(d) To an RP, i.e. a redactor having afUnitiea with the priestly stratum of the Pent., Budde (p. xxii) assigns the following passages in Jg :
Jla. i217 'y2-8a. 15. !«•. -|- K glOa;3b. 21bJ. jyajb (30-321 gl6b-19a/91 lQl-6 111b. J 127b/?). »-lt IgSlb OQ'" (?)• ^ (?)"''• '*'*• ""^
t By an asterisk Budde means to indicate that be regardB the passage in question as having been worked over.
JUDGES, BOOK OF
JUDGES, BOOK OF
813
s».42b. «.44b-«oi4.,M4b.i9.j.3o. x>„t regarding l^** he remarks merely thiit the words ' after the deatli of Joshua' are in direct contradiction to ^f"-. Yet this does not prove tliat these words are due to a redactor (K^). As little certainty appears to attach to tlie attributing of 2" to this source. For ;: >irii '''' ' they did not so,' reminds us not only ' strongly of V ' (namely Gn 0-" etc. ), but one ma}' compare also Gn 29-» 42-«-^ 45-', Ex 1' etc., 1 K 20^, 2 K 15'-, Jer 39'' 42», Zee 1", Neh 8". Fur- ther, on 7'-** Budde remarks (p. 58) that >)■!» 'try' (Jg 7*), comes into use for the first time from Jer O" onwards, and that the suffixlesw n?; (7°) haa parallels only in Ex 26' 3G' (this last should be '«), Zee 12'--". But in Jg 7° it is not the usual idea 'alone' {solus) that is meant to be expressed, but the stronger idea of 'apart' (LXX (tori /i6ras, Hieron. seorsum). Again, 7", which contains o used for the relative, is ascribed by Budde to R*", but in the Pent, stratum P this e is not found.
One might continue to criticise the views of Budde (cf. once more Kbnig's Einldtting, jip. 253 f.).* But we cease to test these in detail, and add merely a general remark. Budde says (p. xiv) that by J and E he understands, not persons, but schools.f But this was not the sense ori":inallj' intended by the terms J and E, and the earlier meaning is not quite obsolete even with Budde. For he speaks still of the 'Zeitalter der Quellen J and E,' and places these sources in relation to the Ilexateuch (p. xii). But according to his new view one ought to speak in the plural of 'J's' and ' E's,' and no longer of 'J' or 'K' (Budde, p. xiii), as if there were only 'the' Jah- wist ; we should say 'a' J(ahwist), etc. But far more important is the circumstance that upon the theory of a plurality of Jahwists the dilliculty of tracing the family likeness is very seriously increased. Who has fixed the character of each J, and who can determine it? Then, indeed, is there a danger that such a J is an imaginary quantity, and that one still speaks of J but no longer fuis him. In any case the judgment of the present writer'is to tlie following effect. Since the diirerent sources from which, according to No. 4 of this article, the present Book of Judges is drawn, cannot be with certainty identified with the main strata of the Pentateuch, nothing results from tlie relation of Jg to these regarding the age of the materials of which Jg appears to be com- posed, or regarding the date of the book itself.
6. The Ciiaractf:r and Aok of the Souhces OF the Book of Judoe.s.— (a) If any one of the components of the present Bk. of Jg is an imle- pendent whole, ana reveals it.self as a source, it IS the Poem in which the victory over Shera in celebrated (Jg 5). Its verses go tumbling on, foaming like the waves of the Kishon (5-'). ui>on ■whose banks that victory was gained. Like the gallop of war-horses (5-'^) ring the anai>hora (vv.»'-"'i2^»'), the epizeuxis ('■■»-="'), and the eymploke ('•••*''', cf. '»»«,3- '"»*3) in this poem, towards removing whose difficulties the present writer has contributed his part, he trusts not quite unsuc- cessfully in his Syntax (cf. p. 645). This song gives so detailed (vv.'-'»*- "•'»") and so lively a picture of the historical situation (vv."*-"-*-") which is commomorated in it, that it must have been torn of that situation, even if it has not come down to us quite intact. This is the jndg- • W. Frinkoiibir„' (i/i< ' iiinponlion ilrt dnitrronom. HiMrr- Inii-tin, ISO.'., p. 1) rciimrkii. 'A dwinr liiiili,'ht into the orit-lna) corilents and the hi«tori(!ul oriirin of the Ilk. of J« is •ntticirnt of luicit lo coiiviiRo one of Ihc fvitililv of llie utlcmiila tli»t «re fur bi'init mmlf ofn-uli to liuiUI u literary liri<l({o Ulwicn till' llcxateucli and our Ilk. of Jk, »nd to discover the rmuro** of liie MfX- in tlu- latter '
t'J iind E •iikI niir duruhkiii niclit Perionen, eondcrn un)f.u««eiide, Meljeii eluAiMler herUufende •chri(t«t«llcriacho iJL-liulcn.'
ment rightly passed upon it even by su h free critics as, e.g., Th. Noldeke {Untersuch. z. Kritik d. AT.Ti. 181), H. Steiner (die llcb. Poesie, 1873, p. 24), Ed. Meyer (Gesi-h. d. Alter/hums, i. § 107), B. Stade (Gesrh. /jr. i. 49), Aug. Miiller (in Kdnigs- berger Studien, 1887, p. 7), E. Kenan (Hist, du pevple d'Israel, i. 136), J. Wellhausen (Comp. d. Hex. p. 23), H. Comill (Einleitung, § 16, 3), G. Moore (Judges, p. 132 f.), J. Marquart (Funda- mente, etc., 1896, p. 2), K. Budde (Comm. p. 39), Ch. Piepenbriiig (Hist, du peuple d'Israel, 1898, p. 85 : ' ce vicux cantique ').