c. Appendices (17:1–21:25)
2. Composition, structure and date
A cursory reading of Judges reveals that it is, in the main, a compilation of independent stories, most of which centre on an individual. This applies particularly in the central and major portion of the book, namely 2:6–16:31, where it is apparent that these stories have been carefully integrated into a framework of editorial introduction and comment. The opening and closing sections of the book, 1:1–2:5 and 17:1–21:25, do not fit into this pattern and must be considered separately, thus making three main divisions. Before attention is given to each of these individually, two points may be observed. First, that even in the second and major section of the book events have been selected. Whether the editor had access to a larger corpus of historical information is a matter of conjecture. What has been preserved provides an insight into conditions at different times and in different parts of the country, as will become clear when the chronology of the period is considered. Secondly, the period of the judges did not terminate until Saul’s accession to the throne. 1 Samuel 12, which reiterates the principles of God’s dealings with Israel in the pre-monarchic period and applies them to the changed situation, may be regarded as marking the end of an era. A complete discussion of the period of the judges must take 1 Samuel 1–12 into account and also the book of Ruth.
a. The settlement in Canaan (1:1–2:5)
In this section we have a number of incidents connected with the Conquest of the land, the focus being upon the individual tribes. The part played by the tribes of Judah, Simeon and their associates in the conquest of the south receives attention in 1:1–20 and the capture of Bethel by the Joseph tribes is dealt with in 1:22–26. The greater part of the remainder of the first chapter is concerned with the incomplete nature of the Conquest, and a catalogue is made of the unconquered territory in each of the tribal portions. The fragmentary nature of the record makes it virtually certain that we have here selections from a settlement narrative which is independent of the account in the book of Joshua and therefore of great value.
There are close parallels between the two accounts, e.g. Judges 1:10–15, 20 (cf. Josh. 15:13–19); Judges 1:21 (cf. Josh. 15:63); Judges 1:27, 28 (cf. Josh. 17:11–13); Judges 1:29 (cf. Josh. 16:10). The minor points of difference will be dealt with in the commentary on the text. But what appears to be a major difference is that in Judges attention is given to the individual participating tribes, particularly Judah, whereas in Joshua the Conquest is viewed as the work of the united tribes under one leader. The difficulty cannot be sidestepped by the supposition that Judges 1 is a history of the later stages of the Conquest after the death of Joshua, as would appear from 1:1a. Such a view would increase rather than reduce the problem, since the parallels with events in Joshua are too close.
It is possible, however, to magnify the differences and regard the record in Judges as a contradictory account of the Conquest as some scholars maintain. This view is occasionally linked with the theory of a composite invasion of the land, the main thrust coming from the ‘Rachel’ tribes but with two other movements coming respectively from the north (the ‘handmaiden tribes’) and the south (the ‘Leah’ tribes). Scholars who support this concept of a three-pronged invasion suggest that in Judges 1 there is the record of Judah’s infiltration and invasion from the south. But this overlooks the fact that, while in this whole section (1:1–36) the movement is from south to north—dealing successively with Judah and Simeon, the house of Joseph and, finally, the northern tribes—in the section which recounts the exploits of Judah and Simeon the movement generally is from north to south, beginning at Jerusalem. This would be inexplicable if Judah and Simeon had not entered the land with the remainder of the tribes and then moved southwards to possess their inheritance. When certain other considerations are borne in mind the differences between the accounts of Joshua and Judges become less significant and they are seen as complementary rather than as contradictory. They are:
1. The attention given to the southern tribes, particularly Judah, in Judges 1:1–36, probably indicates that this is an extract from a southern version of the Conquest, placing particular stress upon the part played by its own members.
2. This section is, in itself, generally acknowledged to be incomplete. The reason for its inclusion lay in the fact that its delineation of unoccupied territory serves as the background to the events which followed when Israel, lacking cohesion between its constituent tribes, was itself the object of attack by some of the nations it failed to subjugate. Too much weight must not be placed upon the selection of events introduced here.
3. It is inaccurate to suppose that the book of Joshua depicts a complete conquest and occupation of the whole land in a relatively short space of time. In the speeches of Joshua reference is made frequently to the incompleteness of the occupation (e.g. Josh. 13:1–13; cf. 16:10; 17:12, 13, 16–18; 18:2–4) and earlier on in the narrative there are hints that the campaign was a protracted one (e.g. Josh. 11:18). Victories are indeed claimed over the armies of many of the cities listed in Judges, but the defeat of an army and the death of its king, even the destruction of a city, does not involve the occupation of the city. There may well be a certain idealization in the record (e.g. Josh. 11:23; 21:43–45; 23:1) and reference to these passages alone could be used to support the view of a complete conquest and occupation. But certain sections do not support this view and the tension of evidence suggests a great victory but an incomplete one.
4. It must be borne in mind that the account in Joshua does not come from a writer whose sole concern was the accurate setting out of the facts of history. This does not mean that it is unhistorical, but it does mean that caution must be used in applying the methods of twentieth-century historians. Hebrew history is theocratic history; its emphasis is religious rather than military and political, but it does not differentiate between political, religious and social elements. Stress is placed upon the Lord as the One who had given them the land and upon Joshua his chief representative. The book of Joshua, when taken as a whole, does not give a misleading picture; the fact is openly noted that ‘there remains yet very much land to be possessed’ (Josh. 13:1).
5. Joshua, as the commander-in-chief of the Israelite forces, may occasionally be given the credit for action carried out by the individual tribes. Thus the operation of the tribe of Judah noted in Judges 1:1ff. may well have followed soon after Joshua’s campaign against the southern confederacy of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon (Josh. 10), forming part of the overall strategy.
Before passing on to the next section some explanation must be given concerning the opening words of the book, ‘And it came to pass after the death of Joshua’ (RV). The opinion has already been expressed that the events of 1:1–2:5 are to be connected with the invasion under Joshua’s command and are therefore before, not subsequent to, his death. A comparison of Joshua 24:28–31 with Judges 2:6–9 suggests strongly that the first section of the present book of Judges, although contemporary with the events narrated, was included at a later date and so interrupts the continuity of Joshua and Judges 2:6ff. The death of Joshua is noted in Joshua 24:29 and Judges 2:8. It is likely that, when the book of Judges assumed its present form, the opening words were added not with reference to the section which followed immediately afterwards (i.e. 1:1b–2:5) but with a more general application to the whole book as dealing with the situation in the post-Joshua age. Indeed, the suggestion that the opening words were the original title of the book is most plausible and entirely in accordance with Israelite usage.
b. Israel’s judges (2:6–16:31)
In this central section we are introduced to the twelve main characters from whom the book derives its name: Othniel (3:7–11), Ehud (3:12–30), Deborah, with Barak in support (4, 5), Gideon (6–8), Jephthah (10:6–12:7) and Samson (13–16). These are usually regarded as the major judges while the minor judges, considered in far less detail, are Shamgar (3:31), Tola and Jair (10:1–5) and Ibzan, Elon and Abdon (12:8–15). The stories of the major judges are recounted with great animation and vividness, which has made them popular with teachers and preachers down the ages. Who has not wondered at the craftiness of Ehud, at the transformation from timidity to highest courage in Gideon, or at the potentiality and degeneration of Samson?
It is apparent that the stories themselves are older than the framework in which they are set. They may be regarded as contemporaneous with the events described and it is likely that they were handed down in oral form for some time before they were committed to writing. It is probable that this period was brief, since modern archaeological research suggests that oral and written sources were contemporary in the tradition of the Ancient Near East. Our increasing knowledge of the accuracy with which traditions of ancient peoples, such as the Israelites, have been handed down through the ages guards against the assumption of major deviations occurring in the narratives themselves during this period. In the case of oral tradition there would always be the check of a large number of others who would know these stories off by heart. Thus there was probably a considerable period during which the stories were transmitted in both written and oral forms before they were gathered together into the present selection. Possibly there were other, earlier collections. ‘The Book of the Wars of the Lord’ (Num. 21:14) or ‘the Book of Jashar’ (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18) may have been among the sources used, but there can be no certainty of this.
A further suggestion is that some of the narratives preserved in Judges are compounded of two or even three variant versions: the stories of Gideon and Jephthah, in particular, have frequently been examined in an attempt to discover the underlying strands. Persistent endeavours have been made by other scholars to show that in Judges there is a continuation of the two main strata which are still widely held to underlie the Pentateuch—the Yahweh source, emanating from the south, and the Elohist source, coming from the north at a later date and lacking some of the vigour of the earlier version. But the whole documentary theory of the origin of the Pentateuch is being seriously challenged at the moment. While it still commands substantial support, it has been subjected to considerable modification and is now no longer regarded as ‘cut and dried’, as it was by an earlier generation. The conservative view that the Pentateuch is substantially the work of Moses commands greater respect today than it has for some generations. Of particular interest is the fact that the attempt to analyse the books of Joshua and Judges into clearly distinguishable strata has now been generally abandoned.3
We must admit that we do not know whether or not our editor had access to one or more documents or traditions, nor need it concern us. As we shall see, the final selection was made by an editor or editors who were concerned to impress moral and spiritual truths which they conceived to be fundamental to God’s dealings with his chosen people. Subsequent generations have seen here and in other parts of the Bible a divine oversight of selection and presentation which makes it in a real sense the Word of God.
It should be observed that we must not lightly import our western methods of investigation and analysis into our study of Ancient Near-Eastern documents. For example, no fewer than five reasons are advanced in the book of Judges for the failure of the Israelites to occupy the land of Canaan. It was because of the superior arms and fortifications of the Canaanites (1:19); because of Israel’s disposition to make alliances with the inhabitants of the land (2:1–5); because Israel had sinned and must be punished (2:20, 21); because God was proving Israel’s faithfulness (2:22, 23; 3:4); and finally, it was so that Israel might be instructed in the arts of war (3:1–3). To suggest that there is inconsistency here would do despite to the basic Hebrew approach to life, with its highly developed conception of the sovereignty of God. Israel had failed to occupy the land for very good reasons and so the former inhabitants remained in the land, but God overruled even this for his people’s good. There is no need to allege two or more traditions; all five reasons could have suggested themselves to the same Hebrew mind at various times and in differing contexts. Or again, we could cavil at the way in which Israel is said to have been given into the hand of a certain oppressor and subsequently delivered and governed by a particular judge, whilst the context makes it clear that only a minority of the tribes and a relatively small area of the land were affected. An explanation of this may lie in the Hebrew conception of racial solidarity.
Attention has already been drawn to the carefully ordered framework into which the narratives are placed. A similarity of pattern is exhibited in two ways:
1. In the introductions to the stories of Othniel (3:7ff.), Ehud (3:12ff.), Deborah (4:1ff.), Gideon (6:1ff.), Jephthah (10:6ff.). and Samson (13:1).
2. In the conclusions to these narratives, where the overthrow of the oppressing nation is noted together with the period during which the land had rest (e.g. 3:11, 30; 4:23; 5:31; 8:28). A variation is sometimes introduced, in which the period of office of a particular judge is noted (e.g. 10:2, 3; 12:7, 9, 11, 14; 15:20; 16:31).
Chapter 2:6–3:6 may be regarded as an introduction to the stories of the judges, setting out the general principles operative throughout the period. The historian sees a pattern of events which forms a recurring cycle containing four elements: the children of Israel do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord; the Lord delivers them into the hand of an oppressor; in their distress they cry to the Lord; the Lord raises them up a deliverer. Thus there is a cycle of apostasy, servitude, supplication and salvation. It is this process which is followed closely in the succeeding chapters.
This section of the book of Judges can be said to be interpretative history and we are indebted to the historian for elucidating the spiritual principles inherent in his nation’s traditions. The editorial comments, as would be expected, highlight these principles more clearly than the narratives themselves. Indeed, there are occasions where the leading characters were less than praiseworthy. Gideon, in the course of delivering the nation, took the opportunity to settle a blood-feud (8:18–21); Jephthah appears as an opportunist with but a scanty knowledge of the Lord’s requirements; whilst some of the exploits of Samson have often been likened to practical jokes. These facts themselves are important as witnesses to the decadence of the age. But there are evidences that the principles delineated by the historian are not alien importations into these ancient traditions but rather a fundamental element in the relationship between God and Israel. For instance, in the Song of Deborah the impoverishment and disorder of the nation is attributed to its apostasy (5:6–8).
c. Appendices (17:1–21:25)
In the final section of the book there are two unconnected incidents: Micah and the Danite migration (17, 18) and the incident of the Levite’s outraged concubine and its sequel (19–21). There is much here of an unsavoury nature, yet the documentation of the debased religious and moral standards of the age is of first-rate importance, as are also the allusions to the prevailing social and political conditions. The standpoint of the writer is clear; the oft-repeated observation ‘there was no king in Israel’ (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) shows that he looked back from the time of the monarchy and accounted for the disorder of the earlier period by the absence of the firm rule of a king. These editorial comments are not of the same kind as those in the second section of the book and this has led many to suggest a different editor. But it may be that the vastly different subject matter is sufficient to account for the absence of comment of a more specifically religious nature—the stories speak for themselves. It is possible that they were handed down in Danite and Benjamite circles respectively before being incorporated into the larger collection of Israelite traditions. Not all scholars would give assent to this, however, since the stories do not reveal the tribes of Dan and Benjamin in a particularly complimentary light.
We are now in a position to attempt a reconstruction of the way in which the book of Judges assumed its present form. The successive stages may be noted:
1. An oral stage, closely following the events themselves, the traditions being transmitted amongst those tribes affected by the events described.
2. The reducing of these traditions to writing. The most likely time for this is a matter of dispute, but the earlier period of the monarchy has the strongest and most consistent claim. Obviously the combining of these traditions could come about only when there was the consciousness of a national unity and this would be a feature of that period. Moreover, the time of David and Solomon was the golden age of the nation in which it prospered to such an extent that the Israelite Empire was possibly the greatest power in the Fertile Crescent.4 Such an age would be creative in the realm of the arts and there would also be a vital interest in the nation’s traditions. Attention has already been drawn to the standpoint of the editor of Judges 17–21. Clearly he looked upon the monarchy as the solution to the ills of the former age. Such order and stability were more the features of the early monarchy than the later monarchy, and, if precision be not too presumptuous, of the earlier part of David’s rule over the united kingdom. Tradition, recording the literary activities of Samuel, Nathan and Gad, lends some general support to this view (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29). Indeed the Talmud preserves the tradition that Samuel was the author of Judges, which is unlikely since Samuel’s attitude to the monarchy (e.g. 1 Sam. 8) is at variance with that of the editor of Judges 17–21, where the monarchy is viewed in a favourable light. A date for the book of Judges about 980 BC seems not unreasonable, although dogmatism is out of place.
3. It is likely that the first draft of Judges contained the majority of the present book, i.e. 2:6–21:25. As has been pointed out, chapters 17–21 have been regarded as a later addition and there are certain other sections in the book, notably the Abimelech episode (9) and the final chapter of the Samson stories (16) which, because of the absence of the usual editorial comment, are not held to be original in the view of a few scholars. As well as this view, i.e. that these sections are later interpolations, there is the view that there were two editings of the book, these sections being omitted from the first edition but reincorporated in the second edition, thus escaping the editorial treatment that was characteristic of the earlier version. The conjectural nature of this hypothesis is apparent, and it is sufficient explanation to assume that these stories, because of their nature, did not lend themselves to the religious editorial comment that was employed elsewhere.
4. The final stage came with the addition of 1:1–2:5, which was, as has been noted, an extract from an ancient account of the Conquest and settlement. It is likely that this was added at a very early date, possibly by the original historian, and that this is the only extant trace of this independent account.
5. We cannot rule out the possibility of further editorial shaping, probably of a minor nature, when the book of Judges was incorporated into the complete official history of Israel from the settlement in Canaan to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, i.e. the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. It is likely that this history was completed in the earliest period of the Babylonian captivity by a Jew who had access to the secular and religious records of the nation and who saw clearly the principles involved in the Lord’s rejection of Judah.5
6. While the foregoing sections provide a reasonable explanation of the composition of Judges, a case can be advanced for an even closer relationship of the constituent parts. We have referred to the editor of Judges, indicating that he made use of already existing material. The word author, however, could well be used, since the material is so carefully integrated into a purposeful whole. In the first section of the book (1:1–2:5) there is a selection of events indicating Israel’s failure and culminating in the charge that the nation had broken the covenant with the Lord. In the second section (2:6–16:31) the writer shows that this act of apostasy was repeated in the following generations in the recurring cycle already observed. But it is not an entirely regular cycle, for as the period wears on there is a marked deterioration. ‘From Abimelech’s time on, the land does not recover its peace; deliverance is less complete; Jephthah fails where Gideon succeeded in avoiding civil war. If the Samson episode is regarded as part of the central theme—and this is implied by 10:7–9—then at the very end there is lacking something which is normally regarded as basic to this theme; for Samson is a judge in Israel, but he does not effect any real liberation from the foreign enemy.’6 The Abimelech episode, normally regarded as outside the general pattern of the main narrative, witnesses to conditions in the vicinity of Shechem, where the worship of Baal-berith was dominant (8:33; 9:4, 27, 46). In the final section (17:1–21:25) the two stories are sufficiently indicative of the moral and spiritual condition of the age to need no comment from the writer. Thus viewed, there is the skilful assembling of the various parts that make up our present book, with the creation of an atmosphere which anticipates the revival in Israel’s religion which accompanied the institution of the monarchy, particularly in the time of David.