minor judges ? As the text (S"''"- '* etc., see above) shows, he has neither rejected the one nor sub- stituted the other, for the sum of the years of the foreign domination (71) and the sura of the years of the so-called minor Judges (70) are different (5) As little ground is there for the as.sumptior that the Bk. of Jg meant several incidents to be x)/nchronistic. The words ' he (the Lord) sold them into the hands of the Philistines and into the hands of the children of Amnion ' (10'), give only an appearance of right to the view tliat the in- v.osion of the Ammonites (lO*"- ll'"'-) and that of the Philistines (13'") occurred at the same time. But in truth it is recorded in the Bk. of Jg that the attack of the Ammonites which, following the statement of 10', is described in lO'"- 11'"'-, was warded oH' by Jephthah, that then came the judges Ibzan, etc. (i2'"'-), and that the people of Israel on account of new unfaithfulness were oppressed by the invasion of the Philistines. For the text reads, ' and the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord delivered them into the hand of the Philistines' (13'). Hence it is not the thought expressed in Jg itself (13M that is seized by Kessler, who, following Keil and others, again assigns to the same date the incidents related in 10'-12" and those spoken of in 13'"- (Chronol. iudicum, p. 29 f.). Now, the question might still arise, whether the order of events in the period of the judges was better knoAvn to the sour(!es of the Bk. of J g or to M. Vernes, who (p. 199) reproaches the ' auteur du livre des Juges ' with having placed ' bout ^ bout des ^vfenements qui no s'enchaiuent en aucune fa90n.' The present writer for his part prefers the order indicated in the Bk. of Judges.
(7) Little as the round numbers of the Bk. of Jg positively point to a very late date, this is as little the case with the expression i'l.ijn 01*53 or ny (18*'). It may indeed be somewhat bold to fissume pan as the original reading, and to hnd in this passage an allusion to the n'jj which indirectly is asserted of the 'aron, ' ark (of the covenant) ' in 1 S 4-"-. It is true that it is not precisely j^K of which the verb rhi is elsewhere predicateel. This may, however, be accidental, for n'73 has for subject not only the people (Is 5'', Am 1'), or Israel (Am 7"- ", 2 K 17" etc.), or persons in general (2 K 24-^ Mic 1', Ezk 12' etc.), but also Judah (Jer 13'9, La P, 2 K 25-' II Jer 52-"^ etc.), or a city, as ^jS-i (Am 5') or Jeru- salem (Jer P) or Damascus (2 K 16'). — Besides the period during which the descendants of Moses officiated as priests in Dan, in v." a period is named of the worship of Micah's graven image, namely, the period of the existence of the temple in Shiloh. There is no mention of this temple after the time of Eli (1 S 14'). In Ps 78»> the overthrow of Sliiloh is placed before the choosing of Mt. Zion (v."*), and from Jer 7"' " it cannot be inferred that it was laid waste during the AssjTian wars (Moore, p. 369). Hence there is not such a serious departure from reality when in DikdukS ha-teamim, % 70, it is said, 'on the day when Eli died, Shiloh was laid waste' (n're .imn •'^y n?y or). — What is now the meaning of the remark in v.", and why are the two dicta of v.*" and v.*' placed side by side ? In v." it must be intended to say tliat the end of the cult of the graven image of Micah stood in a causal connexion with the de struction of the sanctuary of J" at Shiloh, and the two notes of v.'*"- would best hanuonize if there was a reference to the destruction of the Shiloh sanctuary also in the words '11 niVi ny (v.*'). Now, let it be observed that Eli died when he heard that the ark of the covenant was taken (1 S 4"-^-). But if, in spite of all this, it remains uncertain whether in Jg 18** a statement which raised scruples was changed into an easier read-
JUDGES, BOOK OF
JUDGES, BOOK OF
819
ing (cf. the interpolated ] in v."),* yet the ex- pression 'until the day of the exile of the land' does not point furtlier down than the time when Tij,'latli-pileser ' toolc Kedesh, and Hazor, etc., and (ialilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria' (2 K lo-^), i.e. about B.C. 734. And if this is the meaning' of v.*', then from the period of time indicated in v.* a shorter period is selected in v.". For it was desired to add how long the cult of tlie graven image of Micah lasted, because this image was a principal subject in the preceding narrative.
(5) In the middle of the second episode of Jg (chs. 19-21), where, e.g., we read ' Jeuus which is Jerusalem' (19'", cf. 2 S S""), Wellhau-scn {Coinp. 233 11'. ) and some others discover a passage of very late origin, namely, 20'-21'*. What opinion are we to form of this ? Now, in any case, this section must have displaced another narrative, for between the end of ch. 19 and 21" there is a lacuna. But common action on the part of the Israelites was not impossible shortly after tlie death of Joshua. Let us consider, in addition to what has been said above (6 d, S), the story of the building of an altar beside Jordan (Jos 22""'-). Was this not a protest on the part of the Israelites settled on the eiist of Jordan against the idea of separation from their nation ? And does the unity of the Israelites, wliich shows itself in 1 S l-"- S*"- IP ('that we may send messengers unto all the coasts of Israel'), etc., ever appear as a new phenomenon ? The present writer believes that there are more traces of the unity of ancient Israel than are wont at present to be recognized by some scholars. Were there not ' elders ' in Israel before Samuel? (IS 8*"-). Could these not (hen assemble themselves on account of the un- heard of scandal perpetrated by a Uenjamite city (Jg 20'), as readily as in connexion with the choice of a king ? (1 tj S*"). It is quite true the expression miskkab Zdkhar (ci. ' that liath not lain by man') is found only in Nu 31'"'- and Jg 21'-'- ; but this is no proof of the late origin of the latter verse, for the expression in question had very probably also an earlier existence. Hence the judgment of the present writer is that not the section 2U'-21'^ as a whole, but only single elements in it bear a secondary character. Such elements are, above all, the round numbers like 4UO,U(IO (20"), and there is no department whore hyperbole more readily comes in than the department of numbers. We do not believe that tradition required many centuries^for IJudde's If wrote ' perhaps about the year 4(X)' (p. xvi) — in order to create these ligures.