Referring again to the arrangement of the Bk. of Jg, it is interesting to note the ancient division of tlie Massoretic sections (Baer, Josua et Jud. p. 125). These are fourteen, and they begin with the following verses of the book : 1' 2' (nnv'i) 3"
• 'The days of the judpes ' are mentioned in Ru 11, but parsed over in silence between 1 Ch 9+* and lOi, and ben-Sirach's only allusion to them is in the two verses Sir 4611'"-. Cf. the words of Justin (Hist, xxxvi. ii. 7) : ' Post Mosen etiam Alius eius Aruas, sacerdos sacris .^^{^yptiis, mox rex creatur, semperque exinde hie mos apud Judaos fuit, ut eosdem reges et sacerdotea haberent, quorum institia religione permixta incredibile quAi turn coaluere.'
JUDGES, BOOK OF
JUDGES, BOOK OF
811
(i-nnKi) 6' 7' 8* (•)! pm kti) 9' ('Ji n-ri) 10' (■:! cp'i) IP^ (•:i nns- 13V1) 14' (oi psbi? ni) IG' ('ii vti) 18' ('Ji oVi) 19^ (B»'»(.T TDK'i), and with SF ('Ji iVusii). It will be observed that several of these beginnings (e.g. 14' instead of 13') are not without much interest.
4. The Inner Hahmonv, or the Unity op THE Book. — (a) In 1' it is recorded that the mem- bers of the tribe of Judah took Jerusalem ; but according to 1'-' this city lay in the sphere of the Benjaiiiitos, and by no means can we agree that ' doubt less the autlior wrote Judah' ( Moore, ad loc. ). For, since at a later period the Judahite David conquered the city of tlie Jebusites (2 S 5"), and since, after the so-called disruption of the kingdom, Jerusalem was the capital of the kingdom of Judah, it was natural to reckon Jerusalem to the territory of the Judnhltrs. Hence there must liave been a reliable tradition that Jerus. originally belonged to the sphere of tlie Benjaraites, else it would not have been in Jg l'" a.ssigncd to Benjamin (this also against IJudde, ad loc). Further, it is quite an unwarranted assertion that in 1" on account of its diirerence of form ' the continuation of the n.iu hi.story is to be found, whose beginning was still read by Josephus ' (.Mez, I.e. p. 11). That is to say, Josephus makes the remark, \avavaXoi , . . T/)5 'loi'Sa ipuXij^, Tijf 'AtTKdXojj'a Kal 'AKKapcjva TraptairdffavTO &\\as re iroXXAj tuii/ iv ti^ -mdiip Kal Aafiras eis rd 6pos rjvdyKaffav avfupir^itv {Avt. V. iii. I). But Mez lias not noticed that the dp/iara and the ireSior, k.t.X., previously mentioned by Josephus, point to 1""" as the source of his words quoted above.
(6) The two sections I'-2° and 2?"- were not written by one author as parts of one and the same work. For 1' begins by mentioning the death of Jo-shua, but 2* mentions .something that h.appened wliile he was still alive, nVf';i (ita! ((air^aTaXcv ; Hioron 'dimisit ergo') referring in its present context to the assembly of the people in 2*. Neither can we say with 1'. Cas.sel, ad loc, tliat the author meant to ' quote ' the words of Jos 24^, nor is the iniperf. consec. meant as a plusnuamperfect (Keil, act loc). (See a discussion of all the analo- gous instances in Konig's Sijntitx, § 142). Hence, not the original sense of tlie passage 2''"- but only its present position may be explained as follows : the lirst section (l'-2'') is meant to show why the internal enemies of Israel continued after the death of Joshua, and the second to explain why Israel during the same (jeriod was beaten hy foreign foes. This intention of the section 2*"- appears to reveal itself especially in the expressions employed in 2""- (cf. 3'). It is not till 3" that the Bk. of Jg returns to the mention of internal foes of Israel, on whose account no shOphHim were raised up (2'"). Hence it appears to the present writer that the new section begins with 3* and not with 3' as is now generally assumed. Further, 2'" is not in contradiction with 3" (1", Jos 15"), if Kenaz wa.s the brother of Caleb ; and this is not only possible but even almost probable, becau.se in 1" 'the younger,' etc., stands nearer to 'brother' and ' Kenaz ' than to 'Othniel.' If so, Othniel wa.s a nephew of Caleb and did not belong to the genera- tion of Joshua ; and the KtWai'Diii-oMa which is read in Jos. Ant. v. iii. 3 (ed. Niese) is not ' the earliest of all the ingenious attempts that have been made to reconcile 3" with 2'°' (.Mez, l.r. p. 12).
(c) There are irreconcilable ditlerences, too, within the history of Deborah and Barak. F'or in 4''' there is mention only of ' the king of Canaan,' but in 5" of ' kings of Canaan.' F'urthor, accuiding to 4*- '" Barak collected his army only from the two trilH-s of Naphtali and Zebuliin, but acconliiig to o'*"' warriors joined him also from the tribes of Kph- raini, Benjamin, etc. On llie other hand, the sleep of bisera (4-') appears to the pruaent writer to bo
presupposed also in 5" (cf. w.'"''- "•), and ita express mention seems to be omitted merely owing to poetic brevity. Otherwise it would "be iia- probable that a woman should have slain the warrior. Budde says, of course, that ' 5" showa that Sisera was .struck while standing' ; but this interpretation overlooks the words, ' where he bowed there he fell' {S^^?\.