the ancient retellings by Josephus and Pseudo-Philo (cf. Reedijk & Tigchelaar 1987; Begg 1998 and 2000; Feldman 1999–2000) there is a clear tendency to play down the moral and theological ambiguities in the story. Josephus had omitted the previous episode about Micah and the sanctuary in Dan, but pays all the more attention to the story about the killing of the concubine and the war with the Benjaminites. He transposed it to the beginning of the book, followed by a short version of the story of the Danites in Judg. 18, before the time of Othniel (who is called Keniaz by Josephus). This repositioning of the story is also found inS.ʽOlamRab.12 (2nd century CE), where these events are placed in the period of the domination by Cushan Rishataim, the first foreign opponent in the book of Judges. This replacement is also found in later rabbinic literature (cf. Glatt 1993, 89–100, 157– 162). It takes away the chronological problem of the reference to Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, in 20:28. This Phinehas was also mentioned by Josephus in his version of the beginning of the book. He explicitly mentions

498

Judges19:1–21:25

that Phinehas became the high priest after the death of his father Eleazar (Ant.5.119). Phinehas is also mentioned by Josephus as the one who prophesies that the tribe of Judah shall be leading the extermination of the Canaanites (Ant. 5.120). Josephus introduces the episode about the Levite and the following Benjaminite war as the consequence of Israel’s moral and political decline: They no longer appointed senates nor any other type of rulership that had earlier been customary, but were on their farms, addicted to the pleasure of profitmaking. Due to their grave enervation, terrible evil strife came upon them once again, and they were induced to make war upon one another for the following cause (Ant.5.135).

In his version of the story Josephus presents the Levite in a positive way, emphasizing the good relation to the woman, who according to Josephus is his lawfully wedded wife. He “greatly loves” her and is “captivated by her beauty” (Ant.5.136). Unfortunately, the affection is not mutual, but this only enhances his passion. He is not blamed for thrusting his wife outside when they are menaced by the men of Gibeah. It is only told that they “snatch her away”. The woman initially survives the rape, but does not dare to return to her husband, “for she reasoned that he especially would be irremediably hurt by these events” (Ant.5.147). After she did “breath out her soul” the Levite first does not realise she is dead and he wants to comfort her. This replaces his seemingly heartless command to stand up according to Judg. 19:28. The end and continuation of the story is more in line with the biblical version, be it that God does play a less prominent role. He is not made responsible for the first two failed attempts to beat the Benjaminites. After their defeat the remaining Benjaminites “acknowledge that what had happened to them was by the sentence of God and in accordance with their wrong-doing” (Ant.5.168). It can be concluded that in his retelling Josephus’ “motivation is clearly apologetic; and his methodology is to underplay consistently the unpleasant elements of the account” (Feldman 2006, 675). In his retelling in L.A.B.45 Pseudo-Philo appears to be more focussed on the theological aspects. He leaves out the first part of the story and begins with the scene where the Levite (called Beel) is invited by the foreigner (called Bethac) into his house in Nob (instead of Gibeah). Bethac cautions Beel from the start for the men of the city. He makes a comparison with Sodom, but avoids – like Josephus – any association with homosexuality. Pseudo-Philo does not mention the offer by the host and like Josephus reports that the men force their way into the house, take both the Levite and his wife. The Levite is cast off and the woman abused. According to Pseudo-Philo this must be seen as punishment for her “transgression against her man by committing sin with the Amalekites”. Apparently, this refers to what is told in Judg. 19:2 about the concubine “whoring” against her husband. In the

TheBenjaminites

499

rest of the story Pseudo-Philo pays extra attention to the role of God, who explains “to his opponent” (we probably have to think of a situation as in the book of Job) that what happened in Nob must be seen as the consequence of Micah’s seduction of the people, as recounted in the previous story. In his version of the Benjaminite war Pseudo-Philo pays extra attention to the counselling of God through Phinehas (L.A.B.46). By telling a parable about a lion who had the task to protect the animals of the forest but who caused the extermination of many of these animals, he explains that the loss of Israelite lives has to be blamed to the sins of Micah. The way the remaining Benjaminites got to their wives is mentioned shortly and without comment in a chapter about the final days of Phinehas (L.A.B.48). Also in the Talmud a connection is made between Micah and the story about the concubine at Gibeah. It explains why so many Israelites were killed in the war against the Benjaminites: they had not protested against Micah’s idolatry, but had protested for the honour of a woman (b.Sanh. 103b; cf. PirqeR.El. 48). With regard to the interpretation of the story of the concubine in the early church and the medieval period Schroeder notes that next to the fact that the commentators are generally appalled by the rape they “express surprisingly little shock or horror at the Levite’s butchery of his wife’s body” (Schroeder 2007, 149). This radically changed in modern commentaries. Some point to the fact that from a gender perspective the dismembering of the woman’s body has a great symbolic significance (cf. Trible 1984, 79; Exum 1993, 181; Ackerman 2015, 216–220). It is one of the examples showing the growing tendency in the history of interpretation to criticize not only the rape but also other aspects of the story. This is especially clear in feminist studies (cf. amongst others also Bal 1993; Jones-Warshaw 1993; Keefe 1993; Bach 1998; Bohmbach 1999; Van Buuren 1999; Müllner 1999; Lanoir 2005, 171–241; Jost 2006, 286–323; Doane 2014). In the older exegetical literature the homosexual element in the threat by the Gibeanites receives little attention or is ignored, as in the retelling by Josephus (see on the reluctant way this episode is portrayed in the Bible Moralisée Mills 2015, 43–48). In many modern studies it is taken up and related to current discussions (cf. Niditch 1982; Stone 1995; Carden 1999; Cheng 2001; Himbaza 2006; Jost 2006, 306–316; Anderson 2016; Harding 2018). The different forms of violence in this story lend themselves to many other thematic approaches, relating them to Korean “comfort women” (Yoo 1997), the holocaust (Von Kellenbach 2000), present-day violence in South Africa (Theron 2001; Coetzee 2002) and the USA (Scholz 2016), violence to young people (Garber 2008), human trafficking (Smith 2009). The texts are also used to cope with the effects of “religion as a vengeance engine” (McCullough 2008, 216–219).

500

Judges19:1–21:25 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I): INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

In modern scholarly literature (cf. the surveys by Jüngling 1981, 1–54; Lanoir 2005, 171–177; Schulz 2016, 6–13; Beldman 2017a, 10–51; Southwood 2017, 1–46) much attention is paid to the relation between chapters 19– 21 and 17–18 on the one hand and between the final five chapters and the rest of the book of Judges on the other hand. This ongoing discussion was already summarized in the introduction to the exegesis of chapters 17–18 above. With regard to chapters 19–21 there is, again, much difference of opinion with regard to the reconstruction of the present text and to the historical background of the story and of the storyteller. In the older studies most scholars are confident that the story is based on historical events from the early period in the history of Israel. According to Güdemann someone from the court of David used reliable sources of events taken place not long ago, using them to support David in his conflict with Saul. In his view we are dealing with “eine Art Flugschrift (…) während des Theilkönigthums Davids verfaßt und an die Adresse Benjamins und seiner Freunde zu dem Zwecke gerichtet, um sie von ihren Sonderbestrebungen gegen die Herrschaft Davids für das regierungsmächtige Saulsche Haus zurückzuführen” (Güdemann 1869, 368). Although not all scholars agreed on this specific date and intention of the text, there was consensus that for the most part we are dealing with very old texts, which give a reliable picture of the situation they describe. They should be seen in line with Hos. 9:9; 10:9, where the prophet speaks of the sins in the days of Gibeah. This changed with Wellhausen, who convinced many with his theory that, contrary to chapters 17–18, the final chapters of the book of Judges have to be dated much later. His primary argument is that Israel is presented here as a unity. He also points to the parallels between chapter 19 and Gen. 19 and between the fight against Gibeah as described in chapter 20 and the story of the fight against Ai in Josh. 8. In his view the style and language are also relatively late. He concludes: “Man wird zweifeln dürfen, ob für Jud. 19–21 überhaupt ein historisches Faktum zu Grunde liegt (…) Unsere Erzählung scheint nicht auf naiver Überlieferung zu beruhen, sonder künstlich zurecht gemacht zu sein” (Wellhausen 1899, 232). He also notes the relation with Hos. 10:9, but states that it is only possible that the story in Judg. 19–21 was inspired by the prophetic text. In his opinion it is hardly imaginable that Hos. 10:9 refers to the event as described in the book of Judges. With regards to the motives of the author he states: “nur dass der jüdische Hass gegen die vordavidische Hegemonie Benjamins dabei im Spiel gewesen ist, scheint klar” (Wellhausen 1899, 233). According to Noth (1930, 162–169) the present text received its final form relatively late. Chapter 21, which in itself shows many signs of redactional

TheBenjaminites

501

activities, would have been added to chapters 19–20. In chapter 20 the story about the siege of Gibeah would have been related to the story in Josh. 8 by adding vv. 29, 33b, 36b–41. The original story would have a historical background “als Bericht über einen Amphiktyonenkrieg gegen ein Mitglied der Amphiktyonie” (p. 169). Eissfeldt assumes as the historical background of the stories “die Bildung des bis dahin noch nicht existierenden Stammes Benjamin” (Eissfeldt 1932, 38). A similar view can be found in the reconstruction by Schunck 1963, 67–68, who assumes that the present post-exilic text is the result of four redactions of a story of something that took place before the monarchy. Also the reconstruction of the battle at Gibeah by Rösel (1976, 31–46) suggests a historical background. He distinguishes two reports, which have been combined in the present text of chapters 20: A: vv. 30–32, 34–36a, 47; B: vv. 29, 33, 36b–46, 48. They do not contradict each other and testify of only one failed attempt to conquer the city. In his extensive survey of the historical-critical analyses of chapters 19– 21 Jüngling shows that most scholars use the same arguments but with ever changing outcomes. He concludes: “Die systematische Zusammenfassung der Auslegungsgeschichte legt die Erkenntnis nahe, daß die allein auf der Literarkritik basierenden Aussagemöglichkeiten bezüglich Ri 19–21 erschöpft sind” (Jüngling 1981, 50). He advocates a more synchronic approach (“stilistische Analyse”), although he also interprets chapters 20–21 as later addition to 19:1–30a and 21:25. He dates the original story very early: “als ein Plädoyer für das Königtum (...), das in den Anfängen der Königszeit, der Zeit Davids oder Salomons, geschrieben wurde, und Kreise, die mit der neuen Ordnung nicht zufrieden ware, für die Einrichtung des Königtums gewinnen sollte” (p. 245). Most scholars advocating a diachronic approach to the text agree with Jüngling that chapter 19 can be seen as a unity. The next chapters seem to contain more traces of redactional activity. Recent studies by amongst others Hentschel (2008), Groß (2009), Edenburg (2016), and Schulz (2016) show that the attempts to reconstruct the production of the text has not led to a consensus. It leads Frolov in his review of the monograph of Edenburg to questioning the value of diachronic analysis of biblical text in general: “it is akin to ‘healing’ the biblical text by dismembering it” (Frolov 2016, 436). In her survey of synchronic analyses (“endtextorientierte Untersuchungen”) Schulz is equally critical. She notes the “disparaten Forschungslage” (Schulz 2016, 12) and the fact that in this way “die Vielschichtigkeit der Text” is not recognized (cf. also Edenburg 2016, 332: “This approach has led to forced interpretations of unified and surprisingly symmetric structures”). According to Groß (2009, 811–826, 877–885) the original story dates from the period after the exile and consisted of 19:1b*, 2–23, 25–30; 20:1,

502

Judges19:1–21:25

2*, 3–17, 19–22, 24–25*, 29–48; 21:1, 6–24. When this was incorporated in the book of Judges the framing texts 19:1a and 21:25 would have been added. He finds later additions in 19:1 about the sojourning of the Levite (relating it to the previous story), 20:2* (relating it to 1 Sam. 14:38, 19:24). A “Betel-Bearbeitung” is found in 20:18, 23, 26–27a, 28*; 21:2–5. His conclusion about the provenance of the text may explain why Groß starts his commentary on the book of Judges thus: “In siebenjährigem Bemühen ist mir das Richterbuch, abgesehen von seinen letzten drei Kapiteln, ans Herz gewachsen” (p. 13). He clearly feels not much sympathy for those who are in his opinion responsible for the present text. Es ist ein junges nachexilisches Erzeugnis schriftgelehrter Arbeit. Ein mit eiserner Konsequenz und wenig Menschlichkeit konstruierender Autor hat, ausgehend von dtn Inhalten, mit vielfältigen Anleihen bei biblischen Texten ein Problem gestellt und gelöst. Er wollte nicht Historie erzählen, sondern in Erzählform ein Ideal entwickeln. Sein Problem lautet: Wie ist die Ausführung der Bestimmung Dtn 13,13–19 bezüglich der Vernichtungsweihe eine JHWH ungehorsamen Stadt durch die Gemeinde der zwölf Stämme Israels vorzustellen? (pp. 879–880)

Like many other exegetes Groß points to the many relations with other biblical texts. In his survey Jüngling (1981, 35–37) notes that scholars pointed mostly to the relation between 19:22–24 and Gen. 19; between 19:29–30 and 1 Sam. 11:7; and between 20:29–42 and Josh. 8. In her monograph Edenburg also pays special attention to these parallels. She discusses the story about Sodom in Gen. 19:1-13 and its wider context in Gen. 18-19; the story of the battle at Ai in Josh. 7-8; parts of the story of Saul in 1 Sam. 10-11 and 14. To this she adds – in line with Groß – the legal texts in Deut. 13:13-18 and next to this Deut. 22:13-29; the story of the rape of Tamar in 2 Sam. 13:1117; the story of the war against Midian in Num. 31; the story of the Transjordan altar in Josh. 22:9-34; the betrothal of Rebekah in Gen. 24; the binding of Isaak, especially the parallel between Gen. 22:10 and Judg. 19:29; the counsel of Ahitophel in 2 Sam. 16:20-21 compared to Judg. 20:7; and the story of the vengeance of the Gibeanites in 2 Sam. 21:2-5. In most cases Edenburg concludes that the text of Judg. 19-21 is dependent on or modelled after the other texts. This holds true for both the first narrative and the later redaction, which in her opinion can be found in interpolations of 20:3b–11, 27b–28a; 31b–35; 45b*–46; 21:2–5, 8b, 10–11, 15–18. In a secondary redaction particular themes would have been highlighted and some gaps closed: 20:1b, 6, 8, 11; 21:3, 15, 17. According to Edenburg the literary analysis and the comparison with other texts points to a relatively late date of the text. It has to be placed after the Deuteronomistic History and serves to override its positive portrayal of Benjamin.

TheBenjaminites

503

Schulz was familiar with the work of Edenburg (using her dissertation of 2003) and shares her ideas about the appropriate method. She also agrees that chapter 19 is the oldest part, but her reconstruction of the stages in which the text reached its present form differs from Edenburg’s. She assumes a first priestly layer consisting of 20:1–2*, 3-14, 15*, 17, 20–22, 24–26, 27a, 28*, 30, 31*, 32–33-34*, 35–36a, 42–46, together with additions in chapter 19:16b, 24, and 30. In this layer the original anti-Saul story would have been turned into a story about the tribe of Benjamin. In a next step this story would have been framed by 17:1–4, 6 and 20:48; 21:1, 15–23, 25. In this layer the emphasis is on the cultic chaos of Israel as a whole. In the next layer, consisting of 17:7–18, 31 *; 19:1*; 20:4*, 27b, 28a*, the emphasis is moved to Dan. The cult scenes were expanded in 20:18–19, 23; 21:2–4 and critical notes on Saul added in 20:1*, 29, 31*, 34b, 36b, 37– 41, 47; 21:5, 9–14, 24. This leads Schultz to a summary of the purpose of the story which clearly differs from the conclusions by Edenburg: Ausgehend von einer prodavidischen und antisaulidischen Erzählung, die eine Leseperspektive für die folgende Zeit des Königtums eröffnet, wird die königslose Zeit nach und nach mit Episoden gefüllt, die den Verfall des Gottesvolkes oder einzelner seiner Teile in dieser Epoche demonstrieren. Auf sämtlichen redaktionsgeschichtlichen Ebenen bleibt eine Überzeugung konstant: Hoffnung auf Besserung besteht allein in der Erwartung des davidischen Königtums (p. 194).

Although the interpretation of these chapters as an anti-Saul polemic is widely accepted (cf. also amongst others Brettler 1989, 412–413; Shnitzer 1989– 1990; Amit 1991–1992, 1994, 2000b, 178–188; Liverani 2004, 191–192; Vette 2009, 193), it is also questioned (cf. Southwood 2017, 10). It is also clear that the dating remains hypothetical. The early date is still defended (cf. Leshem 2001). Much depends here on the many relations with other biblical texts, which opens the question of dependence. A new element to this discussion is added by the suggestion by Joosten (1999) that the reference to the Benjaminites in Jer. 6:1 should be related to the story in Judg. 19–20. Another argument can be derived from the parallels with Hellenistic stories (cf. Gaster 1975, 445; Ackerman 1998, 267–276; Gnuse 2007), be it that these are also questioned (cf. Southwood 2017, 17–24). The primarily synchronic approach (cf. amongst others Webb 1987, 2012; Wong 2006a and 2006b; and Beldman 2017a) is often based on the same observations as in the diachronic analyses. This is especially clear in the parallels noted between the final chapters and the beginning of the book (cf. Wong 2006, 27–77; Webb 2012, 509; Schulz 2016, 217–224; Nelson 2017, 345–346; Edenburg 2018, 355–360). These can be interpreted as a rhetorical device used by a skilful author, but also as traces of redactional

504

Judges19:1–21:25

activity connecting these chapters to an older collection of stories. As indicated in the introduction to chapters 17–18 the present commentary opts for the possibility that the book of Judges in its present form is the product of one author, who collected stories and lists from different sources and turned them in a diptych of which chapters 19–21 form together with chapters 17– 18 the second panel. Its message is basically the same as the first panel in chapters 2–16: good leadership is only possible in a good relationship to YHWH. It prepares the reader for the following stories about Samuel and the kings of Israel. The coherence of the book of Judges is also visible in these chapters through similarities between the two parts of the book with regard to style and with regard to associations with Greek literature. The first is apparent in the ternaries, which we find all over the book: three times it is said of the Israelites that they are “as one man” (20:1, 8, 11); three times the tribes march against Benjamin after having required YHWH’s advice first (20:18–29); three times a curse is pronounced against those who give a daughter as wife to Benjamin (21:1, 7, 18). The association with Greek literature is found in the specific example of marriage by capture in chapter 21. The hand of the author (or editor) can also be found in the fact that the stories in chapters 17–18 and chapters 19–21 have a similar structure: a resolved domestic quarrel is followed by an aetiological story about an Israelite tribe with a central role of a Levite travelling between Benjamin and mount Ephraim. Something similar can be observed in the final chapter, where the two stories about women for the Benjaminites appear to be built up in the same way (vv. 5–14 // 15–23). The author seems to have used already existing stories and adapted these to fit within the framework of the overall period between Joshua and Samuel. Traces of this editorial activity can be found in the fact that the man from mount Ephraim is presented at the beginning of chapters 19 and 20 as a Levite. Within the following story this does not play a role in the way it did in chapter 17. It, therefore, can be regarded as a way to connect the stories, just as the number eleven hundred connected the story of chapter 17 with the previous one. Also the curious reference to the house of YHWH in 19:18 can be explained in this way. Another series of additions can be detected in the threefold inquiry to YHWH in 20:18, 23, and 26–28. These verses partly disturb the flow of the narrative and can be compared to the Yahwistic introduction added to the stories of Gideon and Samson. Just like the assumed additions concerning the Levite, they also function as a way to relate the different parts of the book; precisely in these verses we find repetitions of elements in the first chapters: next to the inquiry and YHWH’s answer in 1:1–2 there is also the weeping in 20:23 and 26, reminding of the weeping in 2:4. The reference to the grandson of Aaron in 20:28, finally, also connects again the story in chapter 20 to the one in chapter 18, which ended with a reference to the grandson of Moses.

TheBenjaminites

505 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II): EXEGESIS

19:1-2 1

2

It happened in those days – there was no king in Israel – that a LevitemanwassojourningontheflanksofmountEphraim.Hetook forhimselfawoman,aconcubinefromBethlehem(in)Judah. Hisconcubinewhoredagainsthim.Shewentfromhimtothehouse ofherfather,toBethlehem(in)Judah.Shewastheresometime,four months.

In many ways the now following story is connected in this introductory verse with the previous stories and with the story in chapters 17–18 in particular. The indication of time with ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַבּיָּ ִמים ָה ֵהם‬, “it happened in those days”, resembles 11:4; 14:8; and 15:1. The remark that there was no king in Israel repeats what was said in 18:1. The phrase ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִאישׁ‬, “there was a man”, repeats the introduction of Micaiah in 17:1. And just as in 17:7 a Levite man, sojourning in a specific place, plays an important role. The places in the story are reversed. Whereas the Levite in 17:7–8 goes from Bethlehem (in both chapters specified as located in the territory of Judah; cf. also Ruth 1:1) to mount Ephraim, the Levite of 18:1 will take the opposite route. The fact that we are dealing with a Levite is mentioned only in the first verse. In the rest of the story the general term “the man” is used. This can be interpreted as indication that we are dealing with originally separate stories that were combined at a later stage. It is characteristic of the story that all characters remain nameless (cf. Reich 1993; Hudson 1994), which stands in stark contrast to the beginning of the book, for instance, in the story of Caleb, Achsah and Othniel. The same goes for the fact that although the women play an important role in the story, they are not given the room to take initiative or even speak a word. Like the story in chapters 17–18 it begins with a domestic quarrel; this time between a man and his wife and this time the woman seems to be responsible for the problem. The status of the woman in unclear and so is the nature of her action against her husband. The noun ‫ ִפּ ֶלגֶ שׁ‬is usually translated as “concubine”. It is used of women of, amongst others, Abraham, Jacob, and Solomon, and in the book of Judges of the mother of Abimelech (8:31). It denotes a legal wife but of a lower status than the first wife of her husband. The same goes for her children. The text tells nothing of a primary wife. It may suggest that he did not have one and that he “only” had a concubine. According to Schulz (2016, 16–17) ‫ ִפּ ֶלגֶ שׁ‬should be translated as “geliebte Frau”, because the related Greek παλλακή originally had this meaning. This would solve the problem of the missing reference to a first wife, but it does not match the other occurrences of the word ‫ ִפּ ֶלגֶ שׁ‬in the Hebrew Bible.

506

Judges19:1–21:25

It is not exactly clear what happened between the Levite and his wife. In the history of interpretation many different translations and interpretation have been given of the verb ‫( וַ ִתּזְ נֶ ה‬cf. BHQ, 105*; Reedijk 1987, 26–31; Smelik 1995, 607–608; Gunn 2005, 246). The verb ‫ זנה‬usually denotes fornication or being unfaithful, but already in the old translations it is suggested that it may have a different meaning here. The old Greek and Latin translations suggest that she was “angry” with him, which could point to a similar root with a different meaning (cf. HAL relating it to Akk zenū,“to be angry”; cf. also Groß 2009, 806: “wurde zornig”; Schulz 2016, 17). The Targum translates “she despised him”, which may have been based on relating it to the verb ‫זנח‬, “to detest”. According to Josephus (Ant.5.137) she did not return his affection. In modern translations there is tendency to describe the action of the woman less negatively, but within the context of the book of Judges one can hardly ignore the association with the verb as it is used in 2:17; 8:27, 33, denoting Israel’s unfaithfulness towards YHWH or with the related noun referring to prostitutes in 11:1 and 16:1. Especially these last two verses, both also at the beginning of a new episode, seem to indicate that we are dealing here with a related indication of the nature of the cause of the problems that have to be dealt with in the following story. There is also an interesting parallel to the story of Samson and his first wife. It is told that after things went wrong during the wedding Samson got very angry and went to the house of his father (14:19). Again, we see here a reversal of the roles. This time it is the woman who goes to the house of her father. 19:3 

Herhusbandaroseandwentafterhertospeaktoherhearttohave herreturn.Hisboy(was)withhimandapairofdonkeys.Shebrought himtothehouseofherfather.Thefatherofthegirlsawhimand rejoicedtomeethim.

The journey of the Levite is the first of three, which are the structuring elements of the plot of the story (cf. Fokkelman 1992, 41–45; Lee 2017, 164– 169). The first is to Bethlehem (v. 3), the second to Gibeah (11–14), and the third home to mount Ephraim (v. 28). In between are two segments of a positive stay: with the father-in-law (vv. 4) and with the old man (vv. 15–21). They are both characterized by eating and drinking (vv. 4, 21) and are followed by complications: the delay caused by the father-in-law (vv. 5–10) and the threat caused by the Gibeanites (vv. 22–27). Like Samson the Levite does not accept the separation from his wife and he goes to the house of her father. There is also an interesting parallel with

TheBenjaminites

507

the story about Dinah in Gen. 34:3: “he speaks to her heart”, like Shechem did to Dinah. In the story in Genesis this is clearly an act out of love for her. There is no reason to assume that the Levite had a different motivation. It can also be compared to the way according to texts like Hos. 2:16, using the same expression of “speaking to her heart”, YHWH keeps to his bond with his people, even though he feels like a betrayed husband. According to Graetz 2013, 12, the “abusive situation” in the context of Judg. 19, Gen. 34, and Hos. 2 arouses serious suspicion about the sincerity of these words. It is more likely, however, that these positive words at the beginning of the story (cf. also Ruth 2:13) are meant to heighten the contrast with the end of the story. There is not only a contrast between the hospitality of the father-in-law and the lack of hospitality of the Gibeanites. There is also a contrast between the way the Levite acts towards his wife in the beginning and the way he treats her at the end of the story, especially in the way he speaks to her. According to the qere the masculine suffix of ‫ ַל ֲה ִשׁיבוֹ‬in MT has to be changed in a feminine suffix, relating it to the woman: ‫ל ֲה ִשׁ ָיבהּ‬,ַ “to have her return”. It is also possible to keep to the ketib, relating it to the heart (cf. Schulz 2016, 17). LXX (A) is in line with the qere, but also adds some explanatory words: τοῦ διαλλάξαι αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἀπαγαγεῖν αὐτὴν πάλιν πρὸς αὐτόν, “to reconcile her to himself and bring her back to him”. LXX (A) also differs from MT with regard to ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ְתּ ִב‬, “she brought him”. According to the Greek translation the subject would have been the Levite: “he came”. Perhaps the translator wanted to correct the text here, because it prematurely suggests reconciliation between the Levite and his wife (cf. Nelson 2017, 299). The fact that the Levite is accompanied by a boy is reminiscent of a similar role of a boy in the stories of Gideon (7:10–11), Abimelech (9:54), and Samson (16:26). In the previous story the Levite is a boy himself (17:7). He is remarkably well received by his father-in-law who shows exuberant hospitality. There is a big contrast with the way the father-in-law handled the problems after Samson’s wedding. Whether the concubine was of the same opinion as her father, remains untold. This is a returning theme in this chapter. Only in the beginning there appears room for initiative of a woman. In the rest of the story all decisions, also about the women, are made by men. 19:4-9 4 5

Hisfather-in-law,thefatherofthegirl,entreatedhimandhestayed withhimforthreedays.Theyateanddrankandspentthenightthere. Ithappenedonthefourthdaythattheyroseearlyinthemorning. Hearosetogo.Thefatherofthegirlsaidtohisson-in-law:“Strengthen yourheartwithabitofbread.Afterwardyoumaygo”.

508 6

7 8

9

Judges19:1–21:25 Theystayedandate,thetwoofthemtogether,anddrank.Thefather of the girl said to the man: “Agree and spend the night and may yourheartbegood”. The man arose to go and his father-in-law pressed him and he stayedandspentthenightthere. Heroseearlyinthemorningonthefifthdaytogo.Thefatherofthe girlsaid:“Strengthenyourheartandtarryuntiltheday(light)comes toanend”;andthetwoofthemate. Themanarosetogo,heandhisconcubineandhisboy.Hisfatherin-law,thefatherofthegirl,saidtohim:“Look,thedayisdeclining towardevening,spendthenight.Look,thedayisdeclining,spendthe nighthere,letyourheartbegood.Youcanriseearlytomorrowon yourwayandgotoyourtent”.

Whereas very little information was given about the conflict between the Levite and his concubine, we read a lot about the very friendly way he was treated by his father-in-law. His hospitality is over the top and within this story clearly contrasts with the total lack of hospitality in Gibeah. The contrast will also become clear in the repetition of the verb ‫חזק‬. In v. 4 it denotes how the father-in-law keeps hold of him (with BHQand most commentators the vocalization as qalin MT has to be corrected to a hiphil). In v. 25 it will be used again, but this time it describes how the Levite seizes his wife to throw her out of the house. Three times the Levite rises to go home and three times his host urges him to stay one more night. The verb ‫יאל‬, “to agree”, used in the request in v. 6 is reminiscent of a similar situation in the previous story where the other Levite agreed to stay with Micah (17:11). Just like the Levite “spoke to the heart” of the girl, now her father speaks about the heart of the Levite. He does so four times, in three different ways: “strengthen your heart” (vv. 5, 8), “may your heart be good” (v. 6), and “let your heart be good” (v. 9).The first two times the short form ‫ ֵלב‬is used, the second pair has the longer form ‫ל ָבב‬.ֵ In the host’s attempt to persuade the Levite to stay we find the first of many parallels to the story of Lot and his guests in Gen. 19 (cf. Fields 1997, 123–127; Block 1999, 533–534; Edenburg 2016, 174–195). The rarely used verb ‫פצר‬, “to press” (v. 7) is also found in Gen. 19:3, 9. In his passionate attempts to convince his guests to stay the hosts repeats himself. In v. 9 the Greek translator omitted some of the repeated phrases. In BHKand BHSit is suggested to emend the Hebrew text accordingly. The repetitive language, however, makes sense here (cf. BHQ, 106*f., Groß 2009, 807; and Schulz 2016, 17–18). The repeated references to the evening, night and morning also build another contrast to the end of the story with the similar repeated references in vv. 25–27.

TheBenjaminites

509

19:10-14 10

11

12

13 14

The man was not willing to spend the night. He arose and went. HecameoppositeJebus–thatisJerusalem–withhimapairof saddleddonkeysandhisconcubinewithhim. TheywerebyJebusandthedaywasfarspent.Theboysaidtohis lord: “Go and let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spendthenightthere”. Hislordsaidtohim:“Weshallnotturnasidetoaforeigncity,here wheretherearenochildrenofIsrael.Wewillcrossoverasfaras Gibeah”. Hesaidtohisboy:“Goandletusapproachoneoftheplacesand spendthenightinGibeahorinRamah”. Theycrossedoverandwent.ThesunsetonthemnearGibeah,which (belongs)toBenjamin.

Jerusalem is located not very far from Bethlehem. It indicates that the decision of the Levite to leave so late had not been wise. He should have realised that they would not be able to reach their home on that day. Throughout the whole story the Levite appears only to react to the things happening to him and hardly takes the initiative himself. First the acts of his concubine incited him to go to Bethlehem, then the acts of his father-in-law made him stay too long, and in the rest of the story he is forced to react to the whims of the people in Gibeah. Shortly after their departure from Bethlehem, it is the boy accompanying him who takes the initiative to find a place to spend the night (v. 11). In some manuscripts of the LXX the boy is also mentioned at the end of v. 10. BHKand BHSsuggest correcting the MT accordingly. It is more likely, however, that a translator harmonized the Hebrew text with the information given in v. 3. The verb in the phrase ‫וְ ַהיּוֹם ַרד ְמאֹד‬, “and the day was far spent”, is usually corrected to the perfect form ‫יׇ ַרד‬, “had gone down” (cf. BHQ, 107*). It is also possible that we are dealing with an unusual form of the verb ‫ירד‬, as in 5:13, influenced by the unusual word order (cf. O’Connell 1996, 483). Jerusalem was mentioned in 1:8 as conquered and burned by Judah, but then again in 1:21 as the city Benjamin could not conquer. It had not succeeded to drive away its inhabitants, the Jebusites. The Levite is referring to the latter situation. It is a first, indirect indication of the negative role of the Benjaminites in this story; many, more explicit, will follow. By placing the name Jebus first, it is emphasized that this was the original name and that the name of Jerusalem was given later. In 1 Chron. 11:4 the names are given in the opposite order: “Jerusalem, that is Jebus; the Jebusites lived there”. 1 Chron. 11 tells the story of David’s capture of the city. Apparently, the

510

Judges19:1–21:25

name Jerusalem was preferably associated with David’s actions. Only after he had made this city the capital of his kingdom it was appropriate to use the name Jerusalem. According to older sources, however, it is clear that the name Jerusalem was also used before David, whereas the name Jebus is only found here and in the other relatively late text of 1 Chronicles (cf. Hübner 2002, 31). The first reader of this story, who almost certainly lived after the time of king David, must have thought that things would have been different if there already had been a king like David from the tribe of Judah. Then the Levite and his retinue could simply and safely have stayed the night in Jerusalem. Instead, they are going now to Gibeah (see on the location and the different names Miller 1999, 68–69). The same reader will have associated that with the later king Saul, who had his home there. According to v. 13 the Levite also considered a stay in Ramah. This verse seems to be superfluous. It could be left out without changing the storyline. The introduction of the Levite speaking to the boy is an unnecessary repetition. There is, however, a good reason to insert a reference to Ramah. It is not told why he chose Gibeah. It does not need much speculation that Ramah would have been the better choice, because of the fact that it can be related to Samuel and also to Deborah, who both are associated with Ramah (Judg. 4:5; 1 Sam. 7:17; cf. also 15:34, where both Ramah and Gibea are mentioned, respectively as the place of Samuel and of Saul). Just as it was emphasized that Bethlehem was part of the territory of Judah, we are informed that Gibeah is part of Benjamin. 19:15-21 15

16

17

18

19

They turned aside there to come and spend the night in Gibeah. Theycameandsatinthetownsquare.Therewasnomantogather themintothehousetospendthenight. Look,anoldmancomingfromhiswork,fromthefield,intheevening. ThemanwasfrommountEphraim.HewassojourninginGibeah. Themenoftheplace(were)Benjaminites. Helifteduphiseyesandsawthewanderingmaninthetownsquare. The old man said: “Where are you going and from where do you come?” He said to him: “We are crossing from Bethlehem (in) Judah to theflanksofmountEphraim.I(am)fromthere.IwenttoBethlehem (in)JudahandtothehouseofYHWHIamgoing.Thereisnoman gatheringmetothehouse. There is even straw and even fodder for the donkeys and there is evenbreadandwineformeandforyourhandmaidandfortheboy withyourservants.Thereisnolackofallthings”.

TheBenjaminites 20 21

511

The old man said: “Peace to you. Surely, whatever you lack (is) uponme.Surely,donotspendthenightinthesquare”. He brought him to his house and mixed fodder for the donkeys. Theywashedtheirfeet,ateanddrank.

They “turned aside” like Siserah did according 4:18 and just like him they will realize too late that they chose the wrong direction. Gibeah turns out to be the opposite of Bethlehem. There is no one to welcome them like the father-in-law. Help must come from outside of Gibeah: from someone who is living there as a foreigner. It comes from an old man. Because of his age he can be compared to the father-in-law as someone of the older generation. Even though he must be tired after a day’s work, he gives the good example. He himself is from mount Ephraim. The Levite tells him that this is also the destiny of their journey. This makes it easier to understand why the old man has no problem in hosting them. It also marks this story already at this stage as a conflict between one tribe against the other. This is underlined in the story by repeating that Gibeah is part of Benjamin. Just as with the father-in-law the Levite has a long conversation with the old man. For the reader it contains the remarkable new information that the Levite is on his way to the house of YHWH. In the LXX the reference to YHWH is missing. Many commentators and translations follow the Greek version and read: “and now I am going to my house” (cf. the discussion in BHQ, 108*).The name of YHWH would have been added mistakenly by taking the yodof the suffix of the first person as the often used abbreviation of the name of YHWH. It would solve the problem that a house of YHWH was not mentioned before. The whole phrase “I went to Bethlehem (in) Judah and to the house of YHWH I am going” can be left out without disturbing the line of the story. It was already clear where the Levite came from and where he was going. It seems to have been added to an older version of the story to underline the (also added) identity of the man as a Levite. Within its present context this extra information emphasizes that the Levite is not from Gibeah, that Gibeah is unlike Bethlehem and that you will not find a house of YHWH here. The phrase ‫ת־בּית יְ הוָ ה ֲאנִ י ה ֵֹלְך‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא‬can also be translated as “with the house of YHWH I am going”, in the meaning of “I am continuously busy with matters concerning the house of YHWH”. It can be compared to the way the command of YHWH to the Levites is formulated in Mal. 2:6 as “going with YHWH” (cf. Barthélemy 1982, 119). Within the present context it indicates that the Levite is complaining that the people of Gibeah are not receiving him despite his holy occupations. To this the Levite adds an economic argument: it will not cost the old man anything. In a characteristic threefold enumeration (with repeated ‫וְ גַ ם‬, “and also”) he makes clear that he is well prepared for the journey with plenty

512

Judges19:1–21:25

provisions. The same phrase “there is no lack of all things” was used in 18:10 about the situation in the city of Laish. What happened to Laish shows that it is no guarantee of lasting well-being. You need the support of others. Initially, the Levite and his retinue receive this support from the old man, who welcomes them into his house. He fodders their donkeys himself (with BHQwe follow the qere‫ וַ ָיָּבל‬interpreted as denominative of ‫בּ ִליל‬, ְ “fodder”). His guest are able to “do good to their hearts” (v. 22), like they did before in Bethlehem (v. 6; with the same relation to eating and drinking). 19:22-26 22

23    24

25

26

Whiletheyweredoinggoodtotheirhearts,look,themenofthecity, worthlessmen,drewroundthehouse,beatingatthedoor.Theysaid totheoldman,theownerofthehouse,saying:“Bringouttheman whohascomeintoyourhouseandwewillknowhim”. Theman,theownerofthehouse,wentouttothemandsaidtothem:  “No,mybrothers,  donoevilafterthismanhascometomyhouse.  Donotdothisdisgracefulthing. Look,myvirgindaughterandhisconcubine,Iwillbringthemout toyou.Debasethemanddotothemwhatisgoodinyoureyesand tothismandonotthisdisgracefulthing”. Themendidnotwanttolistentohim.Themanseizedhisconcubine and made her go out to them outside. They knew her and abused herallnightuntilthemorning.Theysentherawayatdaybreak. Thewomancametowardthemorningandfellattheentranceofthe houseofthemanwhereherlordwas,until(itwas)light.

Now, finally, the men of Gibeah show up. Already the fact that they had not made any effort to welcome the travellers, had put them in a negative light. So it comes as no surprise, that even before they act, they are characterized as “worthless” (repeated in 20:13). The same term ‫י־ב ִליַּ ַעל‬ ְ ֵ‫ ְבנ‬is used in Deut. 13:14 which warns against this kind of people seducing the people to serve other gods. It is also used by Abigail calling her husband “worthless”, because he shows no hospitality to David (1 Sam. 25:25). When the Gibeanites say that they want to “know” the old man’s guest, it is clear that they intend to humiliate him by raping him. The verb ‫ ידע‬was also used with the meaning of sexual intercourse in 11:39. The old man, who now acts in his role as “lord of the house”, calls their demand disgraceful (‫)נְ ָב ָלה‬, just like Tamar reacted to Amnon’s wish to have sex with her (2 Sam. 13:12). Another parallel to the story of Tamar and Amnon is that when the old man suggests that they should take his daughter and the Levite’s concubine, he

TheBenjaminites

513

uses the same verb ‫ ענה‬which indicates that he knows that they will abuse the women (cf. 2 Sam. 13:14 and also Gen. 34:2). The closest parallel is found in the story of the Sodomites threatening the guests of Lot (Gen. 19:4-8). The writer of the book of Judges clearly wanted to make this connection. The old man is precisely in the same situation as Lot, who was also living as a foreigner in Sodom (cf. Gen. 19:9, where he is explicitly addressed as such) and he also uses the same words when he tries to persuade the people of city to give up their evil plans calling them brothers (cf. Gen. 19:8). This probably also explains why it is told that the host offers them the two women, of which one is a virgin. For this is again in line with the story of Gen. 19, where Lot is prepared to give the men of Sodom his two virgin daughters. Attempts to bring the Hebrew text of the offer in v. 24 in line with the execution (cf. BHK and BHS) are “without solid textual support” (BHQ, 109*). An important connection with the story of Lot is also made through the words “do to them what is good in your eyes” (v. 24), which has a verbatim parallel in Gen. 19:8. Within the context of the present story it is a clear reference to the remark in 17:6 and 21:25 that everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes. It is clear that the writer wanted to indicate that Gibeah is like Sodom. Something similar can be found in the beginning of the book of Isaiah, where the prophet is addressing the leaders of Jerusalem as “rulers of Sodom” (Isa. 1:10). What happens in Gibeah is even worse than what happened in Gen. 19, because here there is no escape for one of the guests. And whereas there might have been any doubt about the precise meaning of the verb ‫ ידע‬when the demand was made in v. 22, it is now abundantly clear that it is a way of abusing her. The verb ‫ ענה‬does not explicitly refer to a sexual act. It is “restricted to the dimension of debasement, of bringing into a lower social position, actually into the lowest position possible: handed over as an object in another man’s hand” (Van Wolde 2002, 538). With a threefold ‫אל‬, ַ “not” (a fourth ‫ ַאל‬in ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ל־בּ‬ ֵ ‫א‬, ַ “to my house”, has to be corrected into ‫)אל‬ ֶ the host tries to stop the Gibeanites (v. 23). This is an example of staircase parallelism in prose (cf. Watson 1983, 510–511; 1994, 259), which was also attested in 4:18. One can note a change of attitude in the behaviour of the Levite towards his concubine. In the beginning of the story he seems to have felt affection for her and also seems to have done his best to convince here in this regard by “speaking to her heart”. In the situation of distress he acts brutally, by seizing her and forcing her out of the house. The same verb ‫ ָחזַ ק‬was used in v. 4 describing how his father-in-law had “entreated” him. The verb denotes using force. It can clearly be used in different ways. In the way the Levite uses his force against his concubine he can be compared to Amnon, who seized Tamar and then raped her (2 Sam. 13:14). Compared to the previous

514

Judges19:1–21:25

female victim in the book of Judges, the daughter of Jephthah, it can be noted that the latter may not really have had a choice, but that she at least had the opportunity to give her opinion about what was going to happen. Moreover, she found a good reason to accept her fate. An important difference is also that in contrast to the story of the daughter of Jephthah we are better informed about what happened to the concubine. Apparently, she was not directly killed by the dreadful actions of the men of Gibeah, because it is told that they send her away. She can make it back to the house. The Levite, who is now called “her lord” for the first time, does not act like someone who is biting his nails, anxiously waiting for news from his beloved wife. It is explicitly stated that he is in the house, only to indicate that did nothing until daybreak. He may have been sleeping. The writer puts emphasis on this part of the story. He zooms in by using many synonyms in vv. 25-27 describing the time of the end of the actions: “until the morning”, “at daybreak” (with a slight difference between ketiv ‫בּ ֲעלוֹת‬, ַ “while”, and qere ‫כּ ֲעלוֹת‬, ַ “as soon as”; cf. Nelson 2017, 301), “toward the morning”, “until (it was) light”, and “in the morning”. It is the climax of the story in which the movement between light and darkness forms an important story line (cf. Fields 1992). This already started in v. 5 with the intention of the Levite to leave early in the morning, which is repeated in vv. 8 and 9. In the following journey the emphasis is on the evening and the night (vv. 11, 13, 15, 25), until the present daybreak. 19:27-30 27

28 29

30

Herlordaroseinthemorning,openedthedoorsofthehouse,and wentouttogohisway.Look,thewoman,hisconcubinefallendown attheentranceofthehouse,herhandsonthethreshold. Hesaidtoher:“Arise,letusgo”.Noone(was)answering.Hetook heronthedonkey.Themanaroseandwenttohisplace. He came to his house and took the knife. He seized his concubine andcutherup,toherbones,intotwelvecut-pieces.Hesentherto alltheterritoryofIsrael. Ithappenedthatallwhosawitsaid:“Therehasnotbeenandthere hasnotbeenseen(anything)likethisfromthedayofthechildrenof Israel going up from the land of Egypt until this day. Take it for yourselves,getcounselandspeak”.

The story continues with zooming in on this moment of truth. Once more, time, location, and players are named. The Levite is called again “lord” of the woman. She is mentioned both as “woman” and as “his concubine”, taking up again the way she was designated in the beginning of the story. We again here that things are taking place now “in the morning”. The place

TheBenjaminites

515

is described more detailed. We do not only read again about “the entrance of the house”, but also about its doors and more specifically about the woman lying reaching out with her hands to the threshold. We are not informed about the moment of her death (the LXX is more explicit here, by adding “because she was dead”). Instead, it is reported that the Levite acts as if nothing had happened and simply wants to continue their journey. Again, there is no sign of sympathy, let alone love, in contrast to the beginning of the story when he spoke “to her heart”. Just as in the first verses much is left to the imagination of the reader. Next to the precise moment of the death of the concubine (it is even possible that she eventually died by the hand of the Levite when he cut her into pieces), we can only speculate about the feelings of her husband. She is reduced to a lifeless piece of meat. This dehumanisation is also indicated in the neutral expression ‫וְ ֵאין עֹנֶ ה‬, “there was no one answering”. One can note also here a bitter wordplay with the verb ‫ענה‬: the woman who had been so completely “debased” (v. 22) cannot “answer” anymore. After this the story speeds up again. In contrast to the beginning of the story about the many delays in Bethlehem we do not read anything of the departure and its preparations. No details about the travel and the boy accompanying them are given. The emphasis is on what the Levite does with his concubine. Again he “seizes” her (cf. v. 25), this time not to let her be violated by the Gibeanites, but now to violate her body by cutting it to pieces. The Hebrew text refers to “the” knife (v. 29). Something similar can be observed in previous stories: “the peg” (4:21) and “the axes” (9:48). It denotes objects which are determinate because they are used for a specific goal (cf. JM § 137m). The LXX (A) is, again, more explicit in describing the way how the Levite informed the tribes of Israel with this bloody message: “And he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, ‘This is what you shall say to every man of Israel, “Has it happened according to this thing from the day of the coming up of the sons of Israel from Egypt until this day?”.’” It is often suggested to restore the Hebrew text accordingly (cf. BHQ, 110*; Nelson 2017, 301– 302). It is more in line, however, with the many previous additions and harmonisations in LXX (A) to keep with LXX (B) to the MT (cf. Groß 2009, 847; Schulz 2016, 18–19). The lengthy addition was probably influenced by the parallel in 1 Sam. 11:7 (cf. Edenburg 2016, 223, n. 159). According to 1 Sam. 11, Saul will do something similar when he hears about the cruelties of the Ammonites against Jabesh. In this case he cuts his oxen into twelve pieces and sends these throughout the territory of Israel (1 Sam. 11:7). There are many verbal parallels between these texts, not only in the description of the cutting up, but also in the context: “all the territory of Israel” (v. 29; cf. 1 Sam. 11:3, 7); “give the men and we will kill them” (20:13; 1 Sam. 11:12); “They raised their voice and wept” (21:2;

516

Judges19:1–21:25

cf. 1 Sam. 11:4). It is no coincidence that at that moment Saul was in his hometown Gibeah. It indicates that the uncommon action of the Levite in Judg. 19 has to be read as foreshadowing Saul’s action (cf. Dietrich 2010, 489: “Man kann sich des Eindrucks kaum erwehren, dass Ri 19–21 als Gegengeschichte zu 1Sam 11 geschrieben ist”; Edenburg 2016, 221–224). Some scholars point to parallels in Mari documents about the cutting up of a prisoner to create fear (cf. Wallis 1952) and a curse in the Sefire treaties (cf. Nelson 2017, 310). Ackerman 2015, 220–226, compares it to the partitioning of the goddess Tiamat according to the Mesopotamian text Enuma Elish: “in both stories (…) ultimately, it is only the woman character who acts out with respect to ancient Near Eastern gender norms who becomes victim to the greatest terrors the stories’ authors and/or redactors can find to offer up” (pp. 225–226). Just as in the story in 1 Sam. 11 the men of Israel, who are mentioned here for the first time since 13:1, unite “as one man” and are motivated to take action against the evil doers. The author of the book of Judges describes their action in his own manner, by using three consecutive verbs: “Take it for yourselves, get counsel and speak”. According to HAL, 1234, the word ‫לב‬,ֵ “heart”, should be added as the second word in the phrase ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ימוּ־ל ֶכם ָע ֶל‬ ָ ‫שׂ‬, ִ “place (the heart) for you upon it”. According to Szpek 2007, 7, and Graetz 2013, 18, the reference to the heart is left out in the words of the Levite on purpose, showing that he has no more compassion or love for his concubine. When the final words of v. 30 are repeated in 20:7 precisely this first expression is left out. 20:1–2 1

2

AllthechildrenofIsraelwentoutandthecommunityassembledas onemanfromDantoBeershebaandthelandofGilead,toYHWH atMizpah. Thecornerstonesofallthepeople,allthetribesofIsraeltooktheir stanceintheassemblyofthepeopleofGod,fourhundredthousand sword-wieldingfootsoldiers.

The tribes of Israel are united in their abhorrence of what happened in Gibeah. Three times it is told that they are “as one man” (vv. 1, 8 and 11). In the first verse this is underlined by reporting that they assembled as a community (‫;ע ָדה‬ ֵ cf. also 21:10) and by indicating that all geographical regions are represented: from the northern border in Dan to the southern border in Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, east of the river Jordan. In the rest of the story this unity is indicated by referring to the people in the singular: ‫( ִאישׁ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬20:11, 20, 22, 33, 36, 39, 42; 21:1), “man of Israel”. Within

TheBenjaminites

517

the book of Judges this unity was taken for granted in the first stories, but problematized later. In chapter 5 a number of tribes are criticized for not taking part in the fight against the Canaanites. According to chapters 8 and 12 the tribe of Ephraim feels passed over. In chapter 12 this results in a fight between the tribes of Ephraim and Gilead. Things are getting worse now all tribes will turn against the one “brother” tribe of Benjamin (cf. vv. 23 and 28). The tribes assemble at Mizpah, which had also functioned in 10:17 as meeting point before the fight against the Ammonites. According to Josephus they assembled not in Mizpah but before the tabernacle at Shiloh (Ant.5.150), which he also mentions in his retelling of Judg. 21:19 as the place where they regularly met for the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Ant.5.170). Apparently, he wished to portray Israel’s worship in this period as located on one place (cf. Thornton 1996, 128–129). Most references to Mizpah in the Hebrew Bible are found in Judg. 20–21 and in stories involving Samuel and Saul (cf. Edenburg 2016, 96–100). Of special interest within the framework of the present story is that Mizpah is also the place where Samuel gathered the people to introduce Saul as its king (1 Sam. 10:17). Saul is explicitly presented there as member of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 10:20). So Mizpah seems to fulfil the same function here as Gibeah, indicating that the story taking place there foreshadows the period of the future king Saul (cf. Liverani 2004, 192). Against this background it is also hardly a coincidence that the leaders of Israel are called here “cornerstones”. The only other place in the Hebrew Bible where this word ‫ ִפּנָּ ה‬is clearly used metaphorically for leader is 1 Sam. 14:38. There it is Saul who summons the people to investigate a transgression, so that the wrongdoer can be punished. The same thing is going to happen now at Mizpah. The Greek translators did not understand the metaphor. LXX (B) translates: κατὰ πρόσωπον κυρίου, “before the Lord”, reading ‫ ִפּנּוֹת‬as ‫ ָפּנִ ים‬and adding the reference to God. LXX (A) translates τὸ κλίμα, a hapaxin the LXX, which seems to relate the Hebrew word to the verb ‫ פנה‬and can be translated as “convergence” (cf. Harlé 1999, 248–249). Compared to other armies mentioned in the book of Judges the number of “four hundred thousand sword-wielding foot soldiers” is extremely big. A popular way of making the story historically more plausible in this regard is to assume that ‫ ֶא ֶלף‬not has to be translated here as “thousand”, but refers to a military unit of smaller proportions (cf. Block 1999, 170, 550). This is convincingly refuted on grammatical grounds and on the basis of comparative evidence by Flanders (2018). Moreover, a focus on historical reliability hardly attributes to a better understanding of this and any other story in the book of Judges. To grasp the meaning of the stories it is better to study their place within the literary context.

518

Judges19:1–21:25

20:3–7 3

4

5

6

7

ThechildrenofBenjaminheardthatthechildrenofIsraelhadcome uptoMizpah.ThechildrenofIsraelsaid:“Speak:howdidthisevil comeabout?” TheLeviteman,themanofthemurderedwoman,answered.Hesaid: “To Gibeah, that (belongs) to Benjamin, had I come, me and my concubine,tospendthenight. ThelordsofGibeahstoodupagainstmeandsurroundedthehouse againstmeatnight.Metheyintendedtokillandmyconcubinethey debasedandshedied. Iseizedmyconcubineandcutherupandsentherthroughallthe fieldsoftheinheritanceofIsrael,becausetheydidadisgracefulthing inIsrael. Look,you(are)allchildrenofIsrael,giveyourselveswordandadvice here”.

The separation between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes is underlined by the remark in v. 3 that the Benjaminites only heard about the meeting. They are not present. The irony is that this also means that they will not hear the answer given to the question posed by the other Israelites. The word is given to the man, who for the first time since 19:1 is explicitly referred to as Levite again. Next to that he is also presented as the man of the murdered woman. Only this second role is of importance here, the first seems only to function as element connecting the story to the one in chapters 17–18. The Levite starts his answer with what according to the author apparently is the most important element: the location of Gibeah as part of the territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The main figures in his story are he himself, his concubine and “the lords of Gibeah”. The use of the word ‫בּ ַעל‬, ַ “lord”, is reminiscent of the way the leaders of the city of Shechem were called in 9:2, 46–47, 51. They have in common that the way they use their power is questionable. This title was not used in the story according to chapter 19. In his retelling the Levite makes the men of Gibeah more important and because the crime was committed by the “lords of Gibeah” one can also more easily state that the whole city is responsible. The Levite omits to mention his father-in-law, the boy accompanying him, and also the old man who had been his host. He put the emphasis on what had happened to him personally. Three times he speaks of “me”: “they stood up against me (‫)ע ַלי‬ ָ and surrounded the house against me (‫)ע ַלי‬ ָ at night. Me they intended to kill”. In the final line the emphasis is again on “me” through the placing of ‫אוֹתי‬ ִ at the beginning. In this context the killing of the (“my”) concubine is in the first place the damage of his property. Like the old man he calls the action of the

TheBenjaminites

519

Gibeanites a “disgrace” (‫ ;נְ ָב ָלה‬v. 6; cf. 19:23–24), but he omits the part he played himself by seizing his wife and giving her in the hands of the Gibeanites. Partly repeating the final words of 19:30 he asks for “word and advice” (v. 7). 20:8–11 8   9 10    11

Allthepeoplearoseasoneman,saying:  “Wewillnotgo,amantohistent  andwewillnotturnaside,amantohishouse. Now,thisisthethingthatwewilldotoGibeah:againstitbylot.  WewilltaketenmenperhundredforallthetribesofIsrael  andhundredperthousand  andthousandpertenthousandtotakeprovisionsforthepeople, todoforthosecomingtoGebahofBenjamin,accordingtoallthe disgracethatithasdoneinIsrael”. AllthemenofIsraelgatheredagainstthecity,asoneman,companions.

For the second time (after v. 1) the Israelites react “as one man”. It is repeated again in v.11, forming an inclusio of the speech of the people in vv. 8b–10. The same reaction “as one man” is recorded in the related story in 1 Sam. 11:7, when the Israelites go up “as one man” following Saul after they had heard the terrible message about what happened to the people of Jabesh. In the present situation they solemnly declare, in perfect synonymous lines, that they will take action against Gibeah right away. The way they will do this is not exactly clear. In the Hebrew text it is formulated rather cryptic: “against it by lot”. In the LXX a verb is added: “we will go against it”. The same expression “by lot” was used twice in 1:3, referring to the territories given to Judah and Simeon. Within the present context it could indicate that the following action is in line with the actions taken as part of the conquest of the land. It could also refer to establishing the order in which the tribes will go up against Gibeah (cf. v. 18). It is more likely that it refers to the selection mentioned in v. 10 (cf. the discussion of the different options by Schulz 2016, 70–71). The threefold description of the ten percent of all men being selected to fight against Gibah (apparently, a masculine form of the name of Gibeah; cf. Groß 2009, 833) reads again like poetic prose in the form of staircase parallelism. This way of formulating the words of the Israelites in parallel lines might also give a clue to the interpretation of the last line. Here the Hebrew text has two infinitive constructs: ‫בוֹאם‬ ָ ‫ל ֲעשׂוֹת ְל‬,ַ “to do when they come”. Instead of emending the text (cf. Boling 1966, 294– 295) one could consider the possibility that the writer wanted to make a connection with the verb ‫ עשׂה‬at the end of the line, creating a contrast between

520

Judges19:1–21:25

what is done for those going to Gibeah and what Gibeah did in Israel. Be this as it may, with BHQ, 112*, it is probably best to retain the MT. 20:12–16 12 13

14 15

16

ThetribesofIsraelsentmenamongallthetribesofBenjaminsaying: “Whatisthisevilthathascomeaboutwithyou? Now,givethemen,theworthless,who(are)inGibeah,andwewill killthemandrootoutevilfromIsrael”.ThechildrenofBenjamin werenotwillingtolistentothevoiceoftheirbrothers,thechildren ofIsrael. ThechildrenofBenjamingatheredfromthecitiestoGibeah,togo outtobattlewiththechildrenofIsrael. ThechildrenofBenjaminweremusteredonthatdayfromthecities, twenty-sixthousandmenwieldingthesword,besidestheinhabitants ofGibeahwhomusteredsevenhundredchosenmen. Fromallthispeople(therewere)sevenhundredchosenmenrestricted intheirrighthand;eachoftheseslingingastoneatahairandnot miss.

The Israelites try to keep the conflict within bounds and ask the Benjaminites to hand over the culprits so that they will receive their just punishment. They denote the Gibeanites with the same word “worthless” as was used in 19:22. It also relates their action to the command given in Deut. 13:14 to take action against cities in the Promised Land where “worthless men” incited the inhabitants to idolatry. A difference is that in Deut. 13 from the beginning it is clear that the whole population has to be killed. In Judg. 20 the Benjaminites is given the chance to hand over only these worthless men. In the end, however, the Israelites do carry out the bloody task described in Deut. 13:17 of killing all and burning the city. The plural in “tribes of Benjamin” is remarkable. In most translations, ancient and modern, this is changed into singular. The fact, however, that the same plural is also found in 1 Sam. 9:21, together with the many other associations with the story about Saul in 1 Samuel, indicates that the plural may not be a mistake. As was remarked above on 18:11 the writer appears to be not consistent in the way he distinguishes between “tribe” and “clan”. So perhaps he is also referring here to subdivisions of the tribe. The use of a plural form is probably influenced by the wish to create a contrast to “the tribes of Israel”. In vv. 12–14 we find in every line the reference to the two partners in the conflict: tribes of Israel versus tribes of Benjamin, and two times children of Benjamin versus children of Israel (as is indicated by the Masoretes the

TheBenjaminites

521

word ‫ ְבנֵ י‬has to be inserted before the name of Benjamin in v. 13). Precisely in between they are called brothers, just as the old man had addressed the men of Gibeah (19:23). The Benjaminites are clearly outnumbered by the other tribes: twenty-six thousand Benjaminites and seven hundred Gibeanites over against four hundred thousand. LXX (A) has a lower number of Benjaminites: twenty-five thousand; and LXX (B) even less: twenty-three thousand. This probably has to be ascribed to attempts to harmonize the numbers with those mentioned in the vv. 44–46. The comparatively low number of Benjaminite soldiers is compensated by the presence of seven hundred (this number is missing in the LXX) elite soldiers. As was remarked on the description of the Benjaminite judge Ehud in 3:15 the expression “restricted in their right hand” refers to the skill of being able to use both hands in battle (cf. Dexinger 1977; Schulz 2016, 76). To this is added their skills in slinging stones, which makes them look like the later king David (cf. 1 Sam. 17:49–50). 20:17–18 17 18

ThemenofIsraelweremustered,exceptforBenjamin,fourhundred thousandmenwieldingthesword,eachofthemamanofwar. TheyaroseandwentuptoBethelandinquiredofGod.Thechildren ofIsraelsaid:“Whoshallgoupforusfirstinthebattlewiththe childrenofBenjamin?”YHWHsaid:“Judahfirst”.

Again, in both verses the two opposite parties are named and, again, the Israelites do the right thing: they ask God’s will. Bethel, “house of God”, is an appropriate place to do so. Whereas the reader will have associated the story in chapter 19 with the story of Lot’s Sodom in Gen. 19, the reference to Bethel recalls the stories of God’s revelations there to Jacob in Gen. 28:19; 35:7. It can also be interpreted as directed against Mizpah as the place associated with Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 10:17; cf. Schulz 2016, 81). The action of the Israelites is reminiscent of the beginning of the book of Judges, when precisely the same inquiry was made to YHWH but regarding a different opponent. The Canaanites are replaced by the Benjaminites. YHWH’s answer is the same: Judah has to go up first. In the following story this role of Judah is not explicitly mentioned anymore. This can be seen as an indication that the association with the beginning of the book was added to the story, to emphasize the difference in situation. The bad news is that the enemy is not a foreign power but one of the own tribes of Israel; the good news is that for the first time YHWH is actively involved again. In the previous story YHWH remained silent and seemingly inactive. In chapter 17 YHWH was mentioned a number of times, but hardly in an appropriate way. From what follows can be derived that there may also be doubts about the

522

Judges19:1–21:25

way YHWH is involved here (cf. Guest 2019, 42, who refers to “the disturbing indication that Israel cannot rely upon their deity’s answers”). 20:19–21 19 20 21

ThechildrenofIsraelaroseinthemorningandencampedagainst Gibeah. The men of Israel went out to battle with Benjamin. The men of IsraeldrewupinbattleorderagainstthematGibeah. ThechildrenofBenjaminwentoutfromGibeah.Theybroughtruin amongIsraelonthatday:twenty-twothousandmentotheground.

Surprisingly, the first battle before the gates of Gibeah ends in a disaster for the Israelites. They seem to have been misled by their god. Strictly speaking, YHWH had not explicitly announced a victory, as in 1:2, but his answer certainly suggested so. The main difference with the situation in the beginning, of course, is that the enemy is not foreign but one of the Israelite tribes. Had YHWH chosen the side of Benjamin? Judah is not mentioned any more. Again, the opposition between the Israelites and the Benjaminites is underlined by the continuous repetition of their names. To this is added the threefold repetition of the name of Gibeah, showing a concentric structure. Israel is mentioned at the beginning and at the end. It is two times mentioned as going against Gibeah, the third time after Gibeah. In the beginning it went up, at the end it has fallen down “to the ground”. The losses are enormous, almost as much as the whole army of the Benjaminites. Casualties among the Benjaminites seem to be negligible. 20:22–25 22

23

24 25

The people, the men of Israel, strengthened themselves and again drewupinbattleontheplacewheretheyhaddrawnuponthefirst day. The children of Israel went up and wept before YHWH until the evening.TheyinquiredofYHWH,saying:“ShallIagainapproach forbattlewiththechildrenofBenjamin,mybrother?”YHWHsaid: “Goupagainsthim”. ThechildrenofIsraeldrewneartothechildrenofBenjaminonthe secondday. BenjaminwentouttomeetthemfromGibeahontheseconddayand they brought ruin among the children of Israel: another eighteen thousandmentotheground,allofthesewieldingthesword.

The Israelites appear not be taken aback. Like a boxer who has taken a first hit which made him fall to the ground but who does not want to give up and

TheBenjaminites

523

gets on his feet again, the Israelites “strengthen themselves” and return to the battle field. The verb ‫ חזק‬was used in a similar situation in 7:11 where it is announced that Gideon will find confidence to take up the fight against the Midianites. With many commentators Fernández Marcos (BHQ, 114*) suggests to skip the second word of this verse, ‫ה ָעם‬, ָ “the people”, as superfluous. It would originally have been “a marginal gloss representing an alternative variant”. However, it does appear to have a function, when we notice that something similar is found in the related v. 26. There we find the same combination of a reference to the Israelites and to the people. The episodes are “progressively elaborated” (Edenburg 2018, 358) in many ways: v. 18 They arose and went up to Bethel and inquired of God. The children of Israel said: “Who shall go up for us first in the battle with the children of Benjamin?” vv. 22–23 The people, the men of Israel, strengthened themselves and again drew up in battle on the place where they had drawn up on the first day. The children of Israel went up and wept before YHWH until the evening. They inquired of YHWH, saying: “Shall I again approach for battle with the children of Benjamin, my brother?” vv. 26–28 All the children of Israel went up and all the people. They came to Bethel and wept and sat there before YHWH. They fasted on that day until the evening. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before YHWH. The children of Israel inquired of YHWH – there was the ark of the covenant of God in those days and Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, was standing before it in those days – saying: “Shall I once again go out for battle with the children of Benjamin, my brother, or shall I stop?”

Within the “step-up in rhetoric” (Nelson 2017, 322) from v. 18 (“inquired”) to v. 23 (“weptand inquired”) to v. 26 (“wept, fasted, offered and inquired”) there is also a sequence from “children of Israel” (v. 18), to “the people, the men of Israel” (v. 22), to “all the children of Israel and all the people” (v. 26). This would explain not only the uncommon use of ‫ ָה ָעם‬in v. 22, but also the equally seemingly superfluous reference to ‫ל־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫ ָכ‬in v. 26. A final expansion concerns the reference to the Benjaminites, because first it is added that Benjamin is the brother of the other tribes (v. 23) and finally also that it might be better to stop (v. 28). As is remarked by many commentators, the sequence of events in vv. 22– 23 is odd and according to some disrupted. One would expect the reaction of mourning and repeated inquiring of YHWH as reported in v. 23 before the reference of a renewed military action in v. 22. More likely than the suggestion that the two verses were reversed (cf. Edenburg 2016, 34), is the assumption that v. 23 was added by the author/redactor to the original story (cf. Schulz 2016, 78–79). This is in line with what was noticed with regard to the first consultation of YHWH in v. 18, where the reference to Judah does not fit in very well. Something similar can be observed with regard to the third

524

Judges19:1–21:25

consultation in vv. 26–28. It also accords well with a tendency noticed in other stories in the book of Judges where older stories seem to have received an introduction emphasizing the role of YHWH. This is especially clear in the stories of Gideon and Samson with its Yahwistic introduction in respectively chapters 6 and 13. The hand of the author rewriting old stories can also be found in the fact that in this way he is able to relate this story at the end of the book to the beginning, by repeating not only the inquiry to YHWH but also the weeping of the Israelites (cf. 2:4). Again, the Israelites are thrown back with heavy losses and, again, they may feel misled by YHWH, although he had not explicitly announced a victory. 20:26–28 26

27 28

AllthechildrenofIsraelwentupandallthepeople.Theycameto BethelandweptandsattherebeforeYHWH.Theyfastedonthatday untiltheevening.Theyofferedburntofferingsandpeaceofferings beforeYHWH. ThechildrenofIsraelinquiredofYHWH–therewasthearkofthe covenantofGodinthosedays andPhineas,sonofEleazar,sonofAaron,wasstandingbeforeit inthosedays–saying:“ShallIonceagaingooutforbattlewith thechildrenofBenjamin,mybrother,orshallIstop?”YHWHsaid: “Goup,becausetomorrowIshallgivehiminyourhand”.

As was remarked with v. 22, the reference to “all the people” next to “all the children of Israel” can be explained as part of a sequence around the consultation of YHWH in vv. 18, 22–23, and 26–28, which started in v. 18 mentioning “the children of Israel”, followed by “the people, the men of Israel” in v. 22, and reaches its culmination point with “all the children of Israel and all the people”. Also the question has been extended. First they only spoke of going to battle against Benjamin (v. 18), then they referred to the battle with Benjamin as a brother (v. 23), and now they add the suggestion that it may be better to stop the battle against brother Benjamin (v. 28). To the weeping they have added fasting and sacrificing, which seems to be led by Phineas standing before the ark of the covenant. This introduction of both the ark, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the book of Judges, and the priest, who was last mentioned in Josh. 24:33 and already active in Josh. 22:13, 31– 33, comes as a surprise. Phineas is also the only person in this story who is mentioned by name. Therefore, many commentators assume that it is a later addition meant to legitimate the cult at Bethel (cf. also Rofé 2003, 788–790). The noted correspondence with vv. 18 and 22–23 makes it likely that not

TheBenjaminites

525

only the references to the ark and to Phineas but that vv. 26–28 as a whole should be ascribed to the author who added it together with vv. 18 and 23 to an older story. The threefold inquiry of YHWH relates it to the beginning; the reference to the grandson of Aaron relates it to the previous chapter 18 mentioning the grandson of Moses. Whereas the latter reference in 18:30 fits very well to its cultic context, the reference to Phineas looks artificial and thus as something added later to the story. It can be compared to the way the central figure of chapter 19 was introduced as Levite as a way of relating the story to the previous one. The choice for Phineas was probably inspired by his role in Josh. 22, where he acts as an intermediary in a conflict between the tribes. The chronological problems it causes were solved by Josephus and others by placing this story at the beginning of the period of the judges. The present order makes sense when we assume that the book is built up as a diptych, with the chapters 17–21 as a second panel placed next to the first panel consisting of chapters 2–16. The theological problems are big as well: how to explain the fact that two times YHWH seems to have misled the Israelites resulting in the loss of thousands of soldiers? It is often suggested that the Israelites did something wrong, but the text gives no explicit reasons. One can only note their increased efforts, indicated by the expansions in the description of the subject, the object, and the question. Groß is sceptic about the many different solutions proposed in the history of interpretation to the theological problem: Alle Unterstellungen, Israel habe JHWH die falschen oder arrogante und manipulative Fragen gestellt und daher von JHWH verhängnisvolle, gar sarkastische Antworten erhalten (...) oder Israel habe JHWHs Antwort in 23f falsch verstanden, nämlich auf die verfehlte Kampftaktik des Vortages bezogen (...) sind verfehlte, vom Text nicht gedeckte Versuche, dieser Irritation entgegenzuwirken (Groß 2009, 858).

In his opinion it is “ein typisches Beispiel dafür, wie ein Bearbeiter, ohne es zu wollen, vielleicht ohne es zu bemerken, für den Endtextleser theologische Probleme erzeugt”. Although Groß is probably right in ascribing the parts about the inquiries of YHWH to the final author/redactor, his disqualification about his theological insights is not justified. We have to assume that the author/redactor was well aware of the theological tensions in this story. They can be compared to the contradiction in the story about the rejection of Saul, in which shortly after it is said that YHWH does not change his mind like a human being (1 Sam. 15:29) we read that he does change his mind (v. 35). Within the book of Judges the idea that one cannot always understand the ways of YHWH is also found in the story of Samson, when the fact that Samson deliberately transgresses the command not to marry a foreign woman is explained as part of YHWH’s plan (14:4). Reading the

526

Judges19:1–21:25

final stories in the book of Judges against the background of the later controversy between Saul and David, that is, between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, one can also see this story of the fights between the Israelites and the Benjaminites as foreshadowing the fact that YHWH first chose Saul and later David. Of both kings it is reported that they inquire with YHWH what to do. First YHWH also supported Saul, but in the end YHWH only answers David. The fact that in the present story YHWH first seems to have chosen the side of the Benjaminites can be seen as foreshadowing this later situation of the kingship of Saul and David. 20:29–35 29 30

31

32

33

34 35

IsraelplacedambushersforGibeah,allaround. ThechildrenofIsraelwentupagainstthechildrenofBenjamin onthethirddayanddrewupinbattleagainstGibeahasother times. The children of Benjamin went out to meet the people. They were drawnawayfromthecity.Theybegantostrikedown(some)ofthe people,slainasothertimesonthehighways,ofwhichonegoesup toBethelandonetoGibeah,inthefield,aboutthirtymeninIsrael. ThechildrenofBenjaminsaid:“Theyarebeatenbeforeusasthe firsttime”.ThechildrenofIsraelsaid:“Letusfleeanddrawthem awayfromthecitytothehighways”. AllthemenofIsraelstoodupfromtheirplaceanddrewupinbattle orderatBaal-Tamar.TheambushofIsraelburstforthfromitsplace, fromthebaresideofGeba. FromoppositeGibeacametenthousandchosenmenfromallIsrael. Thebattle(was)heavy.Theydidnotknowthatevilwasreachingthem. YHWHbeatBenjaminbeforeIsraelandthechildrenofIsraelbrought ruinamongthechildrenofBenjaminonthatday:twenty-fivethousand onehundredmen,allofthesewieldingthesword.

The third confrontation between Benjamin and the other tribes is described far more extensively than the first two, but the description is also confusing and does not seem to follow a clear chronological order. Already in the ancient translations this led to all kinds of adaptations of the text, for instance by adding clarifying text to vv. 28, 31 and 39 (cf. Satterthwaite 1991; Fernández Marcos 2003, 10–12; Kabiersch et al. 2011, 699; Trebolle Barrera 2014, 69–71). As a rule this does not lead to plausible corrections of the Hebrew text (cf. BHQ, 114*–119*). Most problems concerning the coherence of the text can be solved when we assume that the story is told twice, from different perspectives. This is also suggested by Nelson 2017, 323. He ascribes this to

TheBenjaminites

527

“a text transmitter” who “missed a fuller description of the ambush procedure and, with Josh. 7:2–8:23 in mind, composed a supplementary expansion consisting of vv. 36b–41” (p. 327; cf. also Schulz 2016, 88–89). It is also very well possible, however, that this is the work of the original author of the text (cf. Revell 1985, 432, who speaks of “a cohesive account of the battle” with its complexity due “to the need to present the activities of three different groups participating in the battle”). It was noted before that the book of Judges contains more examples of this kind of “narrative juxtaposition”, disturbing the linear chronological structure (cf. introduction § 2.3). Placing an ambush is a strategy also used in the story of the attack on Shechem (9:32, 34, 43), but in the way it is executed it looks in the first place like the way Joshua fit the battle of Ai (Josh. 8; cf. Berman 2004, 77–84). It also follows the unexpected defeat by an outnumbered enemy (cf. Josh. 7:3– 5). Close comparison shows that in its present form Judg. 20:23–48 is based on the story in the book of Joshua (cf. Edenburg 2016, 203–221; Schulz 2016, 93–98). The beginning of the final battle has a parallel in the story of Samson as well. The rare expression ‫( ְכּ ַפ ַעם ְבּ ַפ ַעם‬vv. 30–31) was also used in the story of Samson and Delilah, when Samson thinks that he will be able to free himself as on previous occasions, only to find out that things have changed (16:20; the only other places where this phrase is found are Num. 24:1; 1 Sam. 3:10; 20:25.). The Benjaminites do not realise that they are drawn away (the hophalperfect ‫ ָהנְ ְתּקוּ‬is often corrected to a consecutive imperfect, as in Josh. 8:16, but this is not necessary; cf. Schulz 2016, 57) on purpose from the city, leaving it defenceless. At first they seem to be victorious again, although the number of slain enemies remains relatively low. The details given about the location indicate that the balance will swing in another direction. Next to Gibeah now also Bethel is mentioned. The fight takes place on the crossroad between these two cities, of which the latter is associated with the announcement of the victory of the Israelites over Benjamin. Baal-Tamar is unknown and cannot be located. The other location, ‫מ ַמּ ֲע ֵרה־גָ ַבע‬, ִ is left untranslated in LXX (B). LXX (A) translates the latter with “from west of Gabaa”, reading the first part as ‫ ִמ ַמּ ֲע ַרב‬instead of ‫מ ַמּ ֲע ֵרה‬. ִ Following Rashi it is translated here as “from the bare side of Gebah”, that is, the side of Gibeah which was left unprotected (cf. Barthélemy 1982, 124). This fits in nicely with the following reference to the attack of the Israelites “from the opposite side of Gibeah”. As in vv. 9–10 Gibeah and Gebah are used here as different forms of the same name. This part of the story of the fight ends in the same way as the report of the previous two battles, but this time with the Israelites having “ruined” (‫ ;שׁחת‬also used in vv. 21 and 25) the Benjaminites, causing thousands of casualties. A basic difference is that this time the victory is ascribed to YHWH. He has “beaten” Benjamin. The same verb ‫ נגף‬is used in vv. 32, 36, 39, first

528

Judges19:1–21:25

of the Benjaminites who thought that they had beaten the Israelites again, then by the Benjaminites who realise that they have been beaten themselves, and in v. 39 repeating (with increased certitude; cf. JM § 123e) the first wrong assessment by the Benjaminites. They clearly do not have the insight, which the author is sharing here with the reader, that YHWH is acting here. It can be compared to the theological commentary given in 14:4 about the hidden role of YHWH. In contrast to some of the previous stories no details are given about the way YHWH acted (cf. 4:15; 5:20; 7:22). 20:36–41 36

37 38 39

40

41

ThechildrenofBenjaminsawthattheywerebeaten.ThemenofIsrael gaveroomtoBenjamin,becausetheytrustedtheambushthatthey hadsetagainstGibeah. TheambushershurriedandattackedGibeah.Theambushersdeployed andstrucktheentirecitywiththemouthofthesword. TheappointmentofthemenofIsraelwiththeambusherswastosend uparisingmassofsmokefromthecity. ThemenofIsraelturnedroundinthebattle.Benjaminhadstarted tostrikedown:theslainamongthemenofIsrael(were)aboutthirty men,becausetheysaid:“Surely,heiscertainlybeatenbeforeus asinthefirstbattle”. Therisingmasshadbeguntogoupfromthecity,acolumnofsmoke. Benjaminturnedaroundtoitsrearand,look,theentirecitywentup (insmoke)totheheavens. The men of Israel turned around and the men of Benjamin were terrified,becausetheysawtheevilthathadreachedthem.

These verses repeat the report about the way the Israelites defeated the Benjaminites. This time it is told from the perspective of the Benjaminites, as is underlined by a chiastic structure (cf. Nelson 2017, 323–324): The children of Benjamin saw that they were beaten (v. 36a) The men of Israel gave room to Benjamin (v. 36b) a rising mass of smoke from the city (v. 38) The men of Israel turned round in the battle (v. 39a) The rising mass had begun to go up from the city, a column of smoke (v. 40) The men of Israel turned around (v. 41a) the men of Benjamin were terrified, because they saw the evil that had reached them (v. 41b)

Next to the central role of the Benjaminites also the fate of their city is emphasized. In the first report one reads about the area that surrounds the city, this time the focus is on the city itself. It is burned and its inhabitants are killed. The smoke sign is reminiscent of the story of Ai (cf. Josh. 8:20).

TheBenjaminites

529

If one does not want to delete the difficult ‫( ֶה ֶרב‬v. 38b; cf. BHQ, 116*; Schulz 2016, 57), it is best interpreted as a short form of the imperative hiphil of ‫רבה‬, “to make great”. There may be a connection with the command in Deut. 13:17 that a city which is incited by “worthless men” (Deut. 13:14; cf. Judg. 20:13) to idolatry should burned as a “whole offering (‫)כּ ִליל‬ ָ to YHWH”. The same word ‫ ָכּ ִליל‬is used in Judg. 20:40 describing that the entire city went up in smoke. Because there is no cultic context here and because it is not stated that this action was undertaken for YHWH the association remains vague (cf. Groß 2009, 863). There can be no doubt about it, however, that what happened to Gibeah is presented as justified. It ends up in the same state as Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Gen. 19:28). The evil (‫)ה ָר ָעה‬ ָ that had reached them is what they had called up themselves when they attacked the guests of the old man in Gibeah. He had warned them: “do no evil” (32:91 ‫ל־תּ ֵרעוּ נָ א‬ ָ ‫)א‬. ַ Now this evil comes upon them (cf. Berman 2004, 56–57). Apparently, this was also noticed by Josephus when he writes in his retelling that the Benjaminites “acknowledge that what had happened to them was by the sentence of God and in accordance with their wrong-doing” (Ant.5.168). 20:42–48 42

43

44 45

46 47 48

TheyturnedfrombeforethemenofIsraeltotheroadofthedesert. Thebattlecaughtupwiththemand(those)whowerefromthecities werebringinghimtoruininitsmidst. They surrounded Benjamin, pursued him from the resting place, forcedhimalongupto(aplace)oppositeGibeah,fromtherisingof thesun. OfBenjaminfelleighteenthousandmen,alltheseweremenofvalour. They turned and fled to the desert, to the rock of Rimmon. They dealtwiththemonthehighways,fivethousandmen.Theyovertook themasfarasGidomandstruckdowntwothousandmenofthem. IthappenedthatallthosewhofellfromBenjaminweretwenty-five thousandmenwieldingtheswordonthatday,allthesemenofvalour. Theyturnedandfledtothedesert,totherockofRimmon,sixhundred menandtheystayedattherockofRimmonforfourmonths. ThemenofIsraelreturnedtothechildrenofBenjaminandstruck themwiththemouthoftheswordfromthecitypeopletothecattle,to allthatwasfound.Alsoallthecitiesthatwerefoundtheysetonfire.

The final part of the story concerns the Israelite pursuit of the Benjaminites, killing them by the thousands. It consists of three stages, all introduced with ‫יִּפנוּ‬ ְ ַ‫ו‬, “and they (that is, the Benjaminites) turned” (vv. 42, 45, 47; this argues against the suggestion by BHQ, 117*, to change the verb in v. 42 to singular).

530

Judges19:1–21:25

Just as in vv. 36–41 there is also an inclusio with the reference of “men of Israel” and “cities” in v. 42 repeated in v. 48. The reference to the number of Benjaminite casualties repeats what was reported before in v. 35. Therefore, just as with vv. 36–41 we seem to be dealing here with a more elaborate description of an event mentioned before. It is told from the different perspective of the fleeing Benjaminites. Together with the other formal features (description in three parts and the use of an inclusio) this is typical of the style of the author. According to Groß 2009, 808, the text of vv. 42–43 “ist schwer gestört und kann nicht konjiziert werden”. The translation given above follows as much as possible the MT. BHSsuggests changing the plural “cities” in v. 42 to singular, assuming that it refers to Gibeah. It is hard to explain, however, the assumed fault in the transmission of the text (cf. the discussion in BHQ, 117*). The present text can be explained as referring to the Benjaminite cities in vv. 14–15. The inhabitants of these cities now turned against Gibeah after they saw Gibeah going up in smoke (cf. Nelson 2017, 317). In the end, however, their cities will suffer the same fate (v. 48). In v. 43a the violent and swift pursuit of the Benjaminites is described in three verbs shortly following after each other. The Benjaminites are not given a moment’s rest. The phrase ‫ ַעד־גִּ ְדעֹם‬in v. 45 suggests that we are dealing here with an otherwise unknown place. A Hebrew reader will associate it with the verb ‫גדע‬, “to cut off”, which is also used in 21:6 to describe the fate of Benjamin. So we may be dealing here again with wordplay. The rock of Rimmon, “pomegranate rock”, which is mentioned three times in vv. 45–47, cannot be located with certainty (cf. Edenburg 2016, 104– 105). Within the Hebrew Bible it is mentioned only here and in 21:13. After the many associations indicated before with the stories of Saul it is hardly a coincidence (and more than a “subtle Saulide connection”, as assumed by Nelson 2017, 325) that in 1 Sam. 14:2 we read of Saul who is staying in the outskirts of Gibeah under the pomegranate tree with six hundred soldiers. His son Jonathan is nearby climbing rocks to spy on the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam. 14:4 mentioning two rocks). The description of the surviving Gibeanites can be read as foreshadowing the situation of Saul and his small army. It can be compared to the action of the Levite cutting his concubine into twelve pieces and sending these throughout Israel (19:11), which is best explained as reference to Saul’s actions as recounted in 1 Sam. 11:6–7. The verb ‫ עלל‬poel, “to deal severely”, was also used in 19:25 (hitpael) to denote the sexual abuse of the concubine. In this way it is indicated that the Benjaminites are punished in like measure for the offense by the Gibeanites against the concubine (cf. Berman 2004, 62–65).

TheBenjaminites

531

After the first two stages the total of Benjaminite casualties is counted as twenty-five thousand. Almost the same number (with one hundred extra) was mentioned before in v. 35. Because the total number of Benjaminite soldiers was twenty-six thousand seven hundred (cf. vv. 15–16) the reference to the number in vv. 44–46 must be a repetition. It underlines the enormous scale of the defeat. Almost the whole army was killed. Verse 47 seems to suggest that only six hundred men remain. According to the numbers given before there should at least be one thousand more. The difference in numbers between v. 35 and vv. 44–46 already indicated that the author was not very precise in this regard. Also the parallel with Saul and his army of six hundred may have been of influence. The period of four months recalls the same period mentioned in 19:2 as the time during which the concubine stayed with her father before her husband came to get her back. Apparently, the author saw it as an appropriate period for a time out. The form of the word ‫ ְמתֹם‬is in v. 48 can be interpreted as a byform of the word ‫ ְמ ִתם‬as it found in Deut. 2:34; 3:6 in a similar context of the description of a whole population being killed, executing the regulations of the ban. The word ‫חרם‬, “to put under a ban”, is not explicitly used here, but it is clear that Gibeah is treated here as one of the Canaanite cities according to the commands given to Israel when taking the Promised Land. The many discussions explaining this specific form ‫ ְמתֹם‬or attempts to correct the text (cf. BHQ, 118*–119*; Schulz 2016, 59) have not led to a convincing result. The meaning, however, is clear: it is part of the description of the total destruction of Gibeah. In comparison to the related texts in Deut. 2–3 it attracts the attention that this includes the cattle. With the stories about Saul in mind it can be noted that this is a theme that will return in the story in 1 Sam. 15 where Saul is severely blamed for not having killed all cattle of the Amalekites. 21:1–4 1 2 3 4

ThemenofIsraelhadsworninMizpah,saying:“Nomanofuswill givehisdaughteraswifetoBenjamin”. The people came to Bethel and sat there until the evening before God.Theyraisedtheirvoiceandwept,agreatweeping. Theysaid:“Why,YHWH,godofIsrael,hasthishappenedinIsrael, thattodayonetribeismissinginIsrael?” Ithappenedonthenextdaythatthepeopleroseupearlyandbuilt thereanaltarandofferedupburntofferingsandpeace-offerings.

Just as the book of Judges is built up as a diptych with two panels (2:6–16:31 and 17–21) following a general introduction, also the final chapter has the

532

Judges19:1–21:25

form of a diptych (cf. Nelson 2017, 342). After the introduction in vv. 1–4 follow two parallel stories about wives offered to the Benjaminites in vv. 5– 14 and 15–23. The chapter and book as a whole is concluded by a repetition of some general remarks in vv. 24–25. The weeping of the Israelites in Bethel reminds of the reaction recorded in 20:23 and 26 to the loss of lives in the fights against the Benjaminites. This time they are weeping because they fear the loss of the complete tribe of Benjamin. There is an even closer parallel to the story in 2:1–5 (cf. Beldman 2017, 92–94; Edenburg 2018, 359). This also describes how the Israelites “raised their voice and wept” (2:4) and sacrificed to YHWH (2:5). By referring to “a great weeping” the author indicates that the sorrow is even more intense than in Bochim. There are also some remarkable contrasts. Whereas in 2:2 a probing question is posed to the Israelites (“What have you done?!”), in 21:3 the Israelites for their part address YHWH in a similar way. It is also interesting to note that both stories begin with the reference to a sworn oath and that just as with the question the roles are reversed. In 2:1 the Israelites are reminded of the oath sworn by YHWH not to break the covenant. In 21:1 we read of an oath sworn by the Israelites not to make a covenant with Benjamin through marriage. This underlines the sad reality that the Israelites themselves had broken the covenant with YHWH by giving their daughters in marriage to the Canaanite peoples and vice versa (3:6). Now they treat the tribe of Benjamin as one of the foreign nations and appear to be stricter in keeping to this vow than they had done before in keeping to the covenant with YHWH. 21:5–9 5

6 7 8

9

ThechildrenofIsraelsaid:“Whohasnotgoneupintheassembly fromallthetribesofIsraeltoYHWH?”Becausetherewasagreat sworn-oathagainstanyonewhohadnotgoneuptoYHWHatMizpah, saying:hemustsurelydie. ThechildrenofIsraelfeltsorryforBenjamin,theirbrother.Theysaid: “TodayonetribeiscutofffromIsrael. Whatshallwedoforthosethatremainregardingwives?Wehave swornbyYHWHnottogivethem(anyof)ourdaughtersaswives”. Theysaid:“WhoistheonefromthetribesofIsraelthatdidnotgoup toYHWHatMizpah?”Look,notamanhascometothecampfrom Jabesh-Gileadtotheassembly. Thepeopleweremusteredand,look,therewasnomantherefrom theinhabitantsofJabesh-Gilead.

After the introduction in vv. 1–4 follow two actions by the Israelites to solve the problem of the threat of Benjamin being left without offspring. These

TheBenjaminites

533

two stories show a similar structure (cf. Nelson 2017, 341–342), in a way we encountered before in chapters 15-16 as parallel to chapter 14. Israel’s compassion (‫( )נחם‬v. 6 / v. 15) Question: what can we do about it? (‫)מה־נַּ ֲע ֶשׂה‬ ַ (v. 7 / v. 16) First hint to the solution, introduced with ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬, “look” (v. 8 / v. 19) Instructions to the Benjaminites starting with ‫לכוּ‬,ְ “go” (v. 10 / v. 20) Elaborate instructions without description of their execution (vv. 10–11 / vv. 20–22) The Benjaminites return (‫ )שׁוב‬and receive women (v. 14 / v. 23; in the opposite order)

These observations can be related to the suggestion made by many scholars that we are dealing with originally two independent sources (cf. Edenburg 2016, 58–75; Schulz 2016, 108–122). A possible scenario is that the author of the book of Judges based this final chapter on the second story, about the girls of Shiloh captured into marriage by the Benjaminites, and added to this the story about Jabesh. This sequence can be derived from the fact that the question in v. 16 does not refer to the first attempt to find a solution to the problem. The central role of Jabesh in the first story is also in line with the tendency in the previous chapters to relate the texts to the history of Saul. Just as was assumed with regard to the stories of Gideon and Samson it could point to an action of the author in which he integrated an existing story in his book by adding an introductory story. The gathering of the Israelites in Mizpah is described twice as “going up to YHWH”. This repeats what was reported in 20:1. To the suggestion in 21:1 that on that occasion at the beginning of actions against Gibeah a new marriage policy was formulated is now added the sanction for violating this arrangement: the perpetrator “must surely die” (‫יוּמת‬ ָ ‫)מוֹת‬. It is a sanction which is usually associated with divine commands (cf. Exod. 19:12; 21:12 etc.) and it fits well to the double reference to the presence of YHWH. It is also clear, however, that the author did not want to describe this as instigated by YHWH. The initiative is with the Israelites, who pronounce this verdict on the basis of the “great sworn-oath” they made in a situation of the “great weeping” (v. 2). They repeatedly use the name of YHWH, but that does not mean that they are acting according to the will of YHWH. It can be compared to the vow Jephthah made to YHWH in a story in which the author does not inform the reader about YHWH’s consent. The Israelites feel sorry (‫ ;נחם‬also in v. 15) for the Benjaminites. The only other place in the book of Judges where this verb is used concerns YHWH feeling sorry for Israel when it cries out because of their suffering under the foreign oppressors (2:18). It underlines the change of roles in these final chapters: the conflict is no longer between Israel and foreigners but between Israelite tribes; and instead of YHWH the tribes now have to find a solution to the problem they have caused themselves.

534

Judges19:1–21:25

LXX (A) translates with ἀφῄρηται , “(one tribe) has been taken away”, which suggest an original ‫ גרע‬instead of ‫גדע‬, “to cut off”. LXX (B) is in line with the MT. As was remarked above, one can also assume wordplay with ‫ גדע‬in the name of Gidom (20:45). The Israelites find the solution by blaming the people of the city of Jabesh in Gilead for not having participated in the siege of Gibeah and by extending the death penalty to that transgression of tribal solidarity. One can call this an “instance of ‘substantive irrationality’ in a stress situation” (Fishbane 1988, 240). It is a forced way to legitimize a dubious action to solve a problem caused by the questionable reaction of killing so many people because of the crime committed in Gibeah. The reference to Jabesh was already prepared by mentioning Gilead in 20:1 as belonging to the territory of the tribes of Israel, but it is presented as a surprise with the repeated exclamation “look!” (‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬in vv. 8–9). Because of the emphasis on the unity of the people (cf. 20:1, 11) one would have expected that this exception would have been mentioned earlier, as in chapter 5. The situation with the Ephraimites in 8:1 and 12:1 is also different, because they for their part complain not to have been called up to join the other tribes. The special role of Jabesh in the present story most probably has to do with the fact that Jabesh is closely related to Saul. This is something it has in common with the previously mentioned places of Gibeah and Mizpah. In 1 Sam. 11 Jabesh is mentioned (also as “Jabesh-Gilead”; v. 1) as the first place where Saul presented himself as the leader who was able to unite the Israelites (cf. 1 Sam. 11:7: “as one man”) against a foreign enemy. According to 1 Sam. 31:11–13 the people of Jabesh paid due respect to Saul after his death. Reading the stories about Jabesh in Judg. 21 and 1 Sam. 11 in its present canonical order there is the problem that according to Judg. 21 in the time of Saul the city of Jabesh must have been uninhabited. Its population was exterminated or abducted. This is not in line with the situation described in 1 Sam. 11 of a city under siege by the Ammonites. In the LXX and 4QSama this problem is solved by an addition before v. 1, in which it is told that Jabesh had been repopulated by seven thousand men from the tribes of Gad and Ruben who had fled before the Ammonites (cf. Dietrich 2010, 501–504). The MT of 1 Sam. 11 represents a text in which the obvious tension with the book of Judges was not an issue. Just as 1 Sam. 12:11 it indicates that the book of Judges in its present form was composed later. Telling this shameful story about Jabesh turning it into an outsider takes away the positive light that is put upon Jabesh, especially in 1 Sam. 31. It also insinuates that the Benjaminite Saul was born as one of the descendants of this unhappy coupling of the surviving Benjaminites with the women of Jabesh. In this respect the story could be compared to the story of the shameful birth of Ammon and Moab in Gen. 19:30–38. It would be the

TheBenjaminites

535

counterpart to the far more happy story taking place in Bethlehem of Ruth as the great-grandmother of David. We have to assume that for the author of the book of Judges a chronologically clear presentation of the events around Jabesh was not his top priority. In this regard the reference forward to Saul’s liberation of Jabesh can be compared to the equally problematic reference backward to the grandsons of Moses and Aaron in chapters 18 and 20. According to Groß 2009, 874, this relation between Judg. 21 and 1 Sam. 11 is something that can only be concluded on the basis of a synchronic approach: “Der kanonische Leser kann aus der Vergabe der 400 Jungfrauen an die Benjaminiter, wenn er zu 1 Sam 11 kommt, schließen, daß Saul damals auch aus Gründen der Verwandtschaft sich so energisch für JabeschGilead eingesetzt hat”. However, the diachronic analysis concluding that this association was the well-considered work of an author/editor writing this story as a prefiguration to the history of the kings of Israel offers a more convincing interpretation of the present story in the book of Judges. It makes more sense that the association has to be regarded as meant negatively than as something that can be read positively. 21:10–14 10

11 12

13

14

Thecommunitysenttheretwelvethousandmenofthemightyones andchargedthem,saying:“Goandstrikedowntheinhabitantsof Jabesh-Gileadwiththemouthoftheswordandthewomenandthe littleones. This(is)thethingthatyouhavetodo:everymaleandeverywoman whoknowslyingwithamaleyoushalldevotetotheban”. They found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred virgin girls who had not known a man by lying with a male. They broughtthemtothecampatShilohwhich(is)inthelandofCanaan. Thewholecommunitysent(messengerswho)spoketothechildren ofBenjaminwho(were)attherockofRimmon.Theycalledtothem: “Peace”. Benjaminreturnedatthattime.Theygavethemthewomenwhom theyhadkeptalivefromthewomenofJabesh-Gilead.Theydidnot findenoughforthem.

As in 20:1 the text refers to the community (‫)ע ָדה‬ ֵ of the Israelites (also in vv. 13 and 16). This word was not used before in the book of Judges. It is reminiscent of the conflict between the whole community of the Israelites and the tribes of Ruben, Gad and Manasseh in Josh. 22 (cf. esp. vv. 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 30). Devoting Jabesh to the ban (‫ )חרם‬is something that normally was reserved for the Canaanite inhabitants of the Promised Land (cf. on this

536

Judges19:1–21:25

aspect of the ban Southwood 2017, 146–153). In the book of Judges it was used before in 1:17 of Judah and Simeon against the Canaanite city of Sefat. Within the present context prefiguring the kingship of Saul one should also note parallel with the command given to Saul to devote Amalek to the ban, killing all its living beings (1 Sam. 15:3). Eventually, Saul is deemed not to be fit as a ruler because he did not completely fulfil this task. The command given to the “mighty ones” (the characterization ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ ‫ ֶה ָחיִ ל‬was used before of the Danite spies in 18:2; cf. also ‫י־חיִ ל‬ ָ ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁ‬of the Benjaminites in 20:44, 46) is remarkable in comparison to the “classic” text about the ban in Deut. 7:2–3, where it is explicitly connected with the prohibition of mixed marriages. As in Num. 31:17–18 an exception is now made for the virgin girls (‫תוּלה‬ ָ ‫ נַ ֲע ָרה ְב‬emphasizes their youth), who had not “known” a man (with emphasis on the virginity; cf. Southwood 2017, 147). They are not the first virgins to become victims of dubious manly behaviour. We already encountered the virgin daughter of Jephthah, who was sacrificed because of the vow of her father (11:39), and the virgin daughter of the host of the Levite, who was offered by her father to the threatening Gibeanites (19:24). The lack of protection of these powerless women is telling of the situation in Israel. LXX (B) adds to v. 11: τὰς δὲ παρθένους περιποιήσεσθε καὶ ἐποίησαν οὕτως, “keep the virgins for yourselves. And they did so”. Usually LXX (B) strictly follows the MT, but here a clarification seems to be added (it is not likely, as suggested in BHS, that the Hebrew text should be corrected). It prepares the action described in the next verses and also adds the remark which is missing in the Hebrew text that the commands were executed. The female booty is brought to Shiloh. The seemingly superfluous remark that this was located in Canaan is a way of stating that they turned back from the region of Gilead and crossed the river Jordan again. It reminds the reader also of the bitter irony that the ban which was designed for application to the Canaanites had been applied to the Israelite city of Jabesh (cf. Younger 2002, 381). Shiloh is also the place for the next action. So it functions as a connection to the probably older story to which it was added. In this way one can also explain why the hardly surprising observation was added that four hundred women are not enough for six hundred men. According to the LXX there was no problem at all, because the final line reads: καὶ ἤρεσεν αὐτοῖς οὕτως, “and in this way they were content”. The translator may have missed the negative particle in the Hebrew text. It is also possible to assume that the translator explained the next action of the Israelites as something exceeding the expectations of the Benjaminites. Although the Benjaminites were satisfied with this solution, the Israelites wanted to go one step further.

TheBenjaminites

537

21:15–23 15 16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23

The people felt sorry for Benjamin, because YHWH had made a breachamongthetribesofIsrael. Theeldersofthecommunitysaid:“Whatshallwedoforthosethat remain regarding wives, because the women have been wiped out fromBenjamin?” Theysaid:“(Theremustbe)aninheritanceofescapeforBenjamin. AtribeshouldnotbewipedoutfromIsrael. Wecannotgivethemwivesfromourdaughters”–becausethechildren of Israel had sworn, saying: “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin”– They said: “Look, (there is) a festival of YHWH at Shiloh, every year, which is north of Bethel, toward the rising of the sun from the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah”. TheychargedthechildrenofBenjamin,saying:“Goandlieinambush inthevineyards. Youmustsee,look,whenthedaughtersofShilohgoouttodancein aring,youmustgooutfromthevineyardsandseizeforyourselves amanhiswomanfromthedaughtersofShilohandgototheland ofBenjamin. Itshallbewhentheirfathersortheirbrotherscometodisputetous, weshallsaytothem:‘Showbecauseofusfavourtothem,because we have not taken a man his woman in battle, because you have not given (them) to them, as at that time you would have become guilty’”. The children of Benjamin did thus: they took wives according to their number from the dancers whom they robbed. They went and returned to their inheritance and built the cities and settled in them.

As was remarked above, the second story about the way the remaining Benjaminites received wives to secure the survival of the tribe runs parallel to the preceding story. It begins with the remarkable fact that the Israelites again point to YHWH as responsible for the present bad situation of Benjamin (v. 15; cf. v. 3). Thereupon, they think of a solution to the problem themselves (vv. 16–22; cf. vv. 7–11), with clear orders to the men about how to take action (vv. 20–22; cf. vv. 10–11). The execution of these orders is described briefly (v. 23a; not mentioned at all in the previous story). In the end the price is mentioned: wives for the Benjaminites (v. 23; cf. v. 12). For the first time we read in this story of “elders” (v. 16). They can be compared to the elders of Gilead mentioned in 11:5 who took the initiative

538

Judges19:1–21:25

to approach Jephthah as possible liberator. The sworn oath of v. 1 is reformulated as a curse (cf. Schottroff 1969, 214–216). Although not the same word is used, it is reminiscent of the beginning of the story of Micah referring to the curse uttered by his mother (17:2). This repetition of the oath and also the repetition of the problem that Benjamin is on the brink of being wiped out completely (v. 17) seem to ignore the fact that the problem was almost solved already by the capture of the girls from Jabesh. This indicates that we are probably dealing here with an independent story to which the story about Jabesh was added. The solution to the problem that they cannot give their daughters to the Benjaminites is that the Benjaminites should take the women themselves. This makes more sense than the way the problem was handled in the story about Jabesh and can be regarded as another indication of the secondary nature of that story (cf. Schulz 2016, 115). The phrase ‫יָמן‬ ִ ְ‫יטה ְל ִבנ‬ ָ ‫יְ ֻר ַשּׁת ְפּ ֵל‬, “an inheritance of escape for Benjamin” (v. 17) sounds like a “ceremonial proclamation” (Nelson 2017, 331). It is difficult to understand and has led to many proposals for emendation, none of which found broad consensus (cf. BHQ, 120*; Schulz 2016, 106). With the LXX it is, therefore, better translated literally. The choice to disturb a festival of YHWH at Shiloh is a serious sacrilege, which is all the more remarkable because YHWH is mentioned as responsible for the “breach among the tribes of Israel” (v. 15) but is not involved in the considerations. The festival is introduced in the same way as Jabesh in vv. 8 and 9 with “look!” (‫ )וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬as a lucky coincidence, but the choice will certainly not have been accidental. This festival at Shiloh is mentioned only here (leaving much room for speculation; cf. Hvidberg 1962, 100–101: “autumnal festival of the Canaanized Israelites”). In this regard it can be compared to the yearly lamentations over the daughter of Jephthah mentioned within the Hebrew Bible only in 11:40. The fact that the yearly festival at Shiloh is described as happy, with dancing, and in vineyards suggests that it is a harvest feast (cf. Springer 1979, 26–27). According to Ackermann the dancing has a sexual connotation. It “must have been enticing enough to the Benjaminite men that they are willing to risk the wrath of Shiloh’s fathers and brothers” (1998, 264; a summary of this and other suggestions concerning this festival is given by Southwood 2017, 160–164). The location at Shiloh is an important element in the story. The name is mentioned three times and the location is described in detail (v. 19), as if had not been mentioned before (cf. 18:31). This also points to a probably deliberate contrast with the first chapter of the following book (cf. Edenburg 2016, 300): the daughters robbed from Shiloh are contrasted with the boy Samuel brought to Shiloh (1 Sam. 1). The Benjaminites are advised (following the qere‫וַ יְ ַצוּוּ‬, “they commanded”) to ambush the girls (v. 20). This tactic was also used by the Israelites in their fight against the Benjaminites (20:29) in a more heroic context. In the

TheBenjaminites

539

present situation it is almost humiliating that the Benjaminites have to resort to this kind of action. The promise given to them that the elders will convince their fathers and brothers (in the Hebrew text the plural pronouns are masculine but must refer to the girls) of the righteousness of the capture is also not very honourable for the Benjaminites. It suggests that they are not capable of defending themselves. Moreover, the reasons given by the elders do not seem to be very persuasive. The Hebrew text is obscure and has led to many different suggestions of emendation and interpretation (cf. BHQ, 120*–121*; an elaborate survey is offered by Southwood 2017, 164–174; already Studer 1835, 420, states that it is fruitless to discuss all suggestions made: “Ohne uns mit Widerlegung aller der misslungenen Versuche älterer und neuerer Ausleger, diesen dunklen und offenbar durch die Abschreiber verdorbenen Worten eine Sinn abzugewinnen, aufzuhalten”). Keeping to the MT, the most likely interpretation is that the elders ask the family of the girls to accept the actions of the Benjaminites for two reasons. The first (“because we have not taken a man his woman in battle”) probably refers to the first attempt to provide the Benjaminites with women by taking the virgins from Jabesh and indicates that this did not produce enough wives. This made it necessary to undertake the present second attempt at Shiloh. The (second) reason why they had to accept this (“because you have not given [the girls] to them, as at that time you would have become guilty”) is that the only way to avoid the curse was to make sure that the girls were not given by the fathers of Shilo but taken from them. In modern scholarship the action of the Benjaminites and its justification by the elders are usually judged negatively. A different, more nuanced judgment is voiced by Southwood in her monograph on marriage by capture. In her opinion we are dealing here with examples of a widespread and usually accepted custom which is found all over the world until today (cf. also Minka 2017, who points to ancient Near Eastern laws regulating marriage after the kidnapping of women). The story in Judg. 21 has to be understood “as a social critique of unity during the postexilic period” (2017, 237). In her opinion Judg. 19–21 should be read against the background of the situation of the return of the exiles from Babylon as described in Ezra 9–10: “Like the people of the land Ezra, the Benjamites have a claim to participate within Israel. In both texts, an internal group is treated as a foreigner whom Israel is not to participate in marriages with” (Southwood 2017, 232). It cannot be denied, however, that robbing of the girls from Shiloh is an extreme example of this marriage by capture, because of the scale and the fact that it takes place at a religious festival devoted to the own god. As has been observed by many scholars there is a similarity with the story of the theft of the Sabine women by the Romans led by Romulus, as described by Livy (HistoryofRomeI.9–13), Cicero (DeRepublica 2.12–14), Dionysius

540

Judges19:1–21:25

of Halicarnassus (AntiquitatesRomanae2.30–47), Ovid (Fasti3.167–258), and Plutarch (Romulus14–20) (cf. Miles 1992), and the story of the Messenians kidnapping young girls at the shrine of Artemis in Limnae, as described by Pausanias (DescriptionofGreece,4,Messania4.2; 16.9–10; 31.3) and Strabo (Geographia7.4, 9). Within this framework Ackerman 1998, 268– 272, also points to the many examples in ancient Greek literature of “abduction of dancing maidens”. Whether there is a more or less direct connection between Judg. 21 and the stories and elements in ancient Greek and Roman texts, is a matter of dispute (cf. Gaster 1969, 444–446; and Gnuse 2008, 240, suggesting a close parallel to the story of the theft of the Sabine women; and Schulz 2016, 113, n. 414; and Southwood 2017, 17–21, denying it). The problem is that in the classic texts all elements of the story in Judg. 21 can be found but never all in the same story. Next to this there is the problem that the classic texts mentioned above are all younger than the book of Judges. One has to assume that they contain old traditions, which would make it possible that the author of Judg. 21 could have used them. The latter is less problematic than usually suggested when it is correct, as is suggested in this commentary, that he lived in the Hellenistic age. Because of the lack of parallels in the Hebrew Bible and in texts from the ancient Near East, a relation with the many Greek and Roman comparable stories may not be too far-fetched. Within this framework it is also interesting to take into account that the same author is probably responsible for the story of the daughter of Jephthah and that in chapter 21 he again may have used elements from Greek stories to describe an extreme example of lack of good leadership. Note also the other parallels to the story in chapter 11: they both concern dancing young girls, who become victims of the whims of men, and in both stories an otherwise unknown religious festival is mentioned. 21:24–25 24 25

ThechildrenofIsraelwentfromthereatthattime,amantohistribe andtohisclan.Theywentoutfromthere,amantohisinheritance. InthosedaystherewasnokinginIsrael.Amandidwhatwasright inhiseyes.

The concluding remark that after this every Israelite went to his inheritance, repeats what was told in 2:6 as what happened after Joshua had sent off the people. The book of Judges tells us what happened in between these two moments. All this must have made the Israelites – and with them the reader – sadder and wiser concerning the question that was posed at the very beginning of the book: who shall go first; in other words: who is the leader that can go in the footsteps of Joshua? The final verse of the book seems to suggest

TheBenjaminites

541

that it is time for a good king. However, one should not forget the important lesson of this book indicated in the second part of the verse: a good leader is someone who does what is right in the eyes of YHWH; in other words: who accepts that Israel’s real king is YHWH. In many ways the previous stories foreshadowed the history of the kings as told in the books of Samuel and Kings. In the final chapters the focus was clearly on king Saul. The reader is warned: the first king of Israel descends from the strange marriage between one of the infamous Benjaminites and a stolen, probably unhappy girl from Jabesh or Shiloh. What good can come from that?

APPENDIX

THE PERICOPES WITHIN THE BOOK OF JUDGES ACCORDING TO MT AND LXX MANUSCRIPTS

For this overview of the different ways in which the text of the book of Judges was divided use was made of the list in BHQ, 13*-15*, the digitalized versions of the codex Sinaiticus (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org), the codex Vaticanus (http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209), and for the codex Alexandrinus, the edition by Brooke and McLean (1897). The verse numbers indicate the place where according to the manuscript a new perikope starts, indicated in the Hebrew manuscripts with either a petucha or a setuma, in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus with a number, in the Alexandrinus with a space. From the Sinaiticus only 4:6–11:2 is preserved. When a verse or perikope number is marked with * this means that the Greek version has a different division of the verse. MTL

Judges

MTA

MTC

LXXA

LXXS

LXXV

1:1

–

–

–

1:2

–

–

–

–

2

1

1:3

–

–

–

–

3

1:8

P

P

P

X

4

1:9

–

–

–

–

5

1:10

–

–

–

–

6

1:11

–

–

–

–

7

1:16

P

P

P

X

8

1:17

–

–

–

–

9

1:19

–

–

–

–

10

1:20

–

–

–

–

11

1:21

–

–

–

–

12

1:22

S

P

P

X

13

1:27

P

P

S

–

14

1:29

S

S

S

X

15

1:30

P

P

P

X

16

1:31

S

S

S

–

17

1:33

S

S

S

X

18

ThePericopeswithintheBook MTL

Judges

543

MTA

MTC

LXXA

LXXS

LXXV

1:34

S

–

S

X

19

1:35*

–

–

–

–

20

2:1

P

P

P

X

21

2:4

–

–

–

–

22

2:6

P

P

P

X

23

2:8

–

–

–

–

24

2:11

S

P

S

X

25*

2:14

–

–

–

–

26

2:16

–

–

–

–

27

2:19

–

–

–

–

28

2:20

–

–

–

–

29

3:1

P

P

P

X

30

3:7

P

P

P

X

–

3:8

–

–

–

–

31

3:11

–

–

–

–

32

3:12

P

P

P

X

–

3:15

S

–

–

–

–

3:31

S

P

S

X

33

4:1

S

P

P

X

34

4:4

S

P

P

X

4:13

S

–

P

–

–

35 –

4:23

–

–

–

–

11

–

5:1

P

P

P

X

–

36

6:1

P

P

P

X

12

37

6:7

P

P

P

X

–

–

6:11

P

P

P

X

–

38

6:22

S

–

S

–

–

–

6:25

P

S

P

X

13

39*

6:33

P

S

P

X

14

40

7:1

P

P

P

X

15

–

7:2

–

S

–

–

–

–

7:4

S

S

S

–

–

–

7:5

S

–

S

–

–

–

7:7

S

S

S

–

–

–

7:9

P

P

S

X*

16*

41*

544

Appendix MTL

Judges

MTA

MTC

LXXA

LXXS

LXXV

7:15

P

P

P

–

–

–

7:19

P

P

P

X

–

–

7:24

–

–

–

X

17

–

8:4

–

–

–

X

18

–

8:10

P

P

P

X

–

–

8:22

–

–

–

X

19

42

8:29

P

P

P

X

–

–

8:33

P

P

P

X

20

43

9:1

P

P

P

–

21

–

9:6

S

S

S

X

–

–

9:22

P

P

P

X

–

45

9:26

P

P

P

–

–

–

9:34

S

–

S

–

–

–

9:37

S

–

S

–

–

–

9:39

S

–

S

–

–

–

9:42

–

S

–

–

–

–

9:46

P

P

P

–

–

–

9:50

P

P

P

X

–

–

9:51

–

–

–

–

22

–

10:1

P

P

P

X

23

46

10:3

P

P

P

X

–

47

10:6

P

P

P

X

–

48

10:11

P

P

S

–

–

–

10:17

P

P

P

X

24

–

11:1

P

P

P

X

49

11:4

P

P

P

X

–

11:12

P

P

P

X

50

11:29

P

P

P

X

51

11:32

P

P

P

–

–

11:34

P

P

S

X

–

12:1

S

P

P

–

–

12:7

–

–

–

X

–

12:8

P

P

P

X

52

12:11

P

P

P

X

53

12:13

P

P

P

X

54

ThePericopeswithintheBook MTL

Judges

545

MTA

MTC

LXXA

LXXS

LXXV

13:1

P

P

P

–

–

13:2

P

P

P

X

55

13:8

P

P

P

–

–

13:15

–

S

–

–

–

13:19

S

P

S

–

–

13:24

–

–

–

X

56

14:1

P

P

P

–

14:5

P

–

P

–

–

14:20

P

–

P

–

–

–

–

15:1

–

P

–

X

57

15:9

S

P

S

X

–

16:1

P

P

P

X

58

16:4

P

P

P

X

59

16:22

–

–

–

–

60

16:23

P

P

P

X

–

17:1

P

P

P

X

61

17:7

P

P

P

X

–

18:1

–

P

–

X

62

18:2

S

P

P

–

– –

18:7

P

P

P

X

18:11

–

–

–

X

19:1

P

P

P

X*

–

20:1

P

P

P

X

–

20:3

P

P

P

–

–

20:8

–

–

–

–

63

20:12

P

P

P

X

–

20:17

P

P

S

–

–

20:20

P

–

P

–

–

20:24

P

P

P

X

–

20:30

P

P

S

X

–

20:35

P

P

P

–

–

20:36

–

–

–

X

–

21:1

P

P

P

X

–

21:5

P

P

P

–

–

21:6

–

–

–

–

64

546

Appendix MTL

Judges

MTA

MTC

LXXA

LXXS

LXXV

21:13

S

P

S

X

–

21:16

–

–

–

X

–

21:19

S

S

S

–

–

21:23

S

S

S

–

–

21:25

–

P

P

–

–

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

OBJECTIVES Only one word in the title of this commentary series requires an explanation. It is the word: historical. Has every text in the Hebrew Bible a historical dimension? What is “historical” in a book like Proverbs? Would it not be more in accord with the current trend in exegesis to put emphasis on the message of the text in its final, canonical shape? Or is the adjective “historical” simply a breviloquence for “historical-critical”? The editors of this series subscribe to the view that the Hebrew Bible is the product of a long process of transmission of various traditions that were actualized over and over again in the history of ancient Israel. In modern reader-oriented exegesis it is mainly the interaction between reader and established text that matters. Neither the process of growth before the text attained its final shape nor the reasons for its adaptation and adoption by religious communities in the past are matters of prime concern to the exegete. In contrast to this a-historical approach the editors of HCOT firmly believe that the message of the Hebrew Bible can only be understood properly if the confrontation with its historical background is not shunned. Knowledge of God was achieved there and then within the bounds of human history. If there is anything needed for modern man to accept the lasting value of the Hebrew Bible, it is the realization that it originated in a normal human society which in evolutionary terms was not so terribly far removed from our present human condition. And yet time and again revelation was recognized in the context of ordinary human history, culture and language, i.e. in a world not unlike ours. Only in comparing the traditions in the Hebrew Bible with their historical counterparts and in confronting them with the results of archaeological research we may hope to come a little closer to the distinctiveness of the faith of ancient Israel. Therefore the editors aim at producing a commentary on the Hebrew Bible that devotes explicit attention to the history of interpretation of biblical tradition in all its stages, both within and without the Hebrew canon. As the term “Old Testament” indicates, the commentary stands in the christian exegetical tradition. Although it has grown out of the Reformed Dutch series “Commentaar op het Oude Testament”, the editors are happy to have enlisted

548

HistoricalCommentaryontheOldTestament

the cooperation of an international team of exegetes who are willing to share their ideas. The commentary is intended not only for scholars, but also for ministers and other interested parties. Nowadays the wealth of information on any biblical text is so overwhelming that any good commentary tends to grow far beyond what was customary earlier. Unfortunately a well-founded and fully controllable exegetical argument cannot be presented without constant appeal to the never ending stream of new data put at our disposal by archaeology and philology. However, unlike other disciplines, theology cannot afford to write off previous scholarship and has to carry the burden of many centuries of exegetical wisdom. To alleviate the burden this puts on the reader, the technical treatment of every pericope is preceded by a new translation and a short section called “Essentials and Perspectives” in which the author summarizes the results of the exegesis in non-technical language. Theologically speaking, the final stage of the text should be assigned the primate in this section of the exegetical exposition. However, if various levels can be discerned in the development of the present text, the meaning of every level is elucidated in accordance with our conviction that every discernable historical stage has a message that is worth our attention. Passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible that can be regarded as later applications of actualizations of the text are discussed. Important insights in the meaning of the text in the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation are discussed in full here, especially the use in the New Testament. Although the emphasis is on the history of interpretation, the authors are free to indicate what they see as perspectives for modern application of the text. Ideally, the summary should incite the user to consult the main body of the exegesis which will be headed “Scholarly Exposition”. The approach here is that of modern critical scholarship. This means that no constraints are put upon the individual contributors with regard to questions of dating, authorship or method. However, in accordance with the goal formulated above, the authors are expected to pay due attention to the meaning of every historical stage they discern in the formation of the text, including its final canonical stage. The unraveling of tradition history and redactional processes should not become an aim in itself, but should clearly serve to retrace the history of interpretation. Obviously also a clear distinction should be made between the date of a certain tradition and the historical events it purports to relate. Since it has so often been the case that traditions written off as totally unhistorical yet appeared to contain a kernel of truth, a cautious attitude with regard to questions of historicity seems advisable.

HistoricalCommentaryontheOldTestament

549

If the historical context cannot be defined precisely, as is the case with many parts of a book like Proverbs, the historical background of the genre as such, in this case the proverbial wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East, should serve as a means to re-create the historical atmosphere in which such a text functioned. Also realia like climate, geology, geography, minerals, flora and fauna – in short, everything that brings the then existing world nearer to the reader, should be treated extensively in the scholarly exposition. The editors invite contributors to devote much attention to the structural analysis of the text as a new means to tackle old problems. The format of the series will usually allow authors to print the results of this kind of analysis in an acceptable form. In this case too it is emphasized that recovering a structure should only be one step toward recovering the meaning of the text in history. Problems of a textcritical, lexicographical or grammatical nature will be dealt with only if they are indispensable to understand the author’s interpretation of the text.

PUBLISHED VOLUMES Exodus I: Exodus 1:1-7:13 (1993) Exodus II: Exodus 7:14-19:25 (1996) Exodus III: Exodus 20-40 (2000) Exodus IV: Supplement (2002) Leviticus 1-10 (2013) Joshua (2011) Judges (2019) 1 Kings I/1: 1 Kings 1-11 (1998) 1 Chronicles (2005) Ezra – Nehemiah (2018) Proverbs 1-9 (2014) Ecclesiastes (2013) Isaiah II/2: Isaiah 28-39 (2000) Isaiah III/1: Isaiah 40-48 (1997) Isaiah III/2: Isaiah 49-55 (1998) Isaiah III/3: Isaiah 56-66 (2001) Lamentations (1998) Nahum (1997) Obadiah (2003) Zephaniah (1999) Haggai (2017) Zechariah (2014) Malachi (2015)

Cornelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands Cornelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands Cornelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands Cornelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands James W. Watts, Syracuse, New York, U.S.A. Hartmut Rösel, Haifa, Israel Klaas Spronk, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Martin J. Mulder†, Leiden, The Netherlands Peter B. Dirksen, Leiden, The Netherlands Bob Becking, Utrecht, The Netherlands James A. Loader, Vienna, Austria Antoon Schoors, Leuven, Belgium Willem A.M.Beuken, Leuven, Belgium Jan L. Koole†, Kampen, The Netherlands Jan L. Koole†, Kampen, The Netherlands Jan L. Koole†, Kampen, The Netherlands Johan Renkema, Kampen, The Netherlands Klaas Spronk, Kampen, The Netherlands Johan Renkema, Kampen, The Netherlands Johannes Vlaardingerbroek, Rotterdam, The Netherlands William T. Koopmans, St. George, ON, Canada Al Wolters, Mount Hope, Ont. Canada S.D. (Fanie) Snyman, Bloemfontein, South Africa

550

HistoricalCommentaryontheOldTestament PROJECTED VOLUMES

Genesis Numbers Deuteronomy Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 12-22 2 Kings 2 Chronicles Esther Job Psalms Proverbs 10-31 Song of Songs Isaiah 1-27 Jeremiah 1-29 Jeremiah 30-52 Ezekiel 1-24 Ezekiel 25-48 Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Jonah Micah Habakuk

Silviu Tatu, Bucharest, Romania Reinhard Achenbach, Münster, Germany Hans Ausloos, Louvain, Belgium Marjo C.A. Korpel, Groningen, The Netherlands Hennie J. Marsman & Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Jichan Kim, Seoul, Korea Jurie le Roux, Pretoria, South Africa Isaac Kalimi, Mainz, Germany Isaac Kalimi, Mainz, Germany Marjo C.A. Korpel, Utrecht, The Netherlands Urmas Nõmmik, Tartu, Estonia Phil.J. Botha & Gert T.M. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa James A. Loader, Vienna, Austria Wilfred G.E. Watson, Newcastle, U.K. Alphonso Groenewald, Pretoria, South Africa Gareth J. Wearne, Sydney, Australia Eric Peels, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Herrie F. van Rooy, Potchefstroom, South Africa Corrine Patton, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A. Stefan Beyerle, Greifswald, Germany Jacques van Ruiten, Groningen, The Netherlands Gert Kwakkel, Kampen, The Netherlands Meindert Dijkstra, Utrecht, The Netherlands Johannes H. Potgieter, Pretoria, South Africa Johannes C. de Moor, Kampen, The Netherlands Gert T.M. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa