the view that the passages in question in the Bk. of Jos are borrowed from Jg 1 (Bertheau, Coin- mentnr', pp. 3, 37 f., 42) is, in the tirst place, unnecessary. For the circumstance that those passages in Jos have an ' inorganic ' position in their context is explained as well by the view contended for above, that a common source of older origin is used in both books. But the view of Bertheau labours under at least one positive difliculty. In Jos 13'^ we find the same formula used, and yet this remark is not drawn from Jg 1. To the JnhiDistic source Budde (p. xxii) would attribute also, e.g., &^^ and ll'», althou^di in these sentences the expression gibhOr Iiayil (AV 'a mighty man of valour ') is read. This expression is uniformly avoided in the Pent. (cf. the simple gihbCir in Gn 6* 10*'- T), but it meets us in Jos 1" 62 8» 10', Jg 6" 111 etc. (cf. Konig, Syntax, % 267d). Winckler ( Untersiichungen zur n/torient. Geschichte, 1893-1897) sjieaks of the 'Quellen-Zu- sammensetzungderGideon-Erzahlungen'(pp. 4211'.), and linds, e.g., 7'""and7"-8^ irreconcilable, because it is impossible that Gideon could have played the spy upon the Midianites (V"-) and yet have attacked them in the beginning of the middle watch (7'»). But all that is related in 7""- might take place in a matter of four hours. The main point, however, is that Winckler adds (p. 49), ' Having thus to assume two different sources for the two narratives, it is most natural (!) to find in these E and J.' He thinks this suggestion is commended by the use in 7" of n-nSxri 'the God.' But he has not obser\ed that in 7"'' it is the words of a Midianite that are reported. — The three passages in which v is used as the relative (e'"" 712b s2«i,)_^ notable idiom of the history of Gideon —Budde (p. xxii) assigns thus, to J sK to E 6"^ to R'' V (see below), only in the notes to the first two ]iassages he sets these also down, on account of the c*, as additions of a glossator. Also 11* belongs, according to Budde, to J, and yet the
concept of * a.sscmble themselves' is expressed only in this passage by opSn.n ; cf. )2Cnj, etc., Gn "29^ 34*" (both taese passages are assigned to J also in Kautzsch's AT), Ex 32''" (.) also according to Kyssel, Ex-Lv, 1897, p. 370). Further, IS'"'" is from J, according to Budde (pp. xxii, 92). But in those iiortions of the Pentateuch which ara attributed to J, 'jv' is used before the objects enumerated, Gn 9«'' 19' (27») 34", Ex 4» etc. (seei Kdnig, Syntax, § 311c), but d-j;* before such ob- jects is found nowhere but in Ex 25'*, Dt 17', Jos 2' 6" Jg ll"-"' 15" etc. (see ^.c).
(A) Can the ElohUtic stratum (E) of the Pent, be traced in the Bk. of Jg? Budde has, to begin with, assigned 2'-"'- to E (also '2' is = Job 24"', but as a whole it is ascribed by Budde [p. 21] to the Deut. redactor). This is correct in so far as the verses named are substantially identical with Jos 24'*''''', and that Jos 24 has indeed marks of the source E has been acknowledged by the present writer in his Einleitung (pp. 203 f., 248). The words of Jg 2*"' attach themselves to the Elohistic narrative of Joshua's end. But this does not prove that the Elohistic source has also supplied other elements in the Bk. of Jg. Budde attributes to this source, e.g., 4*"-', appealing (p. 33) to n;x ns-jj (4* ; see the analogous expressions in Konig's Syntax, § 306o), etc. But he himself adds the judicious remark that he does not feel certain of his inference. At all events the use of tipo in 4' (where AV offers rightly 'draw') cannot be re- garded as evidence. For even if Ex 12-' could be certainly put down to E, the d'?;'D of Jg 5" (active, ' grasping the staff [of the commander] ' — Konig, Syntax, § 212h ex. ; LXX fXxoi-Tfs ; Targ. and Pesh. yjnj, scribentes I) would have lieen a source nearer to hand for 4". Further, Budde assigns 20''" to E, but not v.*"" in spite of the "ira, which is found also in Job 21*^. To an autlior denominated E* he ascribes Jg 6'"'°. But, e.g., nnx Sy (6') is found, not only in Gn (S.amarit. 20^) 21"- «» 26'^, Ex 18», Nu 12' 13*", Jos 14«, but also in Jer 3*. Here then identity of expression does not prove iden- tity of authors.
(c) Is a successor of the Deuteronomic author who, e.g., wrote Dt l"-^*" etc. (see Konig's Ein- leitung, pp. 212-214) to be admitted also for the Bk. of Jg? The passages which repeatedly refer to Israel's disloyalty and Jahweh's anger, Israel's repentance and Jahweh's help (2"-'» 3" '^ 4'-" 6' gji-M 106-16 i3i)_ i,ave points of contact with the passages that are attributed with probability t" the Dent, author, not only in their religious and moral tendency, but even m their form. For the verb D-y:n ('to provoke or v^J\') is found with God as the object only in Dt 4« if") SI-'" (32'«-»i), Jg 2'», and the verb ix (*to se^! '=' deliver ') is read in Dt 28"" (nsonn) 32*', Jg 2''' (3") 4--» 10'. But the same use of O'vrn meets us also in 1 K 14" IS*" lQi.i.i3.M.a si'^ 22", 2K 17"-" 21« 23-", Is 65», Jer 7'"'- 8" 11" '2.5«'- 32-™'-»" 44"- », Ezk 8" 16-», Ps 78'>« 106», 2 Ch 28" 33" 3i^ (|| 1 K 22«, 2 K 17" '22"). Here again, then, this use of the verb O'v^^ is no guarantee of the identity of the author of Dt 4" etc. with the author of Jg 2'*. (Compare here the words of C. Niebuhr [Studien u. Bemerkungen z. Gesrh. d. alten Orients, 1894, p. 1], 'Die wirivliche Nothwendigkeit einer sachlichen Unterscheidung von Dt and D (oder gar D' and D^) vermdgen wir bisher nicht nach- zuempfinden ').