Chapter 60 of 379

Annotations for Judges

asked the LORD. In OT times, military leaders would generally consult their gods before embarking on military campaigns. To determine the will of the gods they resorted to a variety of oracular means, such as examining the liver of a slaughtered sheep for special markings or observing astrological phenomena. Sometimes the reception of an oracle was preceded by sacrificial rituals. The present text is silent on the method used by the Israelites to determine the will of Yahweh. The fact that in a later analogous situation the Israelites went to Bethel, where the ark of the covenant law of God was located, and where Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, served as high priest (), suggests the divine will on the matter was ascertained by manipulating the Urim and Thummim, as prescribed for Joshua in (cf. ; see the article “

”). to go up. The choice of the Hebrew verb reflects the mountainous terrain of much of Palestine and the common Canaanite practice of fortifying settlements on hilltops or mounds. Since campaigns of conquest often involved sieges of fortified towns rather than pitched battles between two armies in the open field, this Hebrew verb became idiomatic for “to attack.” Canaanites. See the article “

”

I have given the land into their hands. This committal formula reflects the ancient belief that the outcome of battles was always determined by the gods. This statement portrays Yahweh as a divine warrior who marches before his people, defeats the enemy and hands the enemy’s territory over to those on whose behalf he was fighting. A seventh-century BC oracle in support of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, uses similar wording to indicate that Marduk will deliver all the countries into his hands.

Judah then said to the Simeonites their fellow Israelites. In ancient tribal contexts, tribes were often named after their “eponymous” ancestor. Although the original Judah and Simeon were full brothers, the sons of Jacob and his first wife Leah (, ), political and military allies would also frequently be referred to as brothers. According to , the territorial allotment of Simeon consisted of scattered towns within the grant of Judah. Within a century or two, Simeon ceased to exist as a separate tribe; Simeon is missing in Moses’ blessing of the tribes () and in the Song of Deborah (). The reference to Simeon as a tribe therefore evidences the antiquity of the document.

Perizzites. See note on . ten thousand men. This is obviously a rounded figure, perhaps a conventional generic number for “innumerable.” Although this figure correlates well with the figures given for the registration of Israel’s men of military age in and and with the song composed to celebrate David’s victory over Goliath (), in the light of archaeological evidence for population levels in Canaan at this time it seems inordinately high. Based on a comparison of these numbers with those found in Assyrian records, some conclude that the numbers should be interpreted not literally but as intentionally and conventionally hyperbolic. A more likely option is to reinterpret the expression elep, usually rendered “1,000.” Since the consonantal form of this Hebrew word (ʾlp) can also mean “clan,” or “head of a clan,” the Hebrew word may refer to the leader of a contingent of troops a clan could muster, or it may function as a collective for the troop itself. See the article “

”

they . . . cut off his thumbs and big toes. The mutilation of captives was common in the ancient world. Although we have no ancient records of the torturous cutting off of toes and thumbs, this action recalls the brutality of the Assyrians. The purpose of this kind of torture is not merely to incapacitate an enemy or to cause pain, but also to humiliate them (see next note) and prevent them from ever again serving as soldiers.

scraps under my table. By cutting off the fingers and toes of his enemies, Adoni-Bezek had treated them like dogs and reduced them to scavenging scraps under his table. They are displayed as a sign of their conqueror’s power. In accounts from Ugarit, the god El treats enemy gods in this manner. God has paid me back. As any ancient Near Easterner would have done, the governor of Bezek interprets his fate theologically: Adoni-Bezek’s reference to God is ambiguous. In ascribing responsibility for his punishment to deity he uses the generic designation “elohim,” which could refer either to Yahweh by the generic title or to his own pagan god. Since he was a Canaanite, we would not necessarily expect him to refer to Yahweh, the God of Israel. Jerusalem. The earliest extra-Biblical attestation of the place-name derives from the nineteenth- to eighteenth-century BC Execration Texts from Egypt. According to the Amarna letters (clay tablets found in Egypt), in the fourteenth century BC, the city (spelled Urusalim) was ruled by Abdi-Hiba, a vassal of the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). The common Biblical name for this place, Jebus (cf. v. ), is unattested outside the OT. Jerusalem at this time is still considered a foreign city. First, reports that David wrested Jerusalem out of Jebusite hands. Second, according to and , Jerusalem was occupied by Jebusites (rather than Canaanites and Perizzites). Additionally, according to , , the city was located within the territory allotted to Benjamin. The most likely explanation recognizes Jerusalem as a border city, located on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin. The city that was burned in v. probably identifies the Jebusite fortress on the southern hill of the city, between the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys, which David eventually captured and made his capital. Accordingly, the unsuccessful Benjamite effort in v. may have been directed against a citadel on the north end of the city. The fact that David had to reconquer Jerusalem suggests that the Judahite hold on the city was weak and short-lived. It seems that shortly after they had sacked it the Jebusites moved in from the north and took control, which they then held for several centuries.

Although is dependent upon the narrative account of the conquest of Canaan found in , the literary form adopted here resembles that of Assyrian summary inscriptions of military campaigns. Although these accounts often begin with a chronological note, they arrange events not necessarily chronologically, but according to geography. The descriptions tend to be short, telescoping relatively long periods of time into brief spans of reading time. Summary inscriptions tend to describe a static world in general terms, rather than dynamic scenes of action developing a narrative plot. They are often characterized by iterative schemes, they regularly resort to hyperbole and other forms of rhetorical flourish, and they often refer to the involvement of deity. does indeed begin with a chronological note, but after that it is impossible to construct a chronology of the conquest from . Except for the anecdotal notes (which represent insertions from other sources interested less in tribal achievements than in personal fates/fortunes), the accounts of individual campaigns are brief, static and without characterization or plot. Accordingly, the present document is intended as a summary of Israel’s fortunes after the death of Joshua.

Even so, since recounts more failures than successes, a summary inscription of military conquests is transformed ironically into an anti-conquest account. Unlike most ancient military reports, the aim of this document is not to celebrate the achievements of the generation of Israelites that survived Joshua, but to lament their sorry response to the divine mandate to occupy the land and eliminate the Canaanites. ◆

Clay prism of Tiglath-Pileser I summarizing his military achievements, c. 1114–1076 BC.

Go to

I will give my daughter Aksah. Some modern readers find Caleb’s treatment of his daughter offensive, as if she is mere property, an object to be awarded by one man to another for a job well done. However, in this world, where clan loyalties are high and the well-being of the extended family takes precedence over personal and individual interests, Aksah could well have felt honored to be given in marriage to a military hero like Othniel. As in the patricentric and patrilocal world around Israel, where fathers regularly gave their daughters in marriage to their husbands, Caleb’s actions would have been viewed as perfectly normal. Caleb’s offer of a valuable marriage contract, allowing an increase in status to the recipient, is made to entice a hero to step forward.

descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite. Since Moses’ father-in-law is referred to elsewhere as a Midianite priest (; ), either Moses had more than one wife, or the Israelites were fluid in their identification of the nomadic groups that migrated back and forth in the desert regions south of Judah. Otherwise, “Kenite” may refer to a Midianite clan or subgroup. City of Palms. This expression is elsewhere used of Jericho (), but could feasibly refer to any oasis that featured date palms. Since all of the activity of this section takes place much farther south than Jericho, it likely refers to a fortified oasis settlement in that region, perhaps Tamar on the western edge of the Arabah south of the Dead Sea.

Zephath . . . called Hormah. The location of this site is unknown. totally destroyed the city. The treatment of the city appears on the surface to be according to the law of herem as reflected not only in , but also according to the ninth-century BC Mesha Stele, in which he describes his sacking of Nebo, an Israelite town, and his destruction of its citizens consigning them to herem status for the gods Ashtar and Kemosh (see article, “

”). The renaming of the site accords with common ancient Near Eastern practice of conquerors renaming conquered territories and with the Danites’ renaming of Laish as Dan in . The new name, Hormah (hormh), which means “destruction,” plays on the term herem, “devoted [to God] for destruction,” the technical expression for Israel’s mandate to destroy the Canaanites utterly.

chariots fitted with iron. Judah’s failure to dislodge the inhabitants of the lowland regions is attributed to the Canaanites’ technological superiority: they possessed iron chariots. Chariots were useless in the highlands of Judah, but in the valleys and the river plains they proved a great advantage. The author’s note that these were chariots “fitted with iron” is extremely significant, not only because it expresses the impressive nature of the Canaanites’ military hardware, but also because it announces the beginning of the Iron Age in Palestine. Textual and archaeological evidence shows that iron was known in the ancient Near East prior to what is known as the Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), but because of the difficulty in refining it (the ore has to be heated to 1530°C [2786°F]), the refined metal was rare and precious. However, the discovery of the process of carburization at the beginning of this period ushered in a new technological age, which the Canaanites exploited to full advantage. How much iron was used in the chariots is an open question. Obviously the chariots were not made entirely of iron, but the metal could have been used on the hubs or rims of wheels or to reinforce other features of the chariot or simply as decoration.

Show us how to get into the city. If Bethel were a walled town like some of the major cities of Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age and Israel’s fortified towns of the Iron Age, then the request to be shown the entrance to the city sounds ridiculous, since any passerby could have observed the nature of the walls and the location of the gates. However, the archaeological record suggests that in the Late Bronze Period (1550–1200 BC), the defenses of many towns involved a perimeter of houses constructed close together, a practice that continued into the following Iron Age. Presumably the spies wanted to know the best route of access into Bethel. Their appeal to a local citizen for aid is illuminated by second-millennium BC Mesopotamian correspondence between Zimri-Lim and his officials, who report the use of local people as scouts and guides when their army entered unfamiliar territory.

spared the man and his whole family. Contrary to the herem law, the house of Joseph not only spared the life of the “traitor” (from the Canaanite point of view) but also allowed him to leave and build his own city and continue his life as a Hittite (v. ).

land of the Hittites. In these texts, the Hittites are presented as one of the Canaanite ethnic groups (presumably the “descendants of Heth” [see on ]). It is doubtful that the territory in question should be identified with the Hittites, whose capital was in Hattusas in Anatolia and who vied with Egypt for hegemony over Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Rather, the Merneptah Stele of 1209 BC confirms that the “land of the Hittites” refers to a region of Hatti in the northern part of the territory assigned by Yahweh to the Israelites. Technically, Luz/Bethel was conquered, but in reality the city was simply transferred to a new site, and continued to function as a sanctioned symbol of “the Canaanites . . . among them” (v. ).

Go to

Beth Shan . . . Taanach . . . Dor . . . Ibleam . . . Megiddo. The Manassite failure to fulfill the divine mandate is summarized by listing a series of unconquered cities and their respective dependent territories in a narrow strip of land extending from the Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. The order in which these towns are named does not follow a normal east-west itinerary. Rather, the narrator moves in a straight line from the eastern extremity (Beth Shan) to the center (Taanach) to the western extremity (Dor) and then from the southernmost (Ibleam) to the northernmost site (Megiddo). The effect is not only to highlight Canaanite control of the fertile Valley of Jezreel, but also to highlight the geographic wedge this created between the northern tribes and Ephraim to the south. Beth Shan. An important city at the junction of the Jordan and Jezreel Valleys. Taanach. A site five miles (eight kilometers) south-east of Megiddo, with which it is often linked (; ; ; ). Dor. An important coastal town just south of the Carmel ridge. Ibleam. Probably to be identified with Khirbet Belameh, guarding the easternmost pass from the Ephraimite highlands into the Valley of Jezreel. Megiddo. A major fortress in the Valley of Jezreel. Its strategic location was recognized by Solomon, who rebuilt the city as a major Israelite military fortress. surrounding settlements. The villages surrounding the captured sites are traditionally referred to as “daughters.” The expression refers to the satellite villages within the economic and political orbit of the town named. Since most of these were unfortified, in time of war the inhabitants would have sought protection in the “mother” town. Some have estimated that in the Late Bronze Age the radius of the areas of influence of these small-scale city-states may have averaged 12 miles (20 kilometers)—the distance one could travel in a one-day round trip. In the OT the expression usually translated “city” or “town,” refers by definition to a settlement fortified with walls and defensive gate structures.

forced labor. Refers to the common ancient Near Eastern practice of conquerors subjecting conquered populations into slavery, though evidence for lifetime servitude is scanty. In Mesopotamia, captives could be ransomed, but until the money was raised they would be put to work. The meaning of the expression is illustrated by the treatment of the Gibeonites in and Solomon’s treatment of the remnant of the original population in . This practice is distinguished from the corvée service Solomon imposed on his own people ().

Amorites. The name is related to Akkadian Amurru, “the west,” which could designate a direction, region or people. The heartland of the Amorites (Amurru) as described in Mesopotamian texts was located in northern Syria, between the western Euphrates and the Khabur and Balikh Rivers. When the Amurru/Amorites migrated west and south into the region of Palestine is not clear. It seems, however, that by the seventeenth century BC, the term “Amurru” was increasingly used to designate central and southern Syria, and by the fifteenth century BC, “the Kingdom of Amurru” had come to denote a realm in the mountains of northern Lebanon. In time the expression could be used of the mountainous region farther south as well. These Amurru have left their mark on the Biblical texts in the name “Amorite.” Sometimes the expression was used in a limited sense of a specific subgroup of the pre-Israelite populations of Palestine (e.g., ). Sometimes narrators use “Amorite” where “Canaanite” would be inappropriate, particularly when speaking of the Transjordanian kingdoms of Sihon and Og and the hill country of the Cisjordan. “Canaanite” cities were generally located in the valleys and coastal regions; “Amorite” cities tended to be in the highlands. On the other hand, the present preference for “Amorite” may have a historical base, in which case v. declares the southern extent of Amorite settlement.

angel of the LORD. See the note on . Because of the popular modern misconception of angels as feathery, winged creatures, the term “angel” here may be replaced with either “messenger” or “envoy,” for this is precisely what the term means. Although the moral and spiritual scolding of an entire nation by this messenger (vv. ) is quite exceptional within the ancient Near Eastern context, the notion of human beings sent out as messengers of the gods is common. In “The Report of Wenamun,” an Egyptian text from the period of the judges, Wenamun advises the prince of Byblos in Phoenicia to erect a stele and inscribe on it the following message: “Amun-Re, King of the Gods, sent me Amun-of-the-Road, his envoy, together with Wenamun, his human envoy, in quest of timber for the great noble bark of Amun-Re, King of the Gods.” my covenant. The covenant spoken of is the one ratified by Yahweh and Israel at Mount Sinai. Here and elsewhere it is always referred to as Yahweh’s covenant—never Israel’s. This accords with the pattern of suzerainty treaties contracted between Hittite overlords and their vassal kings of the late second millennium BC (see the articles “

” “

”).

elders. The book of Judges has elders governing both tribes on the move (here) and settled communities, villages and towns (, ). Later, the elders of Gilead contract with Jephthah to lead their forces against the Ammonites (). It is not clear how fixed the body of elders in Israelite communities were, nor how men attained this status. Nevertheless, it is clear that the title “elders” designated senior leadership with collective authority in judicial and administrative matters that affected the whole village or tribe (see note on ). Although age was undoubtedly a factor, the body of elders was not necessarily composed purely of old men. Once the Israelites had settled down, they conducted their business in the gates of the towns, and their deliberations were open to the public (; see note on ).

The collective assembly of Israelite elders represented the people at major gatherings. It was at their instigation that a king was appointed over Israel in the first place (), and it was their prerogative to endorse the appointment of a new king (). Their importance continued throughout the period of the monarchy. David himself after Absalom’s rebellion did not return to the throne until the elders of Judah came out to bring him back (). In the postexilic period too in the absence of a monarchy, the elders had a significant role to play in the maintenance of social justice and order.

Such ruling councils of elders are attested widely in the ancient Near East. In the tale of Gilgamesh and Agga, “the elders” form one of the two committees who advise the king. In the Old Babylonian period, the elders of the city formed a judicial body that decided local cases and functioned alongside the royal courts. The eighteenth-century BC Mari tablets, where tribal organization dominated, are particularly helpful in illuminating how elders represented villages and tribes in conversation with outsiders and before kings and demonstrate that the elders exercised considerable authority.

servant of the LORD. That the notion of human beings as servants of deities was common in the ancient Near East is reflected in the many theophoric names (names involving a title or name of a deity) that are found in Hebrew (e.g., Obadiah, “one who serves Yahweh”), and also in the Semitic world surrounding ancient Israel. Although “servant” is often interpreted as a designation for a menial role, the fact that a court official in the ancient world was called “servant of the king” demonstrates that in contexts like this it actually bears honorific significance (cf. ).

gathered to their ancestors. This expression functions euphemistically for “they died and were buried.” The idiom derives from the Israelite custom of burying the deceased in family/ancestral tombs. See the notes on ; .

the Baals. When applied to a god, the name Baal functions as a title (“divine lord, master”) rather than a personal name, and is used as an appellative for many gods in the ancient world, like the Babylonian god Marduk, also known as Bel. Occurring as a divine title more than 70 times in the OT, baal usually refers to the storm/weather-god, who in the Canaanite mythological literature goes by the name Hadad, as well as several other titles: “the victor Baal,” “Rider of the Clouds,” “son of Dagan,” “the prince lord of the earth,” “Baal of Zaphan.” The present plural form, “the Baals,” does not refer to a multiplicity of gods, but to numerous manifestations of the one weather-god, on whose blessing the fertility of the land was thought to depend. These manifestations are reflected in the Biblical place-names bearing Baal as an element: Baal Peor (), Baal Hazor (), Baal Gad (), Baal Hermon (), Baal Shalishah (), Baal Tamar ().

the Ashtoreths. Refers to the deity Astarte, who was worshiped widely as the goddess of love and war. This deity was identified in Ebla as Ashtar and in Mesopotamia as Ishtar. Although in the Ugaritic mythological literature Anath usually functions as Baal’s consort, Astarte also appears as his spouse, which agrees with the broader ancient Near Eastern world reflected in the OT. Like “the Baals” (see v. and note), the present plural form refers to the local manifestations of the deity. Together these two gods formed a powerful force in ancient Near Eastern spirituality. Israel’s abandonment of Yahweh may be attributable to an inability to conceive of Yahweh as the God of this land where Baal and Astarte ruled with apparent effectiveness. The newcomers had experienced Yahweh’s power in Egypt, at Mount Sinai, and in the wilderness, but once they crossed the Jordan, they found it easier to change allegiance to the gods of this land than to transfer to Yahweh the fertility functions of a territorial god.

In his anger against Israel . . . the LORD was very angry with Israel. The notion of divine anger with the people over whom the deity served as patron/matron is common in the ancient Near East. Where these non-Israelite accounts give reasons for the divine fury, the cause tends to be the people’s failure to satisfy the god with proper rituals. Here, the cause is the Israelites’ failure to be devoted exclusively to Yahweh. While Yahweh’s intolerance of the worship of other deities was unique within the ancient Near Eastern context, his expression of anger would have been familiar to many outside Israel. In the ancient world, divine fury was typically expressed by the deity leaving the city and allowing enemy forces to move in and wreak havoc on the place.

judges. Unlike the English expression “judge,” which is usually associated with judicial activity, the meaning of the title in the book of Judges is established in : each judge functioned as a deliverer/liberator, who rescued the Israelites from outside oppressors. Although the verb “judge” is applied to several individuals in the book, none of these persons is portrayed as exercising judicial function. The expression should therefore be interpreted more broadly to mean govern, administer, exercise leadership—either in internal or external affairs. These “judges” should be perceived like all other Canaanite princes or petty chieftains of the presettlement time.

judge. See note on v. .

to test Israel. In most instances in the OT, the test is performed either for quality control (a superior’s check on the loyalty of the inferior) or quality enhancement (a superior’s effort to improve the loyalty of the inferior). According to v. , the nations do not represent the actual test; in accordance with , the test consists in whether or not the Israelites will listen to Yahweh’s voice.

Philistines. The Hebrew pelishtim identifies one of several groups of Sea Peoples who swept into Palestine from Anatolia and the Mediterranean in the twelfth and eleventh centuries BC, leaving in their wake a trail of ruins. Biblical tradition, which traces their origins to Crete, accords with the archaeological record, which suggests they came from the Aegean. However, how they arrived in Palestine is the subject of some debate—some arguing they came by sea, others that they came overland via Anatolia and down through Syria. It seems their original goal was to settle in Egypt, but Rameses III was able to defeat them in about 1190 BC. He settled the vanquished forces in the coastal towns of southern Canaan, but in the mid-twelfth century BC, the Philistines succeeded in driving out their Egyptian overlords and forming the Philistine Pentapolis, a federation of five major city-states: Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. Canaanites. See the article “

” Sidonians. They do not figure in the stereotypical lists of Canaanite nations whom the Israelites will displace (e.g., ). Here the term functions generally for all the Phoenicians living along the Mediterranean coast north of the region occupied by the Philistines. Hivites. Some have associated them with the Hurrians (Horites) of , . Although ; link the Gibeonites to the Hivites, our text seems to use the expression generally for the peoples occupying the regions north of the Sea of Galilee, in the Lebanon mountains, west of a line running “from Mount Baal Hermon to Lebo Hamath.” Lebo Hamath. Some interpret this as “the Pass of Hamath,” but it is more likely to be identified with a specific place, modern Lebweh, some 45 miles (72.5 kilometers) north of Damascus. The name appears as Lab’u in the Egyptian texts and Laba’û in Assyrian inscriptions. In later times Lebo Hamath constituted the northern border of Solomon’s kingdom (), and of Jeroboam II’s northern kingdom of Israel ().

the Baals. See note on . the Asherahs. Whereas in the female counterpart to the Baals is identified as the Ashtoreths, here the text speaks of Asherahs. Since the Asherahs are known from other Biblical contexts to have been made of wood, and their demolition involved chopping them down, the KJV translated the term as “groves”—i.e., sacred trees. However, in the light of the Ugaritic evidence that has surfaced more recently, Asherah (also identified as Athirat) is now known to have been a prominent goddess in Canaanite mythology, the wife of the high god El and the mother of 70 gods. Her titles in the Ugaritic myths include “Lady Athirat of the Sea” and “Creatress of the Gods,” which reflects her role as mother of the gods who are referred to elsewhere as “the seventy sons of Athirat.” The seductive power of the Canaanite Asherah cult to the Israelites is attested by several Hebrew inscriptions, in the form of blessings, from the eighth century BC that speak of “Yahweh and his Asherah,” the latter apparently being viewed as Yahweh’s consort by those who wrote these words. Even with this new information, the mention of Asherah alongside Baal in our text (presumably as his consort) is surprising, especially since had associated the Baals with the Ashtartes. Either the author confuses the two deities, or he recognizes both as consorts of Baal in this fertility religion.

Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim. The title of this man appears straightforward. Aram, rendered “Syria” in the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT), is the name given to the area populated primarily by Arameans, one of the most important ethnic groups in the late second and early first millennia BC. Their territory extended from northeast of the Sea of Galilee to the Taurus Mountains in the north and eastward beyond the Habur tributary of the upper Euphrates River. While his capital is not identified, the addition of Naharaim, “of the two rivers” (cf. English Mesopotamia, “between the rivers”), fixes his home somewhere near or east of the great bend of the Euphrates. During the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BC, this region was politically subservient to the empire of the Hittites, serving as a buffer to the Assyrians to the east and the Egyptians to the south. Their influence is reflected in the first appearance of Aram as the name of a region in the fourteenth-century BC Egyptian inscription of Amenhotep III.

There is no consensus on who Cushan-Rishathaim might have been, though a variety of identifications have been proposed: a leader of the Kassites, who controlled Babylonia from 1600–1150 BC (see ); a Nubian (= Cush); an Asiatic usurper in Egypt, known in Egyptian sources as Arsu or Irsu; a Midianite chieftain (cf. ; ); a surviving chieftain of southern Judah. Josephus (Antiquities 5.180) proposes an identification with Chusarsathus, king of the Assyrians, which might suggest Tiglath-Pileser I of Assyria (1114–1076 BC), but this is too late for Othniel. The name is similar to common Hurrian names (such as Kuzzari-rishti) and he is perhaps the leader of a displaced tribe seeking a new homeland. However, it seems best to see in Cushan-Rishathaim of Aram-Naharaim one of the Akhlamu Aramean adventurers who established a base of power in the Aramean heartland, claimed the title of “king,” and embarked on a southward campaign of terror that eventually brought him into conflict with the newly arrived Israelites. In the end it is impossible to link Cushan-Rishathaim with any known historical figure.

The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim . . . into the hands of Othniel. The attribution of Othniel’s successes over such a formidable foe as Cushan-Rishathaim to Yahweh would have been understood by all ancient Near Easterners. It was universally acknowledged that rulers governed by the will of the gods and especially that the outcomes of battles depended ultimately on the intervention of the gods. The annals of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114–1076 BC), an Assyrian contemporary of the later deliverers, are laced with references to the involvement of Ashur, the patron divinity of Assyria. Centuries later, a Neo-Assyrian successor to Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser III (854–824 BC) credited Ashur with his victory over a western alliance of kings that included Hadadezer of Damascus and Ahab the Israelite.

Text:

Oppressor: Cushan-Rishathaim

Years: 8

Text:

Period of Peace: After Othniel (Judah)

Years: 40

Text:

Oppressor: Moab

Years: 18

Text:

Period of Peace: After Ehud (Benjamin)

Years: 80

Text:

Oppressor: Jabin

Years: 20

Text:

Period of Peace: After Barak (Naphtali)

Years: 40

Text:

Oppressor: Midianites

Years: 7

Text:

Period of Peace: After/During Gideon (Manasseh)

Years: 40

Text:

Judgeship: Abimelek

Years: 3

Text:

Judgeship: Tola (Issachar)

Years: 23

Text:

Judgeship: Jair (Gilead)

Years: 22

Text:

Oppressor: Ammonites

Years: 18

Text:

Judgeship: Jephthah (Gilead)

Years: 6

Text:

Judgeship: Ibzan (Zebulun or Judah?)

Years: 7

Text:

Judgeship: Elon (Zebulun)

Years: 10

Text:

Judgeship: Abdon (Ephraim?)

Years: 8

Text:

Oppressor: Philistines

Years: 40

Text:

Judgeship: Samson (Dan)

Years: 20

Text:

Totals

Years (Oppressor): 111

Years (Period of Peace): 200

Years (Judgeship): 99

Total Years: 410

Go to

Eglon king of Moab. Moab designates the nation state that emerged on the plateau east and northeast of the Dead Sea in the late second millennium BC (see the article “

”). suggests the Moabites were relatives of the Israelites, having descended from an eponymous ancestor. Whether Eglon was the king of a highly developed sedentary population or the foremost ruler over a group of tribes, each led by an elder or sheikh, is not clear, though his present residence in Jericho shows his preference for the town over tents. Eglon’s capital has not yet been discovered, nor has any other Moabite capital from the time of the judges.

Ammonites. See notes on ; . Amalekites. See note on . City of Palms. Jericho (; ; see note on ). Eglon seems to have selected Jericho as the base of his rule west of the Jordan, probably because of its desirable location at an oasis in the Jordan Valley, and because of its longstanding history as a strategic Canaanite settlement.

Ehud, a left-handed man. Ehud has traditionally been identified as “left-handed” in English translations, though the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) identifies him as ambidextrous. The Biblical text, however, describes him as bound or limited with regard to the right hand—an unusual way to identify someone who is left-handed. Furthermore, in , a whole troop of Benjamites are described this way. Based on this evidence, it is preferable to interpret the phrase as describing warriors who have been trained to use either their left or right hand with equal effectiveness, just as highly skilled athletes today. Since he had training to teach him the use of his left hand, we deduce that he is not left-handed. This training allowed him an advantage in approaching Eglon.

double-edged sword. This weapon facilitated a straight stab rather than a hacking stroke, slicing cleanly into the king’s flesh. Because the present text uses a term that occurs only here, it is not clear whether this dagger was a full cubit (about 18 inches or 45 centimeters) in length or a fraction thereof. Given the need for concealment, it is likely considerably shorter. Since most men were right-handed, the weapon would have been worn on the left side. Exploiting the benefits of his training, Ehud fastened the dagger under his garment to his right hip, where no one would suspect it.

tribute. In the OT this term is used most often of gift offerings made to God as an expression of gratitude and reverence, but it is also used for a voluntary gift of homage (, , ) or political friendship (). Here it applies to the tribute required of a vassal by a superior. This was an ancient and widespread practice in the ancient Near East. The present text does not describe the nature of the tribute. The most valued items would have been precious metals, silver and gold, but other items were often included.

stone images. The Hebrew word used here always denotes sculpted pagan images elsewhere in the OT, but this meaning is ill suited to the context. By itself the Hebrew word means simply “carved images [of stone].” Here it seems best to interpret these objects as steles either marking the boundary of the territory claimed by Eglon or as a monument to a battle by which Eglon achieved control over this region. Outside Israel such markers often contained the following features: (1) They were made of stone. (2) They were inscribed with text. (3) They often contained sculpted imagery that complemented the text. (4) The inscription closed with curses on any who would damage or deface the monument. (5) The monument was erected in a public place for public observation. (6) Royal monuments commemorated achievements emblematic of the king’s role, such as military victories or building projects. (7) Royal monuments were treasured as trophies by victorious opponents. (8) After the death of the king the monuments served as his memorial. It is easy to imagine these were intended for some such function. attendants. This is a technical expression for courtiers of the king, those who have official access to his presence. These could include his ministers, advisors and body guards, charged with securing the safety of the monarch. Ancient Near Eastern kings seem to have employed such guards as a matter of course.

upper room. This Hebrew phrase is generally interpreted something like “cool roof chamber,” based on the obvious meaning of the first word (“upper”) and a derivation of the second from a root meaning “to be cold.” In ancient Israel, and undoubtedly among Israel’s neighbors, the houses of the wealthy often included upper stories to which the family would retreat for the sake of comfort. However, it has been rightly noted that not only is “cool” not an architectural term, but to escape the heat in the southern Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea one does not build upward but burrows down into the ground. Alternative interpretation of the Hebrew phrase used here suggests the plausible option that the present phrase means “the room over the beams,” i.e., the raised throne room.

“Ehud . . . shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them [the doors]” (). “[The servants] took a key and unlocked them [the doors]” (). The logistics of Ehud’s actions are difficult: how would Ehud escape the throne room if the door were locked from the inside? The answer lies in the nature of locks and keys in the ancient world. provides a clue in noting that the character thrust his hand through the hole in the door and unlocked the bolt. If the door can be unlocked from the outside, it can also be locked from the outside.

In ancient Israel the doors of palaces, temples, granaries and domestic dwellings were locked with a wooden bolt and a tumbler lock mounted on the inside of the door. A wooden box containing loose pins was attached to the inside of the door above the wooden bolt, oarlock case, into which the pins drop when the bar is moved into the locked position. To unlock the door the key is inserted into a slot in the bolt until the matching teeth of the key push up the movable pins so that the sliding bolt can be drawn. When the key is withdrawn, the bolt can be secured by sliding it horizontally into a position in which the pins drop from the box into the slots of the bolt. To make the tumbler locks more difficult to pick, they were mounted on the inside of the door and reached by passing one’s hand and key through a hole in the door.

Keys came in various sizes, from 10 to 20 inches (from 25 to 50 centimeters) long, with some so large they were carried on the shoulders (). Some resembled large toothbrushes with handles bent near the end. Doors could be locked without the key simply by sliding the bolt in place and waiting for the pins to drop, but they could not be unlocked without the key.

In the present instance, after Ehud stabs Eglon he goes out through the door of the throne room and closes it behind him. Reaching his hand through the keyhole, he slides the bolt back into place. When he hears the pins drop, he turns around and flees through the pillared portico. However, to enter the king’s room his servants will need to retrieve the key to unlock the door—by which time Eglon is long dead. A number of obscure words combined with our inadequate understanding of the architectural design leave many unanswered questions about the logistics of this daring deed and escape. ◆

A tumbler (or “Egyptian”) lock with slot and key in the bolt. This type of key is mentioned in .

Go to

trumpet. The ram’s horn (shofar). See note on .

the fords of the Jordan. Although the Jordan rift valley averages six miles (9.5 kilometers) wide and is 15 miles (24 kilometers) wide at Jericho, the river itself is modest in size. The Romans were the first to build bridges across the river. Until then, people had to wade across. Except in the rainy season there were many places where this was possible—which is probably why the narrator does not specify where the present fords are.

ten thousand. On the interpretation of seemingly inordinately high numbers in Judges, see note on .

Shamgar son of Anath. The name of this deliverer is a riddle. Since the Hebrew vocabulary (like that of most Semitic languages) is based on triliteral roots, the presence of four strong consonants (sh-m-g-r) suggests he was not an Israelite. The presence of analogous forms of the name in Nuzi texts suggests he may have been a Hurrian mercenary in Canaan. Equally puzzling is his characterization as “son of Anath.” In the past, interpreters have assumed this meant that Shamgar was a resident of Beth Anath in Galilee. Now it seems more likely this is intended as a dedicatory expression: Shamgar was devoted to the service of Anath. What this means may be learned from extra-Biblical sources. In Canaanite mythology, Anath was at the same time the consort of Baal and Canaanite goddess of war. But the fame of Anath extended far beyond Palestine. At the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty (thirteenth century BC), she was accepted into the Egyptian pantheon, functioning particularly as the goddess of war and personal protectress of the pharaoh. But of special interest is an inscription from the Wadi Hammâmaât dated in the third year of Rameses IV (1166–60 BC), which reads: “ ‘prw of the troop of ‘An[ath] eight hundred men.” Shamgar may have been one of these ‘prw (Apiru, see note on ), among whom were found a variety of ethnic elements, including Hurrians. As a member of an Apiru troop of mercenaries in Pharaoh’s army named after the Canaanite goddess of war, and a man of valor, he bore the widely used military cognomen “ben Anath” (“son of Anath”). Since at first the Sea Peoples’ base of land operations in Canaan was located in northern Lebanon, and the Song of Deborah () associates Shamgar with problems in northern Israel, the latter’s confrontation with the Philistines probably occurred in the north at the beginning of the twelfth century BC. As an officer under the command of the Egyptian pharaoh, Shamgar ben Anath was not intentionally serving Israelite interests, yet Yahweh still provided deliverance by his hand. It must be recalled that even the Israelite judges were not consciously trying to serve Yahweh, yet God used them nonetheless. oxgoad. This Hebrew word occurs only here in the OT, but in post-Biblical Hebrew the word identifies a guiding instrument, a pointer (in the Mishnah see Sanhedrin 10:28a). The present instrument, normally used to train and control livestock, was made of hard wood and probably tipped with metal.

Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The person bearing the name Jabin here is not to be confused with the Jabin who ruled Hazor at least 30 or 40 years earlier, and who headed an alliance of Canaanite forces against Joshua in . In the ancient Near East, royal names were commonly repeated and even took on the form of dynastic names (e.g., Rameses I–XI). The first part of the name has surfaced in a fragment of a royal letter found at Hazor from the eighteenth or seventeenth century BC addressed to Ibni (= Yabin/Jabin). From Egypt, the topographic list of Rameses II at Karnak includes the entry Qishon of Jabin. The present text identifies Jabin as “king of Canaan,” suggesting he had recaptured for Hazor the dominant position among Canaanite cities that had not fallen into Israelite control. Sisera. Unknown as a Canaanite name. The name seems not to be Semitic, suggesting he may have been a Hittite or Hurrian mercenary like Shamgar in , or a member of the Sea Peoples. Harosheth Haggoyim. While prevailing opinion understands the first element in this name to mean “forested area,” the fact that Sisera’s forces included 900 chariots, which could be deployed only in coastal and alluvial plains (), renders this interpretation problematic. A more logical solution relates the expression to an Akkadian cognate that means “cultivated land.” Accordingly, Harosheth Haggoyim probably means “cultivated field of the Gentiles,” an explanation that not only suits the fertile alluvial plain between Taanach and Megiddo, but also accords with the present linkage with chariots, the reference to the Canaanite chariot bases in the river plains in and the location of the battle in .

nine hundred chariots fitted with iron. In view of the claim of Thutmose III in the fifteenth century BC to have captured 924 chariots at Megiddo, including the chariot of the ruler of Megiddo, which was decorated with gold, this reference is feasible. Whether the number is interpreted literally or as epic hyperbole, in the light of , this superior technology had rendered the Canaanites invincible to Israelite armies marching out in their own strength.

a prophet, the wife. This epithet brings Deborah’s profession and gender to the reader’s attention. A prophet serves as a spokesperson for deity to the people. Not only was the institution of prophecy widespread in the ancient Near East, but Mesopotamian prophecy in particular involved an unusually large proportion of female prophets. In the patricentric world of the OT, few if any standing leadership offices were open to women. By contrast, there seems to have been no hesitation in Israel to engage women as prophets. This may be because in Israel the prophetic office had an ad hoc character. Whereas elsewhere, especially in the Neo-Assyrian courts, prophets tended to function as part of the courts of kings, in Israel they were engaged directly by Yahweh, and in monarchic times especially often worked in opposition to kings.

held court. This reading reflects too legal an interpretation of the Hebrew verb, which means simply “to sit.” Deborah functions here as the agent through whom the people expect a divine word regarding their present crisis—a common role of prophets. Seated beneath the palm, the people come to her for a divine judgment on the crisis created by the Canaanites. The divine response is to call Barak to rescue the people.

, ten thousand men. On this seemingly high number, see note on .

lead Sisera . . . to the Kishon River. The flat plains would normally favor chariots but the overflowing river () would have muddied the battlefield and bogged down the chariots, neutralizing their advantage.

routed. The Hebrew verb, which means “to bring into motion and confusion,” recalls several other texts, most notably Yahweh’s action against the Egyptians in , in which natural phenomena are marshaled to effect the rout. The description of Yahweh’s involvement is reminiscent of Assyrian accounts that speak of the awe-inspiring terror of Ashur going before the Assyrian king. Whereas the Assyrian accounts, cast in bombastic autobiographical style, are written intentionally to magnify the victorious human king, in this Biblical account the role of Barak is deliberately diminished, not only by retaining Yahweh as the subject of the verb, but also by taking the sword out of Barak’s hand, and emphasizing that all the action occurs “ahead” of him (v. ).

Sisera, meanwhile, fled on foot. The picture of a defeated general fleeing for his life from the scene of battle is found in many Assyrian annals. The annals of Ashurnasirpal II recount how Nūr-Adad, the rebel sheikh of the land of Dagara, “to save his life, climbed up a rugged mountain,” in the face of his overwhelming defeat by the Assyrians. An even more colorful account involves Ursā, a prince of Urartu, who, terrorized by the might of Adad and defeated by Sargon II (721–705 BC), fled for his life. Recognizing that with Jabin’s main forces decimated no protection was to be found in the capital (cf. v. ), Sisera continued running northward until he came to the tent of Heber the Kenite, a recognized ally of Jabin. tent of Jael. In ancient Israel, households often consisted of several branches of an extended family, hence the designation for “family” means “clan.” Accordingly, the homes of a family would often be more like a compound, consisting of several houses. Since Heber is a Kenite (see note on ), making the transition from a nomadic to a sedentary lifestyle, it is not surprising to read that his household lives in tents (vv. , , ), and since his clan represents a significant political force in this context, it is not surprising to read that his compound in Zaanannim (v. ) consisted of more than one tent. Apparently Jael had her own tent. It is unclear whether Heber had other wives who would have had their own tents, but presumably as the head of this household he would have had his own.

In her actions Jael violates a series of fundamental social norms: (1) In offering hospitality to Sisera she usurps her husband’s exclusive right as a male to offer hospitality to a male. (2) In killing Sisera she violates the covenant between Heber and Sisera’s superior. (3) In killing Sisera, who had sought hospitality and protection in her house, she violates the fundamental rights of guests. As in the Middle East today, in the ancient Near East hospitality toward strangers represented one of the highest social values—even superseding a man’s responsibility for the well-being of his children (). The story of Jael in these verses represents one of the most blatant violations of this value in the literature of the ancient world; nonetheless, God used such actions to accomplish his objectives.

When you, LORD, went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom. The song portrays Yahweh as a divine warrior marching forth from Seir/Edom to the aid of his people. In terms reminiscent of his descent on Mount Sinai in , the song celebrates the arrival of Yahweh. Scholars have long been intrigued by the association of Yahweh, not only with Sinai (v. ), but also with Seir/Edom in this text, as well as in several other ancient and/or archaizing poems, such as , in which Yahweh is described as coming from Sinai/Seir/Mount Paran; , in which God comes from Teman/Mount Paran. In God encounters Israel in the wasteland. This portrayal of Yaweh marching forth from the south (Sinai/Seir/Edom) represents a deliberate polemic against the perspectives cherished by the kings whom the poet has summoned to listen (v. )—Canaanites, whose god Baal resided in the north, on Mount Zaphon. Yahweh had triumphed over Baal. Seir. Means “hairy.” It functions as a personal name in ; , identifying the ancestor of an ethnic group associated with the Horites, who lived in the hill country of Seir (). But elsewhere Seir is always a geographic designation for the mountainous region south of the Dead Sea occupied by the Edomites. Most agree that these mountains are to be located to the east of the Arabah, south of Moab. However, perhaps because of the encroachment of the Seir-based Edomites into the territory adjoining Judah, sometimes the name is applied to the region west of the Arabah. Edom. See note on .

the One of Sinai. This epithet occurs only here and in the derivative , and may be considered an archaic title of Yahweh. Yahweh’s status is reinforced by the storm imagery, which the Canaanite religion generally associates with Baal as the “rider of the clouds.” The poet draws from this well-known imagery to describe Yahweh as riding the clouds to the aid of his people. At the same time, the storm imagery anticipates the cosmic aspects of the victory later in the poem (vv. ).

highways were abandoned. In this lawless period, roads were dangerous, and travelers were subject to attack by bandits. Farmers and merchants traveled by hillside tracks instead. The roads of the ancient Near East were for the most part unpaved (except for a few roads in the Late Assyrian period). Although unpaved, those which were intended for wheeled transport (called “wagon roads” in the Nuzi tablets) had to be staked out, leveled and consistently maintained. However, very few texts describe the construction and maintenance of these roads. Roads for heavy transport were somewhat rare, and were primarily located along the trade routes. Thus, a vassal king complained to the king of Mari that he had to arrive at the Syrian capital by a roundabout route along a major highway. Assyrian kings rarely boasted of their road constructions, as it appeared to be the duty of the local populations.

Villagers. The Hebrew word used here functions as a collective designation for residents of rural unwalled settlements, in contrast to describing “towns,” which were by definition fortified with protective walls. Unlike the walled Canaanite towns of the valleys and plains, Israelite villages in the hill country were unfortified and vulnerable to outside harassment (cf. ). Instead, defense was based on their elevated hilltop locations and the arrangement of houses on the village perimeters. This absence of true fortifications undoubtedly is the result of the economic and military superiority of the Canaanites living in the fertile valleys, but it may also be a leftover effect of Merneptah’s campaign in Palestine in 1207 BC.

gates. Since the Israelites lived in unwalled villages, this probably refers to the fortified Canaanite towns in the valleys (see previous note). not a shield or spear. Israel’s lack of military technology is also noted by . Either they were forced to turn in their weapons to their Philistine and Canaanite overlords, or they lacked the knowledge to make them.

willing volunteers. Highlights the contrast between the way this army was raised and the typical ancient Near Eastern pattern of conscripted and professional armies, reflected in Samuel’s warning to the elders of Israel in , where military forces consisted largely of conscripts forced into military duty.

Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath comprise a list of familiar Biblical names. Each of these cities was a commercial emporium with important connections both north (as far as Mesopotamia) and south (as far as Egypt) by way of the coastal highway that served as one of the major highways of the ancient world. Also the ships of Phoenicia, Cyprus, Crete and the Aegean called at Philistia’s seaports. Among these seaports was a place today called Tel Qasile on the Yarkon River (the “Kanah Ravine” of ; ) just north of modern Tel Aviv. A Philistine temple has been found at Tel Qasile.

The Philistine plain itself was an arid, loam-covered lowland between the Mediterranean Sea and the foothills of the Judahite plateau on the east. To the south lay a stretch of undulating sand dunes adjacent to the sea. No area in Biblical history was more frequently contested than the western foothills, lying on the border between Judah and Philistia. Originally a part of Judah’s tribal allotment, the coastal area was never totally wrested away from the Philistines. Beth Shemesh, Timnah, Azekah and Ziklag were among the towns coveted by both Israelites and Philistines, and they figure in the stories of Samson, Goliath and David. The area to the north of Philistia, the plain of Sharon, was also contested at various periods. During Saul’s reign the Philistines even held Beth Shan and the Valley of Jezreel. Later, from about the time of Baasha on, a long border war was conducted by the Israelites at Gibbethon.

Go to

white donkeys. While donkeys were used primarily as pack and draft animals, they were also ridden by the upper classes. The NIV’s “white” translates a Hebrew word that occurs only here in the OT, meaning “tawny,” i.e., light colored animals, brownish orange to light brown. Because female donkeys of this color would have been rare, as symbols of status the rich preferred them over the generic gray animals. Among the Canaanites the economically powerful advertised their social standing further by dressing the donkeys with luxurious “saddle blankets.” In a time of trouble for Israel, Canaanite merchants rode up and down the public roads in confidence, on their equivalents to luxury limousines.

, people of the LORD. Occurs only here in Judges, highlighting the notion that it is as the people of their divine patron that the Israelites have volunteered for military service. Many of the patron deities around Israel were perceived either as local manifestations or functional territorial deities. Accordingly the Baals were viewed as manifestations of the storm-god, and Marduk was viewed primarily as the god of the city Babylon. These divine patrons related to specific people secondarily as a consequence of their being in his territory. In Israel’s case, Yahweh’s relationship was primarily with his covenant people and secondarily with the land.

whistling. Occurs elsewhere only in , where it speaks of derisive hissing (“object of . . . scorn”). In , , an Aramaic word from the same root refers to a “pipe” used in Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra. The instrument in question here was probably a flute of some type made of a reed, or the bone of a bird or goat.

why did he linger by the ships? According to the song the Danites were too busy in the shipping industry—presumably as clients of the Phoenicians or perhaps the Sea Peoples. The association of Dan with the northern tribe of Asher suggests that the battle with the Canaanites occurred later than the events described in chs. , and that the Danites had already arrived in the Huleh valley north of the Sea of Galilee. When they took over the territory around Laish they also gained control of the east-west trade from Banias along the Litani River to Tyre. Those who gained control of the trade route inevitably came into contact with Phoenician merchants, and some may even have taken positions on board their ships.

from their courses. While most interpret this to mean that the stars functioned like an army, each in its place, it is preferable to see here the heavenly bodies leaving their normal orbits to fight against Israel’s enemy. In this imagery, Deborah draws on a common ancient Near Eastern mythological motif, according to which the gods intervene on their devotees’ behalf by engaging the heavenly hosts (see next note).

The river Kishon swept them away. The sudden flooding of the Kishon, and the crippling of Sisera’s chariotry echo what had happened to Pharaoh’s armies at the Red (Reed) Sea (). This association of the stars fighting from heaven (v. ) and the flooding of the Kishon seems odd to the modern reader, but both may be understood as evidences of the arrival of Yahweh (cf. vv. ), who usurps the signs of theophanic advent that Canaanites had associated with Baal. Indeed in some Ugaritic texts the stars are declared to be the source of rain.

Meroz. Mentioned only here in the OT. Though it cannot be located, it must have been within a triangle whose apexes are marked by Mount Tabor on the east, where Barak assembled his troops (, , ), the Kishon River in the west, and Megiddo or Taanach in the south, perhaps near Sarid. A closer identification is not possible. angel of the LORD. See note on .

dividing the spoils. Although ancient Near Easterners justified warfare as having been commanded by the gods or as having served the king’s/nation’s honor, there was always plunder to be gained—both by the people and the conquering gods. The items Deborah lists represent the highest prizes of war: women and luxury garments. colorful garments . . . highly embroidered garments. In addition to the colorful dyes used, the luxury clothes were also decorated with fine needlework, embroidered with geometric patterns and images. Such garments were considered luxuries worn by priests () and royalty (; ). , single out Egypt and Edom as producers of embroidered goods. The needles used in embroidery would have been made of bronze or bone or ivory.

Midianites. Known by name only from Biblical texts, which portray them as a seminomadic Bedouin people of the Sinai peninsula and western Arabia who relied on the camel for transportation (cf. v. ). The archaeological site of Qurayya has yielded evidence of walls and a citadel, and distinctive pottery, known as “Qurayya ware,” or “Midianite ware.” This pottery has been dated to the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC, which fits the context of .

Amalekites. See note on . eastern peoples. Lit. “sons of the east,” a vague label used by westerners to denote the nomadic groups that migrated about the Arabian desert, often raiding the settled communities of the Transjordan and, as opportunity provided, of Cisjordan.

locusts. This undoubtedly refers to schistocerca gregaria, a species of desert locust that is normally a solitary insect, but in certain conditions, such as overcrowding, undergoes morphological and behavioral changes, resulting in migratory swarms capable of devastating regions on an international scale. The swarm of locusts that invaded Somaliland in AD 1957 is estimated to have numbered 16 trillion and to have weighed 50,000 tons (45,350 metric tons). Since each insect eats its own weight in green food every day, the devastation a swarm of locusts can cause is almost unimaginable. camels. Partially domesticated as early as the third millennium BC; by the middle of the second millennium BC they were quite widely used as pack animals in southern Arabia. In the present context the Midianites appear not as caravanners, but as camel-riding warriors, a practice not yet documented archaeologically, who may have been driven by the need to supplement the (inadequate) foodstuffs being produced in their own territory. In any case, the camels served as pack animals to carry the loot collected in the Midianites’ forays into Israelite and Canaanite territory.

angel of the LORD. See note on . threshing wheat. See note on . Gideon resorts to beating the grain under an oak in a sheltered vat used for pressing grapes. winepress. Generally involved two excavated depressions in the rock, one above the other. The grapes would be gathered and trampled in the upper, while a conduit would drain the juices to the lower. The present location might have been satisfactory for beating out the grain, but separating the grain from the chaff in these instances would have been more difficult. Either Gideon would have had to wait for a very windy day, or the grain and chaff mixture would have to be carried quickly to an exposed area, tossed in the air, and the grain quickly whisked away.

mighty warrior. See note on .

if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? The theological world of ancient Near Easterners was complex, and people often recognized divinities to be operative at four levels: cosmic, national/state, clan, and ancestral (deceased ancestors elevated to semi-divine status). While Yahweh had demonstrated his cosmic sovereignty through the wonders he had performed in Egypt (), and his role as Israel’s national God by rescuing them from Egypt and entering into relationship with them at Sinai (cf. ), during the period of the judges the Israelites apparently had difficulty conceiving of him as a personal and family deity. Consequently, they turned to local manifestations of the gods of the Canaanites to take care of them at this level. These are the gods on whom one depended for the fertility of livestock, of the soil and of their own wives.

weakest in Manasseh . . . least in my family. Gideon is claiming lack of status and authority. He cannot call out soldiers from his own clan or family, much less other tribes. Command is the prerogative of status, and he has none.

I will. Typical of ancient Near Eastern official messenger style, speaking on behalf of Yahweh, the divine envoy uses the first person (see note on ).

offering. The Hebrew word means “gift” and is not necessarily indicative of a sacrifice. The kid is prepared and presented as meat, not brought live and slaughtered, which suggests the context of a meal.

ephah of flour. About 36 pounds (16 kilograms), which points either to a single huge loaf or up to a dozen flat cakes—an extremely generous meal in these hard times.

It is the angel who instructs Gideon to place the food on the rock (v. ), where it is consumed (v. ), transforming the meal into a sacrifice.

If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself. Ancient Near Easterners perceived deities to be present in the images that represented them. By an elaborate process, an object made with human hands was transformed into a representative of the god, indwelled by his spirit/breath. Once an object had been transformed into a god, it should have been able to defend itself. The NIV’s insertion of “really” may suggest to some that Gideon’s actions have tested Baal’s divinity, and that Joash’s rhetorical question anticipates a negative answer: “No, Baal is not a god.” However, it seems quite unlikely that the sponsor of the Baal installation at Ophrah would have conceded this so quickly. When a desecration takes place, it is the role of the deity to defend itself (; ; ). Joash is declaring that anyone who takes retribution into their own hands will be considered guilty of bloodshed and subject to clan retribution.

the Spirit of the LORD came on Gideon. According to the normal use of this form of this Hebrew verb (“to clothe”), the Hebrew reads “the Spirit of the LORD put on Gideon,” suggesting that the Spirit “wears” Gideon, i.e., the Spirit is inside him, rather than Gideon “wearing” the Spirit, as an external force. This raises the question whether the Spirit functions as an internal or external force. A statement in an Akkadian wisdom text raises the same issue: “The demon has clothed himself in my body as with a garment; sleep covers me like a net.” The verb reflected in the NIV and most English translations assumes the present idiom represents a stronger version of the divine empowerment formula than “the Spirit of the LORD came on” in ; , and a more colorful version than “The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon” in , ; . This interpretation finds some support in , but especially in extra-Biblical texts, which often use clothing imagery to describe a person as covered or overwhelmed by divine or demonic forces. One Akkadian text reads, “He [the asakku-demon] enveloped the miserable man like a garment.”

The Spirit of the Lord usually appears in Judges to facilitate the calling of an army. Since Israel has no central authority, only Yahweh has the ability to call out the tribes, and his authority is recognized in anyone who does so.

Gideon’s demands have much in common with divination. First, as in many extra-Biblical contexts, a military crisis precipitated the present ritual performances. Second, even more so than in the reading of omens, like the liver of a sheep (called “extispicy”), Gideon’s demand that Yahweh treat his fleece differently than the environment around it operated on simple binary principles—it could only yield a yes or no answer. Third, in keeping with a common purpose of Mesopotamian divination, Gideon’s aim was to reassure himself of divine support for the venture against the Midianites. Fourth, like many ancient diviners, Gideon apparently was not confident in the verdict of a single sign; he needed reinforcement through a second performance of the test. Indeed, the results of his first test could be explained as what would normally happen. Irregular events or observations were needed to gain omens. So, when soft and absorbent material is left overnight on the hard ground or the rocky surface of a threshing floor, in the morning it will feel wetter than the ground around it. This is normal. Gideon therefore demands reiteration through a reversal of the phenomena: wet fleece, dry ground, followed by dry fleece, wet ground. His request that Yahweh do something that would be regarded as abnormal is analogous to diviners seeking reinforcement through signs of a different genre and involving a different realm. Celestial omens would be sought out to try to confirm terrestrial omens or extispicy (examination of the entrails of sacrificed animals). It is likely that Gideon only requested the normal occurrence the first night to give Yahweh the benefit of the doubt. The angel had already told him that he would be the deliverer. Gideon is simply giving an opportunity to change the instructions.

As in the case of divination by extispicy following a prophetic or celestial omen, the form of divination here is provoked rather than passive divination. Whereas most forms of divination involve the observance of phenomena over which the observer has no control, Gideon prescribes for Yahweh both the method and the meaning of the results. In this respect, the present case differs significantly from the Urim and the Thummim, which were inaccessible to Gideon. In the Urim and Thummim, Yahweh both provided the instruments and prescribed the method whereby the high priest could establish Yahweh’s will in such contexts (see ; see also the article “

”). Finally, unlike prevailing custom, according to which kings or generals would engage professional diviners to determine the will of the gods, Gideon takes matters into his own hands. The fact that Gideon, an ordinary citizen from a minor clan of Israel, even thinks about demanding signs suggests that common people may have had their own ad hoc divinatory practices by which they sought to determine the will of the gods in their own domestic affairs. However, since Yahweh is calling on him to deliver the nation from the Midianites, the stakes are much higher here. ◆

Clay tablet representing sheep liver, used for divination.

Go to

Mount Gilead. The traditional reading reflected in the NIV creates impossible problems, because the only Gilead known in the OT is the mountainous region east of the Jordan. It seems best to associate the place with the modern name of the spring, Ain Galud. twenty-two thousand men left, while ten thousand remained. On the seemingly inordinately high numbers, see note on .

I had a dream. In the OT, most dreams involve non-Israelites (e.g., , ; ; ; ). Portentous dreams were a common feature of ancient Near Eastern life. These dreams tended to be of one of two types. Message dreams often involved theophanies through which a clear and simple message was communicated. They required no outside interpreter. The accounts available to us usually involve monarchs and serve one or more of four purposes: (1) to assure the recipient of the deity’s presence and care; (2) to issue a warning or offer counsel; (3) to foretell events in the future; and (4) to command the recipient to particular action.

The present account involves a symbolic dream, which apparently occurred less frequently than message dreams. Symbolic dreams involved little if any dialogue; instead, in the dream, the recipient witnessed a symbolic event that typically required interpretation by an outsider after the person awoke. The present text is exceptional in that, although for the dreamer and the interpreter the dream communicated a disastrous message, for Gideon, who overheard the telling and the interpretation, it offered a welcome word of assurance.

The story of Gideon begins with a graphic portrayal of one of the most striking facts of life in the Fertile Crescent: the periodic migration of nomadic peoples into the settled areas of Canaan. Each spring the tents of the Bedouin herdsmen appeared overnight almost as if by magic, scattered on the hills and fields of the farming districts. Conflict between these two ways of life (herdsmen and farmers) was inevitable.

➊ In the Biblical period, the vast numbers and warlike practice of the herdsmen reduced the village people to near vassalage. God’s answer was twofold: (1) religious reform, starting with Gideon’s own family; and (2) military action, based on a coalition of northern Israelite tribes. The location of Gideon’s hometown, “Ophrah of the Abiezrites” (), is not known with certainty, but it probably was ancient Aper (modern Afula) in the Valley of Jezreel.

➋ The battle at the spring of Harod is justly celebrated for its strategic brilliance. Denied the use of the only local water source, the Midianites camped in the valley and fell victim to the small band of Israelites that attacked them from the heights of the hill of Moreh.

➌ The main battle took place north of the hill near the village of En-dor at the foot of Mount Tabor. Fleeing by way of the Jordan valley, the Midianites were trapped when the Ephraimites seized the fords of the Jordan from below Beth Shan to Beth Barah near Adam.

Go to

trumpets . . . empty jars . . . torches. By ancient Near Eastern standards (as by our own), the weapons with which Gideon attacked the Midianites were ridiculous. trumpets. Refers to a shofar, the ram’s horn (see note on ). jars. Identifies a small- to medium-sized storage jar. torches. Probably sticks with rags soaked in oil and wrapped around their ends, or, since it was harvest time, reeds or stalks of grain tightly bound and attached to short sticks. So long as the lit torches were covered by the jars, they would smolder, but once the jars were removed they would fan into flame. While the sound of smashing pottery undoubtedly awakened the Midianites, they probably were intended to misinterpret the sight of 300 torches lighting up the night sky: they likely deduced that with so many men available to sound signals and hold torches to light the perimeter, there must be many more attacking the camp.

Sukkoth. This place-name (meaning “Booths”) should not be confused with the first stopping place of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt (; ). This place is generally identified with Tell Deir ’Allah in the Transjordan. kings of Midian. Whereas in Oreb and Zeeb had been identified as “leaders,” these men are identified as “kings.” Since the Midianites are commonly thought to have been a seminomadic migratory desert tribe we might have expected the narrator to identify them either as “chiefs” or “princes”/“rulers.” However, the archaeological evidence of Qurayya in the Sinai points to a more sedentary community than we have previously imagined (see note on ). Furthermore, the boundaries between the office of chief or chieftain and king were often blurred, the critical factor apparently being the number and levels of bureaucratic officials who were involved in the administration of the society, i.e., how far removed the ruler was from the common people.

Do you already have the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna in your possession? Lit. “Are the palms of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand?” which alludes to the ancient Near Eastern military practice of cutting off the hands of captives, taking these back to the base, and using them to tally the number of casualties in battle.

tower. Although no evidence of fortifications in Peniel has been found, this reference suggests that Sukkoth was a fortified town, a notion reinforced by the designation of her leaders as “officials” (military commanders) in v. .

fifteen thousand men . . . a hundred and twenty thousand swordsmen. On these seemingly inordinately high numbers, see note on . eastern peoples. See note on .

took the ornaments off their camels’ necks. An image of a conqueror claiming the customary trophies of victory—the crescent ornaments, worn on the necks of “royal” camels.

I will not rule over you. Although Gideon appears to reject the Israelites’ invitation to rule over them and found a hereditary dynasty, by ancient Near Eastern standards all his actions hereafter are typical of kings: (1) he claims the lion’s share of the plunder from battle for himself (vv. ); (2) he claims the purple garments of the Midianite kings (v. ); (3) he establishes a national cult center complete with divine image (v. ); (4) he is identified by patronymic (“Jerub-Baal son of Joash,” v. ) and lives in his house; (5) he establishes a large harem and fathers 70 sons (vv. ); (6) he names his son Abimelek, which means “my father is king” (v. ).

earring. In the ancient Near East both men and women wore earrings. The earrings involved in the accounts of Jacob’s family gods (), the golden calf () and the present story are not simply arbitrary items of jewelry. Rather, the earrings symbolize the relationship between the deity and the worshiper at several levels: (1) Since deities are often portrayed with holes in their ears or as wearing earrings, they represent precious gifts from devotee to deity. (2) Analogous to piercing the ear of a slave who chose not to leave his master (; ), the pierced ear symbolized the worshiper’s devotion to the deity. (3) Attached to the organ of listening, the earrings reminded the devotee to be ever attentive to the voice of the deity. Like Aaron in , Gideon melted down the gold and used this “sacred” metal to create a new religious symbol (v. ). Ishmaelites. In the ancient Near East, ethnic designations were not always used with precision. According to , strictly speaking Ishmael was the (elder) son of Abraham by Hagar. However, the present identification of Midianites as Ishmaelites (cf. also , ) suggests that either the latter could also be used of desert people (Bedouins?) in general, or the Midianite alliance extended beyond the Amalekites and the “eastern peoples” mentioned earlier (v. ). In the latter case Zebah and Zalmunna may actually have belonged to the Ishmaelite branch of this alliance.

seventeen hundred shekels. Calculated at 2/5 ounce (11.5 grams) per shekel, 1,700 shekels of gold amounts to 43 pounds (about 20 kilograms).

ephod. The nature of this object is not clear. Elsewhere in the OT it denotes the priest’s special breastpiece (). In ; ; the same word refers to the priestly vestments of Micah. However, because this object was erected in Gideon’s city and became an object of pagan worship, this meaning seems unlikely here. The solution to the present problem may be suggested by the Akkadian cognate (epattu), which in several old Assyrian texts apparently refers to the costly garments that were worn by high officials and/or were draped over images of the gods. In the present context, the part stands for the whole, i.e., the word “ephod” represents not only the garment that clothed a sacred image, but also the image over which the garment was draped and which became the object of worship for the Israelites.

seventy. This number of his sons sounds like an idealized number, perhaps the number of a complete royal household. This use of the number occurs not only in the OT (; ; ; ; ) but also in extra-Biblical texts. In the eighth-century BC Aramaic inscription from Samal (Zinjirli), Bar-rakib reports that his father Panammuwa had assassinated his own father and 70 of his own brothers.

concubine. The etymology of this Hebrew word is obscure, but the word always identifies female persons. In most contexts in the OT, the concubine was considered a legal but second-ranked wife, subordinate to a full-status wife (e.g., ; , ), and was more easily divorced (). It seems that in most instances concubines began as servants or slaves, and were legally elevated to their status with the consent of the husband’s full-status wife or wives, without bringing with them a dowry, either to provide offspring for the husband or simply to serve him as a contracted sexual partner. Gideon’s marriage to this woman reinforces the impression that he is behaving like a typical Near Eastern king on two counts: (1) she represents an addition to an already large harem, and (2) she is a Canaanite. By marrying a Shechemite, Gideon seems either to have been establishing a claim to this town or to have entered into a marriage alliance with the rulers of the town.

Baal-Berith. This name, which occurs only here and in , is lit. “Lord/Baal of the Covenant.” In view of the prominence of Baal in the book and especially in the Judges narratives, one’s immediate response is to equate this Baal with the Canaanite storm and warrior deity. However, the issue is complicated by the reference to the Shechemite “temple of El-Berith” in . It is possible that Baal-Berith and El-Berith represent two separate deities, both of whom were worshiped in Shechem, but it is more likely that Baal and El were interchangeable designations for the same god. Many understand El to have been the patron deity of Canaanite Shechem. This theory may be supported by the second part of the phrase (“covenant”). In the expression some see an allusion to a political treaty between Shechem and some other Canaanite state, perhaps even Israel, in which El\\Baal-Berith was invoked as the divine guardian and guarantor. However, it is preferable to see in El/Baal-Berith an allusion to a treaty between Shechem and El that knit the deity and the population of the city in a special relationship, analogous to (but certainly different in many ways from) Yahweh’s covenant with Israel.

Abimelek son of Jerub-Baal. If Abimelek’s mother were from the ruling clan, his violent actions to regain control of the city (v. ) are somewhat understandable. On the other hand, since Abimelek also represents the new Israelite population, some may have considered him one of the Apiru, a designation found in the Amarna letters for troublesome segments of society accused of disloyalty, taking over cities, looting and robbery. Unlike the surrounding narratives of the deliverer governors, this account is not concerned with an external threat, but a problem of internal politics.

on one stone. This phrase suggests ritual execution, maybe even implying a sacrificial altar, but there are no known instances of human sacrifice of rival claimants to the throne in the ancient Near East.

Mount Gerizim. Identified with modern Jebel et-Tor on the south side of the Nablus valley, which overlooked the city of Shechem from the south. Jotham issued his speech from an acoustically advantageous location on the mountain.

contains one of the finest examples of fables from the ancient world. By definition, a fable typically involves a short narrative in poetry or prose that teaches a moral lesson and involves creatures, plants and/or inanimate objects speaking or behaving like human characters. The best-known examples of ancient fables are found in the Greek collection associated with Aesop, but the ancient Semitic world has also produced several examples. The text bearing the closest resemblance to Jotham’s fable is an ancient Babylonian text called “The Dispute Between the Tamarisk and the Date Palm,” in which these two trees debate who is greater. ◆

Go to

oil. See notes on ; .

thornbush. The Hebrew word used here denotes a species of buckthorn, usually equated with lycium europaeum. However, the present context also requires something larger—it gives a significant amount of shade and when it burns provides fuel for a great conflagration (vv. , ). If the reference to shade is not sarcastic, it is preferable to equate this with Christ Thorn (Latin Ziziphus spina-Christi), a stately evergreen that grows to a height of 30 feet (9 meters), and whose branches are armed with spines.

stirred up animosity. The NIV’s translation carries a strong sense of God’s activity here. Other translations such as the KJV render this as God sending an “evil spirit” in this situation. To understand the meaning of this phrase, two considerations must be borne in mind. First, the Hebrew word, translated “evil” (KJV), can refer either to moral malignancy or experiential misfortune, analogous to English “ill,” as in “ill will” (NKJV), “ill repute,” “ill feelings toward someone.” In this and other similar contexts, the word is not to be interpreted in a moral sense, but in the profane sense of “bad, unfavorable” as opposed to “good, favorable.” The activity attributed to God’s actions (or the “spirit”) here comes close to the role attributed to demons in ancient Near Eastern thought. In general, what we refer to as demons were perceived as agents of the gods, whose role was to execute divinely decreed blessings and punishments for sin, the latter usually by inflicting their victims with illnesses. Although in later Jewish magical texts this phrase came to be understood as “demon,” in our passages the identity remains vague, but its role is clearly subservient to Yahweh.

destroyed the city and scattered salt over it. The significance of Abimelek’s action in salting the conquered site is not clear. Some have suggested that since salt renders a land infertile, by spreading salt on a city a conqueror may have sought to guarantee that it would never rise again. It seems best to interpret Abimelek’s scattering salt over Shechem as a nonverbal gesture, equivalent to the curse that Yahweh had pronounced upon Jericho through the mouth of Joshua ().

stronghold of the temple of El-Berith. Excavations at Shechem may have yielded the foundations of what was probably the temple fortress referred to here. This two-story structure was huge by Canaanite standards, measuring 70 feet (21 meters) wide and 86 feet (26 meters) long, easily large enough for 1,000 people to huddle inside. It is evident from the ruins that the temple was destroyed by a massive fire.

upper millstone. It is doubtful this refers to the large upper stone of a rotary quern at the mill, which came into general use in the Iron Age. Rather, we should imagine the smaller round muller used to grind grain spread out on a larger slightly concaved bottom stone. It would have been basalt and weighed four or five pounds (about two kilograms).

thirty sons. Suggests a multiplicity of wives, which may suggest that Jair functioned as a major chieftain or a minor monarch. Interpreted sociopolitically, the territory governed by Jair seems to have consisted of a confederacy of 30 cities. thirty donkeys. The significance of the donkeys is not clear, though the narrator’s choice of terms seems to highlight their function as riding rather than pack animals. The prestige associated with owning asses is reflected not only in the Song of Deborah (), but in extra-Biblical writings as well. To describe each son as riding on his own donkey is like saying each son was given his own Porsche.

We have sinned against you, forsaking our God and serving the Baals. This confession of sin arises out of the distress caused by the Israelites’ defeat at the hands of the Ammonites (v. ). The conviction expressed here, that this distress represented divine punishment for sin, would have been at home among most ancient Near Eastern peoples. However, the cause of the anger is distinctively Israelite. Whereas orthodox Yahwism demanded exclusive devotion to Yahweh (see ), elsewhere divinities did not take great offense at their devotees worshiping other gods. Indeed, in one of his plague prayers, Mursilis II pleads with the storm-god and defends his case, expressly declaring his attention to all the gods: “When I celebrated the festivals, I busied myself for all the gods. I did not pick out any single temple.” Pagan deities were particularly infuriated through improper attention to ritual practice (since they depended upon their worshipers to meet their needs through sacrifice and other rituals) or violation of some taboo.

Mizpah. This Mizpah, located in Gilead, is not to be confused with the Benjamite town of the same name in chs. . The location is unknown.

Whoever will take the lead . . . will be head. Elders and tribal leaders were willing to submit to the authority of a military leader in times of crisis. This same political structure is seen among the Babylonian gods, where Marduk assumes leadership of the pantheon to counter the threat posed by the younger gods. This type of arrangement between elders and military leaders is what eventually led to the development of monarchy in the ancient Near East.

prostitute. In the ancient world, women would often resort to prostitution if they had no other means of economic support, especially if they were widows or orphans. However, Jephthah also illustrates the plight of the children of prostitutes in the ancient Near East. Without legal attachment to the head of a household, they were generally denied inheritance of property and social standing within the community, and were often forced into a life of prostitution simply to survive.

drove Jephthah away. The reason for Jephthah’s expulsion is not family shame; in a culture with polygamy and sanctioned religious prostitution, “illegitimate” children would have been common. The dispute is over inheritance: one less share means more for everyone else.

Tob. Its location is uncertain, though the present context suggests a sparsely populated district north of the Jabbok. scoundrels. The Hebrew term (“empty men”) intentionally reflects the narrator’s negative evaluation of these men. This characterization invites comparison with the Apiru mentioned frequently in the Amarna letters. The Apiru represented a loosely defined, generally inferior social class on the edges of settled society, with no ethnic or linguistic relation to each other, usually serving as mercenaries, outlaws or slaves (see note on ).

he repeated all his words before the LORD in Mizpah. In solemnizing the agreement between Jephthah and the leaders of Gilead at the sanctuary in the presence of the deity, the parties to this contract follow regular ancient Near Eastern custom. Deities were invoked as witnesses to agreements and as guarantors of the fidelity of the parties.

Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king. Jephthah acts remarkably kinglike—dispatching envoys, negotiating directly with the king of Bene Ammon, dealing with the conflicting issues as if they were personal between him and the Ammonite king and claiming the land as his own. Ammonite king. The identity of this king is unknown. This may have been the predecessor to Nahash (c. 1030–1000 BC), the first Ammonite king identifiable by name, who appears in ; ; . Based on the Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, 11 Ammonite kings can now be identified.

As to style and form, Jephthah’s speech (delivered by the envoys) is formal and conventional, incorporating many features of the ancient Near Eastern lawsuit genre that would be a typical way of pressing international claims.

Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you. The ninth-century BC Mesha Stele illuminates this comment on two counts. First, Mesha’s perspective on the role of deities in determining who rules over specific territories is much like that of Jephthah, who claims in v. that Yahweh, the God of Israel, gave Sihon into Israel’s hands. In lines 14–15, Mesha’s scribe writes (on his behalf): “Kemosh said to me: ‘Go take Nebo from Israel!’ And I went in the night, and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon.” Second, in his question Jephthah refers to the deity involved in the present territorial debate as Chemosh. The deity Chemosh is well attested in extra-Biblical texts, not only in the Mesha Stele referred to above, but also in documents as early as the third-millennium BC tablets from Ebla, in northern Syria in twelfth-century BC texts from Ugarit and in the first-millennium BC Neo-Assyrian texts. The problem with Jephthah’s comment is that, as a national deity, Chemosh is known to us not as the god of the Ammonites, but as the patron deity of Moab. This is confirmed not only by the Mesha Stele, but also by a series of personal names that scholars generally recognize to be Moabite. The patron deity of the Ammonites is Milkom. Nevertheless the relations between the two may have resulted in their worship of one another’s deities.

three hundred years. If this number is understood chronologically rather than rhetorically, it would indicate that Israel possessed the land as early as 1400 BC.

Some interpreters suggest that Jephthah’s vow involved dedicating his daughter to cultic service, rather than offering her as a literal sacrifice. This option could be supported by appeal to the presence of women involved at the tabernacle in the Bible (; ) and in temple service in the ancient Near East, though there is no reason to think that these were lifelong dedications with vows of celibacy. The attractiveness of this solution to some is that it would also give an explanation of why she is mourning her virginity rather than her imminent death (). The problem with this option is that the language of the text (“burnt offering,” ) cannot easily support it, and the logical arguments based on theological assumptions are mitigated by the fact that this is the period of the judges, when “everyone did as they saw fit” (; ). ◆

Go to

Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. Analogues to Jephthah’s vow are found in both Biblical and extra-Biblical texts. People uttered such vows when they were anxious about issues like a safe return from a journey, a need for a military victory or when they were desperate to have children. Jephthah’s vow was an expression of piety adding force to a prayer by making a contract with God.

whatever comes out of the door of my house. Although we might find it strange for Jephthah to speak of a sheep or calf coming out of his house, the word “house” refers to a complex domestic structure known as the four-room house, which included rooms for the animals. However, since livestock do not usually greet a person returning from a journey, Jephthah’s promise expresses a readiness to sacrifice a member of his own family. By not naming a specific individual, he in effect leaves the choice up to Yahweh.

timbrels. This Hebrew word refers to a variety of handheld percussion instruments often associated with dancing. Where musicians are identified in the Bible they are usually female. Unlike modern tambourines, the instruments did not have metal jingles on the sides, but consisted of a circular wood frame about ten inches (25 centimeters) in diameter, over which was stretched a piece of goatskin leather. She was an only child. This emphatic statement heightens the crisis that the appearance of Jephthah’s daughter creates for him, for he realizes that if he does with her as he had vowed, he not only sacrifices his daughter, but he also sacrifices himself. In the ancient world people were thought to live on through their children—daughters and sons alike. Accordingly, the worst fate one could experience was to have his “descendants” cut off and his “name” destroyed from his father’s household (cf. ).

he did to her as he had vowed. The statement should be interpreted in the light of the Canaanized Israelite society and culture to which Jephthah belonged. In , the narrator testifies to the fact that at this time the Israelites worshiped Milkom, the Ammonite god, and Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, whose leaders are known to have sacrificed children on occasion (). For these people, vows to sacrifice children were not rash or impulsive, but deadly serious expressions of devotion. Though Yahweh would have found such an act to be abhorrent, he often allows his people to suffer the consequences of their bad choices.

fords of the Jordan. See note on .

Shibboleth . . . Sibboleth. The Gileadites’ plan to identify Ephraimites involves a dialectical contrast between a “sh” sound and an “s” sound. This is a case of differentiation in the pronunciation of the same sibilant in different regions. To the Gileadites, the Ephraimite pronunciation of the two sounded exactly alike. Accordingly, whenever the Gileadites demanded that an Ephraimite say, “Shibboleth” (pronounced “thibboleth” by the Gileadites), he would have betrayed his origin by saying, “Sibboleth.” killed him at the fords of the Jordan. This event reflects and reinforces the significance of the Jordan River as a geographic and psychological barrier between eastern and western Israelites. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed. On the seemingly inordinately high numbers, see note on .

marriage to those outside his clan . . . wives from outside his clan. Ibzan’s sending his daughters away reflects the patrilocal pattern of marriage. These marriages probably cemented clan alliances and extended the scope of his political influence. At the same time, Ibzan’s initiative in all of these marriages arose out of a concern to build a community with sound foundations, perhaps even a dynasty.

forty sons . . . thirty grandsons . . . seventy donkeys. See note on .

Philistines. See note on .

angel of the LORD. See note on . you are going to . . . give birth to a son. Given the androcentric social structures of ancient Israel, the announcement to Manoah’s wife that the child would be a son would have been especially welcome. A son would not only carry on the family name, but also provide leadership in the home and in the community. In the world outside Israel, a son was also the key to a person’s well-being here and now, as well as in the afterlife.

drink no wine or other fermented drink. See the article “

” do not eat anything unclean. The Israelite regulations concerning clean and unclean food are found in ; .

Nazirite. See the article “

”

We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you. Like Gideon’s response in , Manoah’s invitation to the envoy to stay for a meal represents typical ancient Near Eastern hospitality. young goat. As in (see note there).

It is beyond understanding. Instead of acceding to Manoah’s request and giving his name, the divine envoy describes it: his name is extraordinary. understanding. The Hebrew word reflects the awe-inspiring numinosity of divinity, here perceived by Manoah to be fatal to a human observer (v. ). The extraordinary nature of this being may be compared to Mesopotamia where the melammu, a divine brilliance, distinguishes the gods. While the melammu would strike terror in the hearts of those who saw it, it was not deemed to be fatal. At the same time, no abnormal appearance characterizes this messenger because his appearance gave nothing away.

The woman . . . named him Samson. In ancient Israel, either parent could name a child, though the OT reports mothers naming their children more often than fathers. Samson. The name consists of the Hebrew word for sun with the diminutive ending, hence, “little sun.” It is tempting to give the name a positive spin as a celebration of the ray of light, which the birth of this boy represented in the dark days of the judges. Some have suggested it was given in anticipation of his “sunlike” strength. A more common view links the name with the worship of the sun, which provides the background for the Samson narratives. The fact that Samson’s name incorporates the same element as Beth Shemesh (, lit. “house of Shemesh”), the name of an important town just a few miles/kilometers from Zorah and Eshtaol down the Sorek Valley, once the focal point of sun worship, offers strong support for this interpretation. Consequently, this may be understood as yet another example of the Canaanization of the Israelites in this period. Theophoric names involving Shemesh/Shamash were common in the ancient Near East, and exemplified in the OT by Shimshai in .

get her for me as my wife. Though parentally arranged marriages are nowhere mandated in the OT, this tended to be the practice, a fact reflected in expressions like “give your daughters to their sons” (e.g., ). In contrast to modern Western marriages, where marriage tends to be an individual matter and driven by personal desire for companionship and romance, arranged marriages in the ancient world often represented alliances intended to ensure the continuation of the families through progeny.

acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people. In Israel, marriages were generally endogamous—i.e., within the clan or tribe—though there were no laws against marrying someone from another tribe. For an Israelite to marry a Philistine poses a special problem, a commitment to peaceful coexistence and mutual acceptance between the clans (cf. ). This is precisely what forbids on spiritual and theological grounds: Israel is Yahweh’s holy people. Since the Philistines are not listed in , technically one might argue that they are excluded from the prohibition. However, to Samson’s parents, his proposition to marry a Philistine appears simply a cultural and ethnic issue—they say nothing of Yahweh’s prohibition on intermarriage with non-Israelites, Samson’s call to special Nazirite status within Israel or Yahweh’s agenda for him to deliver Israel from Philistine oppression. uncircumcised Philistines. An intentionally pejorative slur, used in the Bible only of the Philistines (cf. ; ; , ; []; ). Although the origins of circumcision are unknown, the practice was widespread in the ancient world, being attested not only in Israel, but also among Egyptians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and perhaps Midianites (), but not among the eastern Semites of Mesopotamia (see the article “

”). It is unknown whether ancient Canaanites practiced circumcision, though the account of Jacob’s sons and the Shechemites in suggests they did not.

lion. Although lions are found in Israel only in captivity today, in ancient times Asiatic lions were common throughout the Fertile Crescent. Indeed, in ancient Assyria the lion symbolized chaos and the untamed world in all its forms. Through their successes as lion hunters, Neo-Assyrian kings demonstrated their authority over evil forces, both cosmic and human, and proved that they deserved the title “Master of the Beasts.” In , Samson proves himself “Master of the Beasts,” first by overpowering a lion effortlessly, and later by capturing and manipulating 300 foxes ().

lion’s carcass, and in it . . . a swarm of bees and some honey. Bees do not normally inhabit cadavers; flies and maggots do. Apparently this carcass dehydrated quickly, eliminating putrefaction, and in no time at all provided a hospitable environment for bees not only to live but also to produce their honey.

Samson held a feast, as was customary. The word for “feast” in this context refers to a seven-day feast at the home of the bride’s parents, climaxing in the consummation of the marriage. The picture of drunken revelry at a Philistine event is quite realistic. The seriousness of the issue for Samson is heightened, inasmuch as his Nazirite status specifically prohibits him from consuming products derived from grapes. We know of no civil or sacred ceremonies for marriage in the ancient world. People were officially married when their families came to agreement, the dowry and bride-price were exchanged, and the match was officially celebrated. The marriage then was consummated, and the two became man and wife.

thirty men to be his companions. Their role is uncertain. Traditionally, the response of the Philistines has been interpreted as arising out of a concern to maintain Philistine custom. Apparently grooms did not host such feasts without attendants. On the surface, the Philistines’ action appears to be a gesture of goodwill—they are providing companions for him. However, since Samson is a stranger in this town, and “friendship” implies a measure of intimacy, it is doubtful the narrator looks upon these men as Samson’s friends. Either the expression is used ironically, or these 30 men are “friends” of the Philistine guests.

thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes. The first expression is cognate to an Akkadian term that refers to an item of clothing. Traditionally the former has been understood as a luxurious cape, and the latter as festal clothing, in contrast to everyday garments.

wife. The Hebrew word denotes both “woman” and “wife.” If the Philistines followed the custom reflected in , , the marriage would not have been consummated until the seventh day of the feast, but in this cultural context the status of a betrothed woman was not sharply distinguished from that of a wife (but see ).

If you had not plowed with my heifer. The Philistines’ answer to Samson’s riddle is a riddle in itself, indicating the means by which they solved it. my heifer. Samson’s reference to his new bride is as disparaging in the Hebrew as it is in the English.

stripped . . . of. The expression occurs elsewhere only in , where it denotes the equipment stripped from a slain man, particularly the belt from which weapons and tools were hung. Carrying these items 20 miles (32 kilometers) back to Timnah in a mocking gesture, Samson presents them to the Philistine guards as their promised change of clothes. returned to his father’s home. Within the context of ancient Near Eastern marriage customs, the fact that Samson went home after the wedding was probably not unusual. In a cultural context where marriages were patrilocal, his new father-in-law could have interpreted his action as a return home to get the house in order. These periods of separation often lasted several months. Meanwhile, the wife continued to live at home, and the husband would visit her at more or less regular intervals, bringing gifts and enjoying a night of love. According to , Samson seems to think he can return to his wife at any time.

Samson’s wife was given to one of his companions. It is probably not surprising that the author later gives us only the father-in-law’s interpretation of Samson’s departure (). Not a word is said about the feelings of Samson’s wife. Did she have any say in whether or not her father would give her to another man? Did she love Samson? Did she want him back? In the ancient world, most women in this situation would probably have longed for their husbands to return.

I was so sure you hated her. At the climax of the wedding festivities, Samson had left his wife in anger (), and her family assumed logically that he had repudiated the marriage and rejected his wife (). The bride’s father’s assessment of the situation is expressed emphatically with the infinitive absolute and finite verb and may be interpreted as “you have surely divorced her,” with no intention of returning to claim her.

went out . . . caught . . . tied . . . fastened . . . lit . . . let . . . loose . . . burned up. The rapid succession of verbs in the description creates the impression that Samson’s actions took no effort at all.

foxes. The Hebrew word used here applied to both foxes and jackals. Since the latter were more common in Canaan, and since foxes are solitary animals, Samson was probably dealing with jackals, which live in packs. Jackals are certainly intended in ; ; , where the same Hebrew word is used.

burned up. This specific sort of strategy is undocumented anywhere else in the ancient world, though burning the crops of the enemy is common enough.

new ropes. The reference in v. to “charred flax” (lit. “flax that had been burned with fire”) suggests that the “new ropes” were made of flax fibers. Flax fibers are among the strongest and longest natural fibers in use by human beings, and they gain in strength when they are wet. In the present instance, the “new ropes” were undoubtedly ropes made of fresh fibers harvested from that year’s crop.

fresh jawbone of a donkey. Reminiscent of Shamgar’s victory over the Philistines using an oxgoad (), Samson used a fresh jawbone to slaughter “a thousand men.” The image is intended to be comical. Being only about nine inches (23 centimeters) long, a donkey’s jawbone is an unlikely weapon. a thousand. Used as a way to indicate a band, so it is difficult to know how many Samson fought.

doors of the city gate. The gates of major fortifications had to be wide enough for chariots to drive through. The gates themselves consisted of double doors made of wood; to prevent easy entry by an enemy, they had to be made of thick boards. They were barred on the side by means of a heavy horizontal beam slid through slots in the doorposts. The doors were braced by wooden posts, the outside of which pivoted in stone sockets. The gates of Gaza that Samson pulled out of their sockets and hoisted onto his shoulders must have weighed at least 400 or 500 pounds (about 200 kilograms). carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron. As the crow flies, the distance from Gaza to Hebron is 40 miles (65 kilometers). But if Samson followed the route along the Wadi Guvrin, as is most likely, the distance would have been even greater. It is not clear how far Samson carried the gates. carried . . . to. Since elsewhere the idiom simply means “in the direction of,” it seems most likely that Samson headed off in the direction of Hebron, and when he reached the top of the hill—probably overlooking Gaza—he deposited the gates.

The rulers of the Philistines. There were five (see note on ). eleven hundred shekels of silver. About 28 pounds (13 kilograms) of silver. In the OT, the shekel was the primary unit of weight, used especially to measure commodities in business transactions. The reward the Philistine rulers offer Delilah for betraying her husband is exorbitant: 5,500 shekels of silver—1,100 shekels per governor. Calculated according to the standard of ancient wages, if the average wage of a day laborer was ten shekels a year (cf. ), this amount is equivalent to 550 years’ wages.

bowstrings. The meaning of this noun is uncertain, but the Hebrew word is used elsewhere of bowstrings (; ) and a tent peg (), made from the tendons of a sheep or a cow. Normally these would have been laid out to dry, but in specifying that these were to be “fresh” and “not . . . dried,” Samson again trivializes his Nazirite vow. He assumes the Philistines will understand these unprocessed sinews to have magical powers, to counter the assumed magical source of his strength.

If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me. A number of well-known tales from the Aegean region (where the Philistines had come from) feature a hero with hair that made him invincible and who was defeated when it was cut. The Philistines may well have retained these traditions, and, if so, would recognize this kind of thinking. Even though Samson has violated his Nazirite vow many times by now, it is the cutting of the hair that brings an end to the vow.

gouged out his eyes. A common ancient Near Eastern custom. In Mesopotamia, defeated enemies were often blinded by having their eyes gouged and then humiliated by being forced to perform the most menial of tasks, customarily assigned to slaves and women. Hittite sources report that captors blinded particularly dangerous captives to prevent them from taking up arms or trying to flee.

a great sacrifice to Dagon their god. One may assume from the presentation of “a great sacrifice” that the festivities described in vv. took place in the temple of Dagon, the patron deity of the Philistines. Although the Philistines were non-Semitic peoples, having originated in the Aegean, they appear to have adapted quickly to prevailing religious ideologies in Canaan. See the article “

” Our god has delivered Samson, our enemy, into our hands. This is a Hebrew version of the divine committal formula, variations of which occur in many extra-Biblical texts. The direct quotation here, which may have been chanted by the governors, captures the theme of the celebration, and in so doing reflects several important features of common ancient Near Eastern theology. First, even though Dagon has been out of the picture in the preceding episodes, the narrator presents the captivity of Samson, not as the result of human decision and machinations, but as a divine accomplishment. Second, although Dagon may have been primarily associated with grain and harvest (still open to much debate), this chant portrays him in a military role, giving the enemy into the Philistines’ hands.

pillars that support the temple. While no Philistine temple to Dagon has been discovered in Gaza, excavations further north at Tel Qasile have revealed a Philistine building that illuminates this text. The temple was a complex structure 40 feet (12 meters) long and 25 feet (7.5 meters) wide. Two cedar pillars slightly less than 10 feet (16 meters) apart set on round stone bases supported the roof and upper story of this large temple. In the temple in this account, the pillars must have been closer together than that.

roof. Here the Hebrew word that usually means “roof” may refer to a balcony or terrace surrounding the central courtyard where Samson was standing. Ancient public buildings, including temples, often included central courtyards, surrounded by rooms and balconies on the second floor. It seems that all the rulers and undoubtedly the temple functionaries, were on the ground floor, where Samson was entertaining them, while 3,000 spectators looked on from above. three thousand. The number seems inordinately high, but it should be interpreted along the lines of other high figures in the book (see note on ).

central pillars. May either be solid pieces of cedar spanning the entire height, or thick disks of stone piled atop one another. In either case, it was the weight of the roof that held them in place.

pushed. The Hebrew verb describing Samson’s act that caused the collapse is unclear, but would have involved either pushing or twisting the central pillars off their stone bases.

in the tomb of Manoah his father. See note on .

curse. This Hebrew verb for “cursing” is relatively rare, and serves as an abbreviated version of the curse formula, which more often involves a different verb plus the noun. In general, the text indicates a conditional curse, in this case the invocation of some horrendous fate on someone who commits a crime. The LORD bless you, my son! By exchanging the curse for a blessing, Micah’s mother seeks to prevent the disaster threatened by the previous curse. Her blessing is cast in typical form, “May my son be blessed by Yahweh,” which bears a close resemblance to the syncretistic blessings on two Hebrew inscriptions from southern Judah:

Kuntillet ‘Ajrud pithos: “May you be blessed by Yahweh of Samaria and by his Asherah.”

Khirbet el-Qom: “May Uriyahu be blessed by Yahweh.”

Utterances like this characteristically express the speaker’s grateful response to a good deed done for him or her by the third party on whose behalf the blessing is invoked. The fact that Micah’s mother commends Micah to Yahweh, rather than Baal or some other Canaanite deity, suggests she is devoted to the covenant God of Israel—though this devotion is not firm, as the sequel demonstrates.

I solemnly consecrate my silver to the LORD. In the ancient world, the manufacture of images of gods was a complex process that began with the consecration of the materials out of which the images were to be made. A bull calf statuette found at Ashkelon, apparently associated with the worship of El or Baal, is 4.1 inches (10 centimeters) high and 4.3 inches (11 centimeters) long, and weighs just under a pound (0.45 kilograms). Its body was made of solid cast bronze, and still retained some of the thick overleaf of pure silver that once covered the entire body. While the icon from Ashkelon consisted mostly of bronze, which is much cheaper than silver, divine images were often carved out of wood and then plated with precious metals. Five pounds (2.25 kilograms) of silver (the weight of the 200 shekels offered here) could plate an image much more impressive than this calf. an image overlaid with silver. Lit. “a sculpture and something poured,” which reflects the process of idol manufacture, i.e., “a carved image overlaid with molten metal.”

shrine. Lit. “house of god,” which reflects the primary function of temples in the ancient world—a residence for deity. Being a family shrine or chapel, the present structure must have been modest in size, perhaps consisting of a small building in which the image was housed. This shrine was intended to serve the needs of the family by providing a means of securing divine assistance in conception and childbirth, fertility of flocks and fields, and protection from natural calamities and enemies. ephod. See note on . household gods. In , the Hebrew word rendered “household gods” (teraphim) seems to refer to miniature images of ancestors (see the article “

”). But the form and function of these “teraphim” in the ancient Near East remains unclear. The most likely explanation refers to “a spirit which can on some occasions be regarded as protective and on others as malevolent.” links idols with diviners who prophesy through visions and dreams, suggesting these objects may have had a divinatory function. The fact that in Michal made use of one that was mistaken for a sick man suggests these images were anthropomorphic, lending support to the view that they were figurines representing deceased ancestors. installed one of his sons as his priest. In most instances, the Hebrew idiom for “installation” (lit. “to fill the hands”) is used of the consecration of priests. The Hebrew word suggests it involved the placement of some symbol of authority into the hands of the person being installed. This action posed a direct challenge to the officially authorized Aaronic priesthood.

In those days Israel had no king. During the settlement period, Israel had a decentralized government, and each tribe was governed by its own chieftains, leaving local communities much freedom to govern their own lives. This also meant that there was likely no centralized control over religious matters, leaving Micah and his household with complete independence in shaping the cult in their own household.

ten shekels of silver a year. This was the typical annual salary for laborers. The Pentateuch never stipulates the salary for priests or Levites, who would theoretically be provided for by sacrifices. silver. The offering of precious metals constitutes a bribe.

the tribe of the Danites. According to , the original Danite territorial allotment was located west of the Benjamite land, between the territories of Ephraim and Judah. The present events must have happened soon after the death of Joshua and prior to the events described in . First, the Levitical priest is identified in as “Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses,” which would suggest placing these events within two generations of the conquest (though at times generations can be skipped). Second, the Philistines claimed a large part of the territory allotted to the Danites. However, there is no hint of Philistine involvement here—unless, of course, their presence was the reason the Danites could not occupy the land assigned to them. inheritance. Although most English versions translate the word used here with inheritance terminology, this is a feudal expression, referring primarily to land given by a superior to his vassals as a reward for past service (usually military service) and in anticipation of future service. This designation is appropriate for the territory originally given to Israel by Yahweh and distributed by Joshua by lot among the tribes, but it does not suit territory seized by force, particularly when it is at another Israelite tribe’s expense.

inquire of God. Before embarking on an adventure like this, which had military implications, leaders would consult their deities to determine their disposition toward the mission. To the Danites the Levitical priest was the equivalent of an Assyrian baru priest or a prophet at Mari. Sometimes such an intermediary would attempt to curry the favor of the deity through sacrifices. The present context gives no indication how—or even if—the Levitical priest sought his oracle from Yahweh. Presumably he used the household gods or ephod mentioned in .

Go in peace. This is stereotypical, involving the word meaning “peace, well-being.” Your journey has the LORD’s approval. Most translations (including the NIV) interpret this positively, but in fact it is quite ambiguous. The Hebrew reads lit. “Before Yahweh is your course on which you are going.” This could mean that it has the approval of Yahweh’s watchful eye, but it could also mean the opposite, i.e., the conduct of the scouts and the Danites as a tribe is under critical scrutiny by Yahweh. Such ambiguity was characteristic of many ancient prophecies. In this instance, the Danite scouts should have come back and asked the Levite what he meant by the oracle.

like the Sidonians. A paraphrastic idiom suggesting that Laish was located within the sphere of Sidon, a major Phoenician coastal city. This accords with what we know of Sidon’s status at the end of the second millennium BC. Although Sidon existed in the shadow of Tyre from the time of Solomon, prior to this, she had been the premiere Phoenician city. In the OT, the non-Semitic “Sidonians” stands for “Phoenicians.” a long way from the Sidonians. The Sidonians, separated from Laish by the Lebanon mountains and preoccupied with their maritime interests, apparently had neither time for nor interest in exerting political control in the interior. no relationship with anyone else. Nestled in the shadow of Mount Hermon, between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges, the people of Laish lived in isolation from the Arameans to the east and north and in independence from Sidon to the west. Recent archaeological excavations of Dan may have unearthed one more reason for the Laishite smugness: their massive defensive ramparts. Like most Canaanite cities of the time, Laish was not defended by stone walls, but by huge ramparts consisting of alternating layers of soil from the surrounding region and debris from previous settlements.

an ephod, some household gods and an image overlaid with silver. Cf. v. ; see notes on ; , .

When the Danites seized the idol and the articles associated with this cult center, they were following normal ancient customs. In the conquest of cities, the invaders would as a matter of course aim for the temple, seize the images and take them out of the city, thereby asserting their dominance over the place and demonstrating the deity’s inability to defend his worshipers against attack. Furthermore, temples were storehouses for valuable objects and metals, as well as for grain.

attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. Technically, the slaughter of the population and the torching of the city looks like the application of the “ban” mandated by Yahweh (). However, this was common practice in ancient Near Eastern warfare. Total destruction of a city is not always an expression of the “ban” and the theology associated with it. Archaeological excavations at Laish indicate the city was destroyed by a massive conflagration in the mid-eleventh century BC, leaving a layer of ash and rubble two to four feet (0.6 to 1.2 meters) thick in some places. Whether those remains point to the events described here is uncertain.

The Danites rebuilt the city. Accords with the archaeological evidence, which suggests that despite the total destruction of the city people continued to occupy it. The walls of the previous occupation continued in use and the material culture continued without appreciable change.

the house of God was in Shiloh. For some time prior to the establishment of the monarchy Shiloh functioned as the religious center for the nation (; ), being home to the tabernacle, which housed the ark of the covenant law. Excavations at Shiloh have identified a couple of possible places on the site where the installation may have been (see note on ).

concubine. See note on .

he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there. This account is all about hospitality, an extremely important ancient Near Eastern value. The fact that the man feasted with his father-in-law for three days indicates that whatever the cause of the tension between the man and his concubine, unlike Samson’s case, the relationship between husband and father-in-law appears not to have been strained. On the contrary, the latter is portrayed as a model of hospitality, exceeding even the Near Eastern standards honored by Abraham in .

Gibeah. It is not clear whether Gibeah of Benjamin should be identified with modern Tell El-Fûl, a northern part of the ridge that includes the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus north of Jerusalem, or Jaba’, some 5.6 miles (9 kilometers) north of Jerusalem. In either case, having left too late in the afternoon to reach home in one day, this party of travelers is forced to seek a place to spend the night. In order to avoid contact with the Jebusites, they would probably have taken the road around the west of Jerusalem, and then through Anathoth and on to Gibeah.

city square. Its presence in Gibeah assumes some town planning, if not a defensive wall and a gate entrance. The town square was typically located just inside the city gates. The square provided space for events that involved the whole community: a marketplace for merchants, a rallying place for political leaders, a gathering place for religious festivities. On a normal day, all the residents would pass through the square and through the gate in the morning on the way to work out in the fields, and would return through the gate and square in the evening. In times of crisis the gates would be closed to traffic at night in order that all should be safe. The present travelers assumed that, as the residents returned and passed by them, surely someone would invite them to their home for the night. The square is the last place a visitor would choose to spend the night; the Levite’s predicament demonstrates the general inhospitability of the town.

After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. These are all important elements of ancient hospitality (cf. ; ). Like their neighbors, ancient Israelites either went barefoot or wore leather sandals. In either case, to wash a guest’s feet was a welcoming convention of hospitality, intended not only to remove the dust, but also to refresh the visitor after a hot and dusty trip. The meal served two purposes: to nourish the guests and to express solidarity with them.

Bring out the man . . . so we can have sex with him. Information on homosexuality in the ancient world outside the OT is sketchy. In Mesopotamia, the disposition toward male homosexuals ranged from toleration to contempt to outright prohibition. It seems that in the broader ancient Near East the religious community was most tolerant toward homosexuality; this is especially true with respect to those involved in the worship of Ishtar. Apparently, people viewed homosexuality with contempt because such acts did not serve the purpose of having children, and thus contributed nothing to the community. Hittite laws categorize illegal sexual couplings along with bestiality, intercourse with one’s mother, daughter or son, with one’s stepmother while one’s father is living, with one’s sister-in-law while one’s brother is living or with a free woman and her mother or her sister. In demanding to have sexual intercourse with the Levite, the residents of Gibeah, these “wicked men” violate three fundamental social/moral laws: the law of hospitality, the proscription on intercourse outside of marriage, and proscription on homosexual intercourse, clearly laid out in the laws in the Pentateuch (; ).

here is . . . his concubine. The Levite’s concubine is a legal extension of him and should be protected by the same standards of hospitality. In offering her, the Ephraimite is abandoning his role as host. The situation here is comparable to that in : in both accounts the host is saved by his guests (where the opposite should be true), but the resolution created by Lot’s guests is far more desirable ().

took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. No parallels to this course of action are found in the ancient Near East. The closest Biblical analogue to this horrific scene is found in , where Saul cuts up his team of oxen and sends the pieces throughout the land of Israel as a symbolic act to coerce people to enlist in his army. There the messengers who delivered the pieces to their intended destination expressly declared the significance of the action: “This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel.” The effect is to strike divine terror on all the people, causing them to turn out in full force. Our text offers no such interpretation, expressing only the shocking effect of the Levite’s action on the population of Israel.

from Dan to Beersheba. This is the first occurrence of this merismic geographic definition of the territory of Israel, spanning a distance of about 160 miles (257 kilometers). This stereotypical phrase reflects the narrator’s own perspective of the nation of Israel as an ideal state consisting of all 12 tribes and occupying all the land promised to the ancestors.

assembly of God’s people. The expression “God’s people” usually points to the nation of Israel as a community of people united in their religious allegiance to Yahweh, but here indicates the perception of Israel as a vassal community covenantally committed to Yahweh. The proceedings that follow include the presentation of evidence by a witness (the Levite, vv. ), the call for a verdict (v. ), the announcement of the sentence (vv. ), the preparations for the execution of the sentence (v. ) and the effort to arrive at a negotiation resolution with the community to which the offenders belonged (vv. ). These represent essential elements of an ancient legal process. four hundred thousand men armed with swords. The Hebrew specifies these troops as “foot men,” in contrast to cavalry or charioteers, like Sisera’s forces in , . The Israelites’ economy and organizational structures had not developed enough to produce a more sophisticated military force. Like many other numbers in the book, 400,000 seems inordinately high (see note on ). Whether the key word is interpreted as “thousand” or the contingents mustered by individual clans (in comparison with the numbers in ; ), since they had entered the land, the population of Israel had fallen by one-third since they left Egypt.

decided by casting lots. Whereas in the narrator intimates that the tribes had inquired of Yahweh directly to see who was to lead the attack against the Canaanites, here there is no reference to Yahweh, only the method by which his reply will be determined: the lot. The use of the lot is required in the absence of a leader, who would normally have chosen his troops. This kind of divination, which assumed that the gods determined the way the lots fell (), was widespread in the ancient Near East, though the forms it took varied greatly. Active forms included lots, rhabdomancy (throwing arrows or sticks in the air and observing the pattern when they landed), and hydromancy (observing the color patterns of oil poured on water). While forbade most forms of divination for the Israelites, in the Urim and Thummim, which were to be manipulated by the priest, they possessed a divinely sanctioned form of divination (; see the article “

”). This will probably be the case in vv. , where Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, will be involved, but here there is no mention of the priest or these sacred lots.

Although all the numbers in this verse seem inflated, the present proportion of one tenth of the force being assigned supply duty finds a close parallel in a report from Mari that notes that in a force of 12,000 troops 1,000 were appointed to transport food.

twenty-six thousand swordsmen. On the large number, see notes on v. ; . The decline in Benjamin’s military force since the exodus (cf. [35,400 men]; [45,600 men]) is proportional to the drop in Israel as a whole.

left-handed. See note on . could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. See note on .

twenty-two thousand Israelites. On the seemingly high number, see note on .

ark of the covenant of God. This is the only reference to the ark of the covenant law in Judges. It seems the Israelites had brought the ark to Bethel from Shiloh, presumably to function as a palladium, a symbol of God’s presence and “good luck charm” in the battle against the Benjamites. A likely analogue is found in , where the ark is brought up to secure victory for the Israelites after a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Philistines. If this comparison is sound, the Israelites treated the ark like their neighbors treated the images of their deities—as a physical and magical symbol of Yahweh’s protective presence as they engaged the enemy in battle.

All the towns they came across they set on fire. This extreme policy toward conquered peoples has some similarities to the herem-style action that designates cities, including their plunder and animals, ineligible for human use and their people as not to be assimilated lest they corrupt the Israelite population. The action is not always punitive, but here it is. On this policy in ancient warfare and in Israel, see article “

”

an oath. This is the first reference to an oath in the book. In the ancient world, oaths and curses were thought to derive their potency through people’s appeals to the gods to guarantee by divine sanction that promises made in agreements would be fulfilled. Accordingly, although breaking an agreement could pose a legal problem to be resolved by the courts, through their own agents the gods meted out punishment for perjury. An oath typically spelled out the consequences that would be experienced by the person who swore it in the form of self-imprecation. The deities appealed to in oaths were those of one’s own city or country. Since the Israelites had “assembled before the LORD in Mizpah” () and “before the LORD” (), we may assume that Yahweh was invoked as the guarantor of the present agreement. This is confirmed later in v. . The commitment to which they bound themselves is stated in the next clause of v. .

twelve thousand fighting men. On the seemingly high number, see note on .

annual festival. The Hebrew term used here is a generic term for any periodic pilgrimage festival, but which specific festival is in mind is not clear. According to , all Israelite males were required to appear before Yahweh in the place that he would approve and establish as his authorized cult site three times a year: (1) the Passover and Festival of Unleavened Bread, (2) the Festival of Weeks (also known as the Festival of Harvest) and (3) the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering). Only adult males were obligated to attend these festivals (; ), though women and children were also welcome (, ).

young women of Shiloh. This expression suggests a special professional class of female dancers associated with the religious institution of Shiloh. The inspiration for such religious personnel and such activity may well have come from Canaanite religious customs, which often involved women. In the Late Bronze Age at Emar, in Syria, the great festivals were headed by the high priestess and involved several additional classes of priestesses. While the regulations concerning worship in Israel freely admitted women and children to participate in the festivals (; ), and the narratives occasionally highlight the role of women in celebrative dance (), the ritual of Yahweh at the tabernacle and later the temple never involved women in priestly roles. This annual festival may have simply involved cultic dance in joyful celebration of Yahweh, especially if this “annual festival” (v. ) is one of the three festivals obligatory for all males (see note on v. ). The instructions to the Benjamites to “hide in the vineyards” (v. ) may suggest a festival of thanksgiving for the grape harvest, which would be characterized by revelry, music and dance. Shiloh. See note on .

↑ Back to top