THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
of the stories and his assumption of the solidarity of " Israel " under the regime of the successive judges, each of whom actually " judged " only a portion of the country occupied by the disunited tribes. The post-exilic priestly redactor prefixed chaps, i. 1-ii. 5, added chaps, xvii.-xxi., and the allusions to the minor judges, six in number (iii. 31, x. 1-5, xii. 8-15). These with the six judges of the original work (Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Samson, Jephthah) make up the ideal number twelve. The story of Abimelech (chap, ix.), which is an episode in the history of the old Canaanitic city of Shechem, lies without the general scheme of the book and is probably a later addition. It is valuable as showing how readily the idea of kingship was embraced by the common people, and still more valuable for the parable of Jotham (verses 8-15) which shows that despotic rule was estimated at its real worth even in those early times.
As to the chronology of the book it is hopeless to attempt to reduce the given numbers of years to any reasonable scheme (see Time, Biblical Reckoning op). The best that can be done is to take the probable date of the eastern invasion (about 1170 b.c.) and the accession of David (about 1000 b.c.) as two working extremes, within which approximation to the facts may be reached by placing Deborah and Barak about 1130, Gideon about 1100, Jephthah about 1080, Samuel about 1050, Saul about 1030 b.c. J. F. McCtjrdy.
Bibliography: On the history of the Judges consult the literature under Ahab: the commentaries named below; C. Piepenbring, Hist, du peuple d'Israel, Paris, 1898. The three indispensable commentaries are: G. F. Moore, New- York, 1895 (high-water mark in critical exegesis); K. Budde, Tubingen, 1897 (thorough); and W Nowack, G6ttingen,1900 (also excellent). Other commentaries are: G. L. Studer, Bern, 1842; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Edinburgh, 1865; J. Bachmann, Berlin, 1868-69; Hervey, in Bible Commentary, London, 1872; P. Cassel, in Lange, New York, 1875; E. Reuss, Paris, 1877; J. J. Lias, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1882; E. Bertheau, Leipsic, 1883; A. R. Fausset, London, 1885; S. Oettli, Munich, 1893; G. H. S. Walpole, London, 1901; M. J. Lagrange, Paris, 1903.
On questions of introduction consult the works mentioned in and under BiblicalTntkodtjction; T. Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A. T., pp. 173—198, Kiel, 1869; E. Meyer, in ZATW, i (1881), 117-146; J. C. A. Kessler, Chronologia judicum et primorum regum, Leipsic, 1885; S. R. Driver, in JQR, i (1889), pp. 258-270; G. A. Cooke, Hist, and Song of Deborah, London, 1892; R. Kittel, in TSK, Ixv (1892), 44-71; P. de Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, pp. 1-72, Gottingen, 1892; W. Frankenberg, Die Composition des . Richterbuchs, Marburg, 1895; F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des A. T., Munich, 1895; C. Bruston, he C 'antique de Deborah, Paris, 1901; DB, ii. 807-820; EB, ii. 2633-42; JE, vii. 375-381.
JUDGMENT, DIVINE: The final expression of God's will respecting man's future destiny. The idea of judgment in the Old Testament presupposes a transcendent God and a divine interest in the moral order of the world, and was drawn from the analogy of human justice. The divine judgment which precedes the Messianic kingdom Scriptural is concerned with guilty angels, with Idea. Gentiles to be destroyed or to become subject to Israel, with Israel and Judah as nations for which their enemies were to be employed as instruments of retribution, and with individuals of whom a remnant would be saved.
The scene is the earthly life. To this judgment evils of various kinds were referred (cf. Job; also Luke xiii. 1 sqq.). Later the judgment was conceived of as following the Messianic kingdom (cf. Psalms of Solomon, i.-xviii., Eng. transl. in Presbyterian Review, iv. 1883, 775 sqq.). In Alexandrian Judaism no distant final judgment is taught — each soul goes at death to its true place. In the New Testament the final judgment is connected with the parousia of Christ, yet the judgment is there both present and future. The judge is represented as either God or Christ, and judgment is according to works as expressive of character. In the teachings of Jesus this note is repeatedly struck especially in the parables, and apostolic preaching resounds with it. All men appear to be the subjects of it, and not those only who have known Christ (II Cor v. 10; Matt. xxv. 31 sqq.). One aspect of the judgment is that it creates nothing but only discloses what already exists, i.e., the relation of the person and his deeds to the divine moral order. There are particular judgments which, however overwhelming in themselves — the flood, the downfall of Sodom and of Jerusalem — are not final but only prefigurations of the last judgment. The New Testament knows of no gradation through imperceptible stages of judgment from highest to lowest; all men are either within or without the kingdom of God. One is warned against self-deception and against hasty judgment respecting others (Matt, vii.; Rom. xiv. 7-12). A person may be unconscious of his real actions or character, but these will come to light and receive retribution. The full realization may be long delayed, but no stage of the process is indifferent and the end will surely come. There is no evidence of a private judgment at death.
The central idea embodied in the various pictures of judgment is that of human responsibility and of infallible retribution. This rests upon the conviction of an indestructible moral order, of laws as expressive of a personal divine will, and of Christ in such essential relation to mankind that God will have no one reach his final destiny The apart from Christ. Yet according to Nature of the Scriptures the judgment is not Judgment, final in the sense that ethical development has reached its limit, but only so far as this is conceived as related to the consummation of the kingdom of God. This is a teleological view of man's life in which he is lifted above the necessitated causal order, offered a divine goal, albeit a flying one, as the aim of ethical endeavor, and bidden to rely only upon an all-seeing, righteous God for recompense. The process is essentially teleological, so that, as Schiller declared, the history of the world is the judgment of the world. Two general theories of judgment have been proposed: (1) The common view, which is set forth in the following positions, (a) It takes place at a definite moment— immediately Theories of after the general resurrection (see Res- Judgment. tjrrection of the Dead), (b) It will be universal; the whole human race is to appear, each one in the completeness of personal life, " body, soul, and spirit." (c) It will