(c) Now a similar dry enumeration of particulars is found also in the passages concerning Shamgar (33>), Tola (10"-), Jair (vv.s-»), Ibzan (12«-"'), Elon
JUDGES, BOOK OF
JUDGES, BOOK OF
815
(v.'"-). and 'Abdon (vv. •»•'»). Tlie modem view of these passaj;es is that they were lirst introduced into the Bk. of Jg at its linal redaction (Budde, p. X). What is there to allege in favour of this position ?
(a) It is said that this late redactor (K"", see above, 5 d) wished to obtain the number twelve for the judges (Budde, p. x). For ' in the light of 10' the sections 10''° and 12'''° recognize Abimelech also as a judge' (pp. ix, 19). Tims 'Abimelech, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, tlon, and 'Abdon were for If the minor judges.' But was Abimelech really reckoned one of tlie shGvhitim ? What is said in 10' '; ' And after Aliimelech there arose, to defend Israel, Tola,' etc. This implies, it is said, that Abimelech was reckoned among the ' judges ' or ' saviours ' of Israel. One miglit also say that this method of argumentation is typical of a certain modem school of historiography. The e.xpress statements of the sources are absolutely ignored, and new and extremely doubtful ones are sought out. For instance, is it not related in 8-^ and y- that the kind of rule (Vpo) which was declined by Gideon because Jahweh was the true king of Israel (Ex 15" 11*79: ^ii"). was desired by Abimelech ? Did not the latter surround himself with a body of armed men ? (9*- ®\ cf. Absalom 2 S 15'). Is it not expressly said that the men of Sheclieiu made Abimelech king (9") ; and is this not contirmed by tlie fable of Jotliam ? (y"'" ' the trees went forth to anoint a king,' etc.). Again, Abimelech is further called a ' prince ' (9^ X';i. ; cf. the corresponding ' tliat we should serve him ' w.^-^), but not a 'judge.' Nor does his history contain any trace of his having sought to free (V'B'i.n) Israel from the yoke of foreign enemies. All the less can the ' to deliver Israel ' (yrin^ SK-ifrn? 10') be referred to Abimelech. Further, it is extremely questionable whether a late re- dactor desired to establish twelve as the number of the judges. For not only is Samson, to whom 'delivering Israel' is attributed (13', cf. 14* 15'"'' Igai. so|_ counted amongst the judges (15* 16"),* but also Eli ( 1 S •t"'') and Samuel (7"). This could not be unknown to a later redactor of the Bk. of Jg. How then can the disposition be ascribed to him to make the number of the judges twelve ? Besides, Budde himself remarks that in the Bk. of Jg thirteen 'judges' are mentioned, if Abimelech as well as Shamgar is included in the number. But he is not so much inclined to give up Abimelech as Shamgar, in order to reduce the thirteen to twelve. This is quite an arbitrary procedure, for the attribute of ' delivering Israel w-liich belonged to the character of a sh6phe( (2") is ascribed to Shamgar (3") but not ii Abimelech. Or ia Sliamgar no real historical figure because in a series of MSS of the LXX and in the Itala (cf. Mez, die Bibel det Josephus, p. 81 not«) he is named not only in 3" but also after 16" » This vacillating of the textual tradition as to '.le right place for mentioning Shamgar is expl'.cable by reason of the ' and after him ' and the ' r'nilLstines.' But it does not disprove the hi.stori^ity of an Israelitish hero Sliamgar who came up>n the scene at a stonuy perio<l (5*).
(/j) Another ground on which the passages 10" ••• i2»-'»- '"•'>-'» are a.s»igned to a very late redactor (R""), ia the following : — In these five sections it is not recorded that Israel was false to its religion, and on that account ha<l to suffer oppression for a term of years, aud was delivered
* And thii not without reason, u U. Verne* (Ilitt. >uiM, p. tS7) Buppo*ed when he MUd, ' lAiMOna de c6U I'^tninKo pre- tention de DOUS (aire voir dan* Samson un Juge d'ltruul.' For from the words, 'the Lord raised up Judges, which delivered thfui out of the hand of tho«e that spoiled them ' (Jjf 2'<, cf. 1 8 ^»), it reaulu that liie trnn iMpMf had aasumad Iha mor* general sense of ' hero,' or * leader.'
from this by a hero. ' The extreme attenuation of the Deuteron. formula is exhibited in 3". There is mention, indeed, of an act of deliverance, but of no number of years' (Budde, p. 19). But what if those circumstances of wliich there is no notice did not exist, or were partly not remembered ? Can their ab.sence bring into question the historical character of the persons tliemselves ? In the section conceming Othniel (3"""), which by Budde and others is separated from the above six passages, are there any more real elements? It is quite true that something had ' faded,' but this was the recollection of those personages, and not t))e ' Deuteronomistic forraulse.' What could have prevented the introducing of those formulse even at a late period into the biography of the persons named. Hence the conclusion appeiirs more certain that it was not the 'formuhe' that were wanting, but the disposition to modify historical reminis- cences in accordance with these formul.-e. That has been handed down regarding those persons which was known of them, and this was not little : the name of the man himself and that of his father or his tribe, or it may be the place of his birth and his burial (ICf-' 12"'- '-">), or the remembrance of some notable deed done by him (3"), etc. Why should all this be set down to invention ! Not because of a wish to reach the number twelve for the judges, as we have seen already. Or was it, perchance, to give a judge to each tribe ? The tribes of the individual judges were as follows : Judah (Othniel 3»), nenjamin {K\md S"*;? Shamgar 3"), Naphtali (Barak 4»), Epkraim (Gideon 6"), Issachar (Tola 10'), Gilead (Jair 10^), tGileml (Jephthah II'), Judah (Ibzan 12»), Zebulun (Elon 12''), Ephraim ('Abdon 12'3), Dan (Samson 13-). One may observe that in this list some tribes occur twice, and that a few tribes are wanting altogether. If an explanation of the local origin of Uiese judges is to be sought for, it is most natural to find it in the circumstance that tho hero sprang up from the tribe which felt most tho weiglit of tlie invader's oppression. Fin.illy, how came poetic fancy and constructive historio^raphj- to distribute in their present fashion the six pas- sages 3" 10'"' 12"''' ? It is impossible for the present WTiter to consent to see in this arrangement simply an arbitrary procedure.