1. Title and place in the Canon
1. Title and place in the Canon
The book of Judges derives its English title from the Latin Liber Judicum which itself rests upon the LXX Kritai (‘judges’). The Hebrew title is šôpĕṭîm. The English title is apt to be misleading, since it conveys the idea of a group of men whose principal task was in the legal sphere, arbitrating in disputes between men. A cursory reading of Judges will show that this was, in fact, a subsidiary function of its leading characters. The clue to the connotation of the Hebrew may be found in 2:16, ‘And the Lord raised up judges, which saved them out of the hand of those that spoiled them’ (RV). The judges were primarily the ‘saviours’ or ‘deliverers’ of their people from their enemies. Nowhere in the book is the noun šôpēṭ used directly of an individual, but the associated verbal form is found in connection with Othniel (3:10), Deborah (4:4), Tola (10:2), Jair (10:3), Jephthah (12:7), Ibzan (12:8, 9), Elon (12:11), Abdon (12:13, 14) and Samson (15:20; 16:31). In 11:27, in the context of the Ammonite oppression, the Lord is described as a šôpēṭ. This conception may be said to form the background of the book: the Lord is the real Judge of his people; it is he who gives them into the hands of their oppressors; it is he who raises up deliverers for them; it is his Spirit, coming upon men, which equips them for their tasks (3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19; 15:14).
This raises a point of considerable importance. These men who were raised up to be the saviours of their people were characterized by peculiar qualities which were believed to be the manifestation of a unique endowment from the Lord. The people could recognize this quality as it was revealed in life and action, its most spectacular manifestation being in delivering Israel from foreign domination. This attitude was not confined to the period of the judges. Saul was marked out by this charismatic1 quality (1 Sam. 11:6) which was displayed openly when he delivered the citizens of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites. David received such an anointing (1 Sam. 16:13) which accounted, in measure, for his mighty exploits and his success in battle, a fact not overlooked by the northern tribes when they invited him to be their king (2 Sam. 5:2). It was not until the establishment of the dynastic principle in Judah that the evidence of charismatic qualities in its leaders became less significant; in Israel, with its many successful rebellions against the reigning king, the exercise of these unusual qualities probably continued to be a factor in the acceptance or rejection of a contender for the throne.
Military prowess was, however, not the only way in which this divine endowment could be revealed, for wisdom and discernment were equally the gifts of God. No warlike deeds are recorded of any of the minor judges (apart from Shamgar, 3:31). In all probability they were distinguished from their fellows by mental and moral qualities. It is possible that they became the guardians and interpreters of that portion of the Mosaic tradition concerned with the casuistic laws, applying them to local disputes. But it would be unwise to attempt to make too precise a distinction between the military and the pacific judges. Deborah was already established as an arbiter in the everyday affairs of her countrymen when she was called to take the lead in delivering her people from the Canaanite oppression (4:4, 5). Similarly Samuel, whose position as a judge as well as a prophet reminds us that the period of the judges is not coterminous with the book of Judges, both delivered the nation from the Philistines and acted as a magistrate (1 Sam. 7:3–14; cf. 7:15–17). Conversely it should be observed that we have insufficient information about the minor judges to be able to state dogmatically that they were totally devoid of the military qualities of the better-known judges. Indeed, it is recorded of one of them, Tola the son of Puah, that he ‘arose to save Israel’ (10:1, RV). One further factor to be noted is that the high priest, by virtue of his position at the central shrine, may be regarded as a judge, since the sanctuary was the traditional place for the settlement of disputes as well as the place where the blessing of God was sought before a military campaign.
Thus the book of Judges derives its name from the term used to describe the activities of its leading characters. These men (and, of course, Deborah) possessed outstanding qualities of leadership which were conceived to be the result of God’s Spirit coming upon them. The more spectacular evidence of this possession, and therefore the most likely to be remembered by posterity, was the shattering of the yoke of an oppressor. Other qualities assumed prominence when the national emergencies receded, and those who manifested these gifts were respected and sought out by those in need of advice or arbitration. While there are parallels to the functions of the judges in the suffetes of Phoenicia and Carthaginia and, to a lesser extent, in the consuls of Rome, the concept of the direct action of God’s Spirit upon men made this group unique in ancient history.
In the English Bible the book of Judges would be classified amongst the historical books, but in the Hebrew Bible it is placed in the second of the three sections, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. This section is itself divided into two, the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets, each containing four books. Judges is the second book in the Former Prophets, following immediately after Joshua. The implication of the inclusion of dominantly historical books amongst the Prophets should be carefully noted, for it reveals a fundamental attitude of the Israelite historians. They were not concerned merely to compile an authoritative record of their nation’s history; their motive was to draw out the religious truths which were implicit in that history. This in turn witnesses to their developed sense of the sovereignty of God, whose mind and will were discernible through historical events as well as through the words of his servants the prophets.
A view which is widely held today is that Judges is part of the ‘Deuteronomic History’ which includes the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.2 It must be objected that the reasons for removing Deuteronomy from its traditional place in the Pentateuch are slight, yet there is some justification for this view. Deuteronomy looks forward as well as backwards and so leads on naturally to the period of settlement in the Promised Land. Moreover, the attitude of the editors responsible for the collecting and shaping of Israel’s history reflects clearly the spiritual principles set out in Deuteronomy. These will be dealt with in the relevant sections of the text. At the moment it may simply be noted that Judges forms part of the official historical record of Israel.