H. Winckler (Gesch. Israels, Bd. i. (1895), p. 34) admits first that the Song ( Jg 5) goes back to the pre - Davidic era, because ' it knows nothing of Judah.' But he adds that 'the form in which the Song has come down to us is a product of a much later age, which transfonned it for its own ends, and made of it something quite different from what it originally was.' On what grounds does he rest this judjjiment? AU that he says is, ' vv."- are manifestly an interpolation, and form the beginning of a Ijymn to Jahweh which has nothing whatever to do with the Song of Deborah. Also v.** belongs to tlie same.' It is clear, he says, that the Song is a compound from a hymn to J" which is full of liiytliolugical allusions ('the stars fought'), and from a i>iece intended to glorify a battle fought by tlie NiirlLein tribes. It would scarcely be possible to I'm J weaker arguments than these. Are vv.*'- ' inanifestly ' an interpolation ? Was it not natural tlial ilie wirds ' 1 will sing praise to the Lord God of Israel ' (v.') should be actually followed by some Iinl•^' In praise of this God? Was it not natural lliiii Ml t lie lieginning of a poem meant to celebrate
''""" "■ thftt rid trac« of such a text has been preserved in
e», .. ti- iriMliLoii 'see Kdnig's Syntax, § 261a) is a formidable
:)bjt;. in II
a notable action of the Deity, there should be a recalling of a well-known manifestation by which Jahweh established His renown ? Would it have been more natural if, after tlie mention of the determination to praise the Deity (v.'), the Song had proceeded ' in the days of Shamgar,' etc. ? (v.'>). Further, the wish 'so perish all tliine enemies, J" I' (v.") could not, it is said, be uttered bj- a pre- Davidic poet. But must not a poem on a decisive defeat of the northern Canaanites quite naturally burst into such a wish ? Consequently Winckler has by no means established his contention, and the poem contained in Jg 5 remains one of the most important sources for the earliest history of Israel.
(i) Another ancient source for the present Bk. of Jg is found springing up in the first chapter. In favour of this judgment is first of all the primary character of the tradition that ' Urusali- mu ' belonged to the sphere of the Benjamitea (Jg V\ Dt 33" contrasted with Jg I', Jos IS**). The following circumstance is at the same time not to be overlooked. What is the meaning of the words 'with the Benjamites' in the sentence ' and the Jebusites dwelt with the Benjamites in Jerusalem unto this day'? {1'^''). The meaning must be ' within the territory of the Benjamites,' i.e. in the sphere which was assigned to the Ben- jamites as object of the conquest, and was also in the main actually occupied (cf. ' the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land,' 2 S 5« || 1 Ch 11"). This sense is suggested for the words ' with the Ben- jamites' by several considerations, one negative and several positive. In the first place, im- mediately before P"" it is remarked, 'and (= hut) the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem.' The direct con- sequence of this failure of the Benjamites in their attack on the Jebusites (l'^'*) was that tlie Jebusites dwelt alongside of the Benjamites in Jerusalem (v.-"*). Further, the Jebusites are called simply 'the' inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jos 15''^, Jg 1-^'), and Jehus is simply identified with Jerusalem (c^il'n; N'ri d<3; Jg 19^°, Jos 18-*, or- conversely in 1 Ch 11"). Again, in the remark that the Le\'ite (Jg 19'°^') was in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (v.'o), the latter is called simply ' this city of the Jebusites' (ig"""), and it is expressly added that it was ' the city of a stranger that was not of the children of Israel' (19'^). In any case the author of 1" did not record merely tne failure of the Benjamites to concjuer Jerusalem. Had this been all, he might in his account of the period of the judges have passed over in silence the victory of the Judahite David (2S 5"^') and yet have written after this victory. Nc, he must nave added that the Jebusites were the — sole — inhabitants of Jerus. down to his own day. Ncv, it is quite true that even after David's victory (2 S 5"-) Jebusites con- tinued to live in Jerusalem (24"*- "). But at that period the Jebusites were no longer ' the ' inhabit- ants of Jerusalem (see above), but were oppressed (1 K 9=", Zee 9'). But also most of the other portions of Jg 1 are trustworthy reflections of an ancient situation. For it was very natural that in later times there should be a disposition to represent the success of Joshua's invasion as absolute (see below, 8 a, on Jos U'"""). All the more do the narratives which record the defeats sustained by Israel in their attacks upon the Canaanites, bear the stamp of antiquitj'. This is confirmed by the wealth of details in the first chapter regarding individual occurrences of this kind which cannot be traced to a certain or prob- able tendency of later times.