(e) Only legind, and nut mythology, has played a rOle in the lilling out of the history of Samson. Traces of the so-calltx! ' Vr/.k-lore ' are iirobably to be found, e.g., in the ti»i7ty men (14'"), the 300 jackals (15*), and the lUOO men ,v.'") whom he slew with the jawbone ..f an ass. Nay, it is not im)>roliabIe that this exoloit of Samson and the name linmath-l'/ii, i.e. 'height of jaw,' are con- nected with each other. liather nmy this deed of Samson's have been simply placed here, for the localizing activity of popular tradition shows it-self elsewhere, or the narrative of the deed may even have been occasioned by the name of the plai'e. The same is probably the case with the story of 'En-kttkkOrc (lo'"'), m which the two homonyms kurc", ' partridge,' and kure', ' caller,' appear to be mixed up. Ihit, all the same, the .Samson narra- tives are no prmluct of mylUnlngy. The mytho- logical explaining away of the jierson of Samson La discountenanced even by M. \ ernes {Ifist. juive,
• The 8cntcno« ' the foundiktiotu of heaven moved * (2 S 22**) 1> changed into 'the foundations of tlio hxllt mo\'e(l'(l*B xtflx B(>o, in ffenenU, regarding such altvrationa of parmllel C«xt«, K >nig'B EinUitufuj, pp. 7ttf., s*2 IT.
p. 238 f.); t.:.d as we have quoted from him several statements which appear to be unfounded, it ia hut right that we should quote a passage of which we can thoroughly anprove. He says, ' I'interpri- tation mythologique de I'histoire de Samson dchoue an port ; sans compter qu'on ne salt trop comment y fiiire rentrer I'aventure du lion et de I'essaim d'abeilles, des chacals, de la niAchoire, de la porte de Gaza, c'est-il-dire ee qui pr^cfcde les ruses et le succfcs do Dalila, le Samson du dernier Episode ne saurait 6tre tenu pour le jeune soleil du printemps. S'il se sert, en effet, du retour de sa vigueur pour triompherde ses adversaire8(lest6nfcbres, I'hiver?), il succombe lui-mfime sous cet effort, et si les deux piliers du temple doivent 6tre tenus pour les colon- nes d'Hercule, elles sont mises a une trfes mauvaise place.'
7. The Author of the Book.— The nuthor of Jg is not named in the book itself. In the Talmud (Baba bnthra 14'') it is said, ' Samuel wrote (or edited [the sense of the verb kCithub is examined in Kdnig's EinUitung, p. 445]) his book and the Bk. of Jg and the Bk. of Ruth ' (cf. Marx-Dalman, Traditiu rabbinorum veterrimn, p. 14). Similarly in Dikdiihe ha-teamim, p. 57, it is .said, n'3:.t Vkjcc nni D'cDic' -iDoi iiED 2nD r\-y\iH nji. But the tradi- tion which becomes fixed in liaba batlira 14 f. is of such late origin, and contains .such absolutely im- possible elements (see the whole passage in Konig's Einleitutig, p. 445 f.), that on these grounds alone no weight can be attached to it. But it is further shown bv the above (No. 6) discussion to be an impossible position.
8. The Spirit of the Book and its place IN THE History of Re\'elation.— Of more im- portance is it to examine the spirit that pervades the 15k. of Jg, to draw the picture wliich, framed in this book, exhibits to us a momentous period in the development of Israel. What are the leading features ol this picture?
(a) The period of the judges was a time of local settlement and pAyi'iV at sel f-a.s.sert ion on the part of Israel. When this people had shaken off the Egj'ptian yoke — which the Israelites can never have invented as a factor in their history — and were on the point of conqusring the homeland of their forefatiiers, they encountered a uniformly violent opposition. Nevertheless, it is unquestion- able that the Israelites under Joshua's leadership gained some fundamental victories. The positive tradition to this etl'ect (Jos 6-11) is not upset bj' any statement to the contrary effect.
'I'lie story of the defeat of the northern Canaan- ites (Jos 1 !'••") may contain some natural hyper boles {e.g. 'neither left they any to breathe')", out when these are set aside, the narrative is not set a.side. Further, the statements, ' nevertheless the children of Israel expelled not the Geshurites," etc. {.los 13" lu'"-'"" l(i'" 17"-'" IS'"- 23*"), and the parallel statements of Jg l'""- presuppose that the foundation was laid for the conquest of Caniutn, otlierwi.se they would have neither motive nor meaning. These statements add nothing but this, that in the time of Joshua, irithin the conquered kingdoms, many districts still retained their inde- pciuleiice. The inter|K>sing of these sentences shows also in what sense the partiticm of tiic land is to be understood (Jos IS'"-). The territories wliich were assigned to the different tribes are thought of not as places of quiet possession, but rather as meant to be completely sulidued. The sense of .los Ui'"'* etc., is not that ' la terre promise est consiiU^rce commo une table ra.se' (M. Vernes, Es.<!iiis bibli'/iiis, n. 297). Finally, neitlur in Jos 14'"" nor ill ,Ig 1'*- is tlio idea containeil that the ilillerent tribes of Isr.iel only in an i.tnlat'-d fashion made tlicir attacks upon Canaan (liudde, liif/it. u. Sam. 1890, p. 84. lldcomm. 1897, p. 2). Budd«
820
JUDGES, BOOK OF
JUDGING
himself adniita (,ad loc.) 'the remote possibility' that in Jg 1" ' a short word about Ai has fallen out. This 'word about Ai,' however, has not fallen out, nor was it a 'short' one (cf. Jos ''"■ 8'"**). It is a Krouiidless assertion tliat the record of Jg 1 ' excludes ' the narrative of the Bk. of Jos, and that the Jg narrative is the ' older ' (Budde, 1897, p. 2. Charles Piepenbring [ffist. 1898, p. 69] accepts but does not prove this thesis). If the narrative of Jg li»^'>- «■ »•» etc. (Budde, 1897, p. xxii), had been the older and the only correct one (Budde, p. 2), how then could Judah speak of ' his lot'?(l'). 'The narrative, according to v.', pre- supposes an earlier division by lot of the yet un- conquered land,' as Budde himself (p. I) has to notice ; and Charles Piepenbring says (p. 75) on Jos IS'"*- •■"' : ' Nous y rencontrons une nouvelle