Lm ^l^mentA de son biatoire nous semblent, en consequence, apparteuir & una ^poque relativement peu ancienne.' But this is nearly the opposite of the real course of things. It is pre- cisely in olden times that heroes signalize themselves in single combat. Recall, for instance, the giant figures of the Greek world of legend, the heroes of Homer, or the giants of the G«rm&n pre-historic era.
of in Jg K'"- wandered from Judah to the territory of Ephraim, etc., but after the time of Jeruboain many members of the tribe of Levi, on tlie contrary, moved from the territories of the Northern tribes to the kingdom of Judah (2 Ch 11"'). Finally, the note that the priests of the city of Dan were de- scendants of Moses (Jg 18"), must be borrowed from an ancient source. Later generations were so little disposed to invent such an item, that they sought rather to convert the name of Moses in this passage into Manasseh.
(S) But also the moral life of ancient Israel did not lack its characteristic aim and peculiar vigour. Even in early times Israel was conscious of a certain sum of moral principles, for we read, ' no such thing ought to be done in Israel ' : ' do not thou this folly,' and the like (cf. Gn 20" 34'^ Jg 1930 oo8b_ 2 S 13'=). And, since these principles of morality in the most central parts of Israelitish tradition are traced back to the time of Moses, why should we seek for a different origin for them ? la it at all probable, for instance, that thej' originated at periods which do not give themselves out as creative, but as secondary? Now these ancient principles of the morality of Israel lived in the conscience of this nation, and when they were trodden underfoot, as in the instance of Gibeali (Jg lO^"-), the voice of the moral conscience of the nation spoke out loudly (20'-''). Hence it is quite precarious to pronounce the storm of indignation that broke loose upon the Benjamites (v.""-) fictiti- ous. Finally, the assertion that in the time of the judges a ' common acting on the part of the twelve tribes of Israel is excluded' (Budde on chs. 19-21), is quite ungrounded. Nay, it has not yet been taken into account that the Song of S'"- contains an indirect proof to the contrary effect. For if in the period of the judges one could not entertain the notion that a common danger to Israel must be warded off by the common action of all the tribes, one could not have blamed those tribes which kept aloof from the struggle against the northern Canaanites ( Jg 5"-").
(e) There is a series of passages in the Bk. of Jg in which the declension of the national prosperity is brought into causal connexion with the religious and moral falling away of the people (cf. especially 21111. 37. i2» 41-8 61 s^s-" 10'-" 13'). It has been shown above (5 c) that these passages cannot with cer- tainty be attributed to a definite Deuteron. author, but we now add the following observations, by way of an attempt to fix positively the character and the age of tliese passages, (o) There was a religi- ous-moral consciousness on the part of Israel (cf. 6 d, S) before the period to which the origin of Dt is traced by a large number of critics, i.e. the reign of kiagJosiah. (j3) During tLe centuries that elapsed between Moses and Samuel, ' the knees which have not bowed unto Baal' (IK 19") were not quite wanting. Let us recall, for instance, Deborah and Gideon. (7) In addition to that series of pas- sages which now are assigned by several critics to a Deuteronomist (Budde's D^), are there not others in the Bk. of Jg in which the same causal nexus between religious unfaithfulness and national de- cadence is emphasized? cf. 2'"°. (5) May not such passages liave been formulated in the guilds of meij'im which gathered around Samuel? (1 S 10'"' etc.). {() Nor can it be denied that a kernel of farewell addresses of Moses existed before these assumed their present form in Dt (cf. Konig, Einleitung, pp. 214-216). (f) Those passages of Jg wliich are now by many scholars called Deutero- nomistic, are even in relation to their content! not really allied to the passages of the Books of Kings which have points of contact with Dt (1 K 3^- 11' etc.; see Konig, Einleitung, p. 267). For it La extremely interesting that in Jg the eav».
JUDGES. BOOK OF
JUDGES. BOOK OF
817
nant of J" ih luentiu.ied only in 2'- " and the com- mands o(' '" oaly in 2"- **, but these tliin<^8 are montioueil in 1 K 2= 3'-" 0'-'-^ gsi. m. m. .,i 94.6 llii.iBi.M 13S1 148 1SI8 1910. » 2K 10^' I32» 14" j-8. 13. i5t. i>. 34. S7I. is«. 13 ojs 22'" 23"- "■**'•. Fur- ther, the idea of the centralization of the cultus is not emphasized in that series of passages which it is usual to call Deuteronoiiiistic. No word of censure is uttered against the baiiUJth as in 1 K 3"- I5U (>oit.n 2K 12^ H"' 153'- »"• 18°-^ 23'- '•^. Besides, when the remark is made that U-" 'den Begriltdes Kicliter geschalTen hat' (Budde, p. xvi), in suiiport of wliich Jg 2" is cited, we miss nere a recollection of the words, ' since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel ' (2S7").