VI. Fetation to other Books of Scripture. — This is somewhat connected with the topics discussed under the preceding and foUoAving heads. The coincidences wth the two adjoining Biblical books, hov.ever, are so strik- ing as to call for a distinct notice.
\. Relatio7i to the Booh of .Joshna. — Josh, xv-xxi must be compared with Judg. i in order to understand fully how far the several tribes failed in expelling the people of Canaan. Nothing is said in chap, i about the tribes on the east of Jordan, which had already been mentioned (.Josh, xiii, 13), nor about Levi (see Josh, xiii, 33; xxi, 1-42). The carrying on of the war by the tribes smgly is explained by Josh, xxiv, 28. The book begins with a reference to Joshua's death, and ii, 6-9 re- sumes the narrative, suspended by i-ii, 5, with the same words as are used in concluding the historj' of Joshua (xxiv, 28-31). In addition to this, the following pas- sages appear to be common to the two books : Judg. i, 10-15, 20, 21, 27, 29, compared with Josh, xv, 14-19, 13, 63; xvii, 12; xvi, 10. A reference to the conquest of Laish (Judg. xviii) occurs in Josh, xix, 47.
2. Relation to the Books of Samuel and Kings. — We find in i, 28, 30, 33, 35, a number of towns upon which, " when Israel was strong," a tribute of bond-ser\-ice was levied : this is supposed by some to refer to the time of Solomon (1 Kings ix, 13-22). The conduct of Saul to- wards the Kenites (1 Sam. xv, 0), and that of David (1 Sam. XXX, 29), is explained by i, 16. A reference to the continuance of the Philistine wars is implied in xiii, 5. The allusion to Abimelech (2 Sam. xi, 21) is explained by ch. ix. Chapters xvii-xxi and the book of Ruth are more independent, but they have a general reference to the subsequent history.
3. The question now arises whether this book forms one link in a historical series, or whether it has a closer connection either with those that precede or follow it. We cannot infer anything from the agreement of its
JUDGES, BOOK OF
1076
JUDGES, BOOK OF
view and spirit with those of the other books. T lo MTitpr was to ffive an account onh' of t
The object of the \mter was to give an account only of the " Judges" proper. Hence the history ceases with Sam- son, excluding Eli and Samuel; and then at this point two historical pieces are added— ch. xvii-xxi and the book of Kutlj, siip[)lemental to the general plan and to each other, Tliis is less weU explained by Ewald's supposition that the books from Judges to 2 Kings form one work. In this case the histories of Eli and Samuel, so closely united between themselves, are only deferred on account of their close connection with the rise of the monarchy. Judg. xvii-xxi is inserted both as an illus- tration of the sin of Israel during the time of the judges, in which respect it agrees with ch. i-xvi, and as pre- senting a contrast with the better order prevailing in the time of the kings. Ruth follows next, as touching on the time of the judges, and containing information about David's family history which does not occiu: else- where. The connection of these books, however, is de- nied by De Wette {Einleit. § 186) and Thenius {Kurz- <]ef. Exeij. Handh. Sam. p. xv, Konige, p. i). Bertheau, on the other hand, thinks that one editor may be traced from Genesis to 2 Kings, whom he believes to be Ezra, in agreement with Jewish tradition.
VII. Aiil/iorship and Date.— The only guide to the time when the book was written is the expression ''unto this day," which we frequenth' find in it (ii, G-xvi), and the last occurrence of which (xv, 19) implies some distance from the time of Samson. But i, 21, according to the most natural explanation, would indicate a date, for this chapter at least, previous to the taking of Jebus by David (2 Sam. v, 6-9). Again, we should at first sight suppose i, 28, 30, 33, 35, to belong to the time of the judges; but these passages are taken by many mod- ern critics as pointing to the time of Solomon (comp. 1 Kings ix, 21). The first portion of the book (chap, i- xvi) was originally, as Ewald thinks (Gesck. i, 202), the commencement of a larger work reaching doAMi to above a century after Solomon (see also Davidson, Introduclion, p. C49), but this is equally gratuitous. The author of the second division always describes the period of which lie speaks thus: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (xvii, 6 ; xviii, 1 ; xix, 1 ; xxi, 25) ; but this expression never once occiurs in the first division. Hence many modern critics conclude that the author of the first sixteen chapters of our bonk was (liU'crciit IVdm liini who composed tlie appendix (,s(f iMitlicMt. Ili.<tiiri.<cli- krUische EinkituMj in die sdiJuiitHrhi n Sclnijhn <!<.< A. und N. T. p. 87G ; Eichhorn's EiiddtuMj in das A . Test. iii, § 457 ; S. Davidson, in Home's Introd., new ed., ii, 048; but Keil the contrary, Einkit. p. 182). The au- thorship of the first sixteen chapters has been assigned to Joshua, Samuel, and Ezra. That they were' not written Ijy Joshua appears from the difference of the method of relating subjects, as well as from the differ- ence of the style. In the book of Josluia there is a con- tinual reference to the law of :Moses, which is much less frequent in the book of Judges; and in Joshua, again, there are no such inferences from history as are common in Judges (iii, 1, 4 ; viii, 27 ; ix, .50). The style of the book of .Joshua is neater than that of Judges;" the nar- ration is more clear, and the arrangement is better (com- pare i, 10, 1], 20, with Josh, xiv, (5-15, and xv, 13-19: al>.. ii. 7-10, witii Josh, xxiv, 29-31). Tliat the book of Judges was composed by Samuel, although an inven- tion of tlic Tahnudists, unsupported by any external evidence, is nevertheless the most plausible "authorship that has Iwen assigned to it, at least so far as relates to the first division. The opinion that this portion was written by Ezra will not Ije entertained by any one who attentively peruses the original; for it has a phraseolo- g>' of its own, and certain favorite ideas, to which it constantly reverts, but of which there is not a trace in Ezra. If Ezra had intended to continue the history of the llebr. w.i from Joshua down to Eli in a separate wurli, bo ^^^)uld not have given a selection of incidents