The Structure and Function of the Prologue of Judges: A Literary-Rhetorical Study of Judges 1:1–3:6

Abstract

This dissertation argues that with respect to structure, the prologue of Judges is a single introduction covering Judges 1:1–3:6, which has a five-stage plot structure: exposition (1:1–2), complication (1:3–36), change (2:1–10), resolution (2:11–3:4) and ending (3:5–6). Four flashbacks that refer to the period before Joshua’s death are inserted at four stages in the narrative (1:8–16, 20; 2:6–10; and 2:23–3:4). These flashbacks are used to evaluate and/or explain what was said in the verses that preceded them (1:4–7; 1:17–19; 1:21–2:5; 2:11–22). The flashbacks capture how the generation before Joshua’s death proactively obeyed the Lord by continually seeking to take possession of the land. However, according to the verses that directly speak of the period after Joshua’s death (1:4–7; 1:17–19; 1:21–2:5; and 2:11–21) the generation after his death did not intend to take possession of the land, which the Lord viewed as disobedience to his ways. As for its function, the prologue is an etiological introduction to the book of Judges. It explains how Israel’s situation, as described in the central section, came to be. It was Israel’s failure, during the period of testing, to dispossess completely the inhabitants that caused Israel’s constant suffering at the hands of the surrounding nations. Instead of dispossessing the inhabitants, Israel lived and made a covenant with them (1:3–7; 1:17–19; 1:21–2:5). Then Israel was lured into worshipping the gods of the inhabitants. Israel’s idolatry angered the Lord, who used the surrounding nations to punish Israel (2:11–15). Having compassion on Israel, the Lord would then raise up leaders, who would not only deliver them from their enemies, but also would sometimes attempt to stop them from worshiping other gods. Unfortunately, Israel did not listen to the leaders the Lord raised up for them (2:16–17). The death of each leader meant even greater sin for Israel (2:19).

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the involvement of Drs Robert B. Chisholm, Richard A. Taylor, and Trent C. Butler in this project. I would like to especially thank Dr Chisholm for his consistent encouragement and guidance in the writing of this dissertation. Both Chisholm and Taylor have demonstrated a Christ-like character and excellence in scholarship that I will continually attempt to imitate.

I am thankful for ILSP for the scholarship I have been receiving during my study at Dallas Theological Seminary. Without this scholarship I would not have been able to get such invaluable training.

There are many individuals and organizations that stood with me throughout my theological training at ABC, NEGST/AIU and here at DTS. I would like to acknowledge the support of Judith Schauer, Bill Ellison, Dr Kifle and Merge Admassu, Roger and Lois Linn, Brad and Megan Wynne, CLA, Pastor Dr Bedilu Yirga, EEBC church leadership and members. I am forever grateful for the support I received from all these and other individuals and organizations.

Above all I am thankful to my Lord and Savior whose faithfulness and kindness continue to overwhelm me.

כִּי זֶה אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֵינוּ עֹולָם וָעֶד הוּא יְנַהֲגֵנוּ עַל־מוּת׃ ‎(Ps 48:15)

ይህ አምላክ ከዘላለም እሰከ ዘላለም አምላካችን ነውና፤ እሰከ መጨረሻው የሚመራንም እርሱ ነው (መዝ 48፡15)

For this God is our God for ever and ever:

He will be our guide even unto death. (Ps 48:15 ASV)

Abbreviations

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter introduces the subject matter and the need for this study. It will then present a survey of previous studies on the subject. After the survey, it will briefly summarize the thesis of this dissertation. A discussion of the methodology used and the assumptions that inform this study will be followed by an overview of the organization of this dissertation, which will conclude this introductory chapter.

The focus of this dissertation is Judges 1:1–3:6. The dissertation will analyze the structure of this passage, its meaning based on that structure, its function in relation to the book of Joshua, and its function within the entire book of Judges based on this meaning.

Need for Study

Before the publication of Matthias Ederer in 2011, there was not a single work devoted to Judges 1:1–3:6 in its entirety.[1] Even after the publication of his book, Ederer’s observation remains true. Several studies have been published on the book of Judges as a whole in the past few years, and yet there has not been a study which focuses solely on Judges 1:1–3:6. Unlike other introductory sections of biblical books, which are significant mainly for the particular book of which they are part, a proper study of Judges 1:1–3:6 is significant not only for the obvious implication of understanding the book of Judges but for understanding the book of Joshua as well.

Issues

There are some issues one faces when reading the prologue of Judges. The first issue has to do with its structure. Where does it begin and where does it end? Is it a coherent unit? How is it organized? Is the prologue a double introduction, wherein the two introductions have different perspectives?[2] How are the sub-units related to each other? And particularly, what is the relationship of 2:1–5 to 1:1–36 and to 2:6–3:6?

In the processes of analyzing the structure, the exegete depends on his/her understanding of grammar and syntax. In the study of the prologue, one’s understanding of how the verbal system in BH works has important implications. In this regard, one’s view of the meaning and function of the wayyiqtol will affect one’s interpretation of significant texts, such as Judges 2:6–10.

Once the structure is analyzed, questions of literary device arise. What kinds of literary devices does the author use? Are there allusions, differing points of view, foreshadowings, flashbacks? What are the rhetorical functions of these literary styles?

Finally, issues of the prologue’s function within the book need to be addressed. Is its purpose to evaluate the events in Joshua and serve as an epilogue? Does it summarize the book of Judges? What is the relationship between the theme(s) of the prologue and the theme(s) of the book as a whole? All of these issues will be addressed in this dissertation.

Survey of Scholarship

This section briefly surveys previous studies on the prologue of Judges. However, the focus here is on how others have viewed its structure. Structure refers to both the scope and the organization of the prologue.[3]

Scope of the Prologue

Scholars are divided in their view of the extent of the prologue. For some, the prologue ends at 2:5.[4] Mayes gives three reasons for separating this section from the central section, which covers 2:6–16:31: (1) There is no mention of the works of the judges; (2) There is no mention of Israel’s relationship with foreigners outside the land; (3) These verses focus on the tribes.[5]

Block offers four additional arguments raised by those who take 2:5 as the end of the prologue: (1) These verses report events whereas 2:6–3:6 are overtly theological and sermonic. (2) Joshua’s death in 2:6–9, though it was already mentioned in 1:1, suggests a break. (3) 2:6–3:6 and 3:7–16:31 share common features both stylistically and theologically. (4) Though not all, some of these scholars argue that 1:1–2:5 is a later addition because Joshua’s death in 1:1 happened after his dismissal of the people in 2:6.[6]

Block then refutes ending the prologue at 2:5 by giving five reasons: (1) 2:1–5 resembles 2:6–3:6 in content and style. (2) The "waw-consecutive at 2:6 necessitates a reading of 2:6–10 in light of and as a continuation" of 2:1–5. (3) The references to Joshua’s death at 1:1 and in 2:6–10 have different form and function. (4) Despite the similar style of 2:6–3:6 and 3:7–16:31, including 1:1–2:5 with 2:6–23 heightens its importance for interpreting the central section. (5) The current chapter division makes more sense.

Other scholars take 2:23 as the end.[7] Here are the reasons Butler offers for ending the prologue at 2:23: (1) The disjunctive syntax at 3:1; (2) the different genre of 3:1–6; (3) and the change of topic after 3:1 (i.e. Joshua is absent, different nations are in focus).

Still others consider the prologue to end at 3:4.[8] Stemmer argues that הִנִּיחַ‎ in 3:1 connects 3:1–4 with 2:23 that begins with וַיַּנַּח‎.[9] He concludes that 3:5 begins the proper book of Judges. However, he does not clearly communicate why he considers 3:5 rather than 3:7 to be the opening verse of the central section.[10]

A number of OT scholars take 3:6 as the end of the prologue.[11] This dissertation agrees with those scholars who take 3:6 to be the end of the prologue. Despite using a similar statement in 2:11 and 3:7 as well as a similar pattern in 2:11–19 and 3:7–11, 3:7–11 differs from 2:11–19 in that whereas 3:7–11 narrates one-time events, 2:11–19 summarizes all of the one-time events of 3:7–16:31 in both a summary as well as an iterative form.[12]

The main reason behind ending the prologue at 3:6 is because 1:1–3:6 contains a plot that presents the events by grasping them together into successive wholes.[13] The plot of the story of the Israelites that begins in 1:1–2 with an exposition does not end or conclude until 3:5–6. As the analysis in the second chapter of this dissertation will show, a reading of Judges 1:1–3:6 as a narrative with a five-stage plot structure – exposition, complication, change, unraveling, and ending – demonstrates that the prologue is a single narrative, not a double introduction.

A narrative, which is a recounting of one or more events, must have a continuant subject and constitute a whole.[14] This whole has a structure with a beginning, a middle, and an end.[15] The prologue has a subject – the Israelites – in the beginning (1:1–2), the middle (1:3–3:4), and the end (3:5–6).

Organization of the Prologue

Despite the difference in scholars’ views of the extent of the prologue, it seems there is a tendency to see its organization as a two-part introduction. Even those who consider 2:5 as the end see another introduction extending up to 2:23 or 3:6 – though serving as such only for the central section.[16] Included among the two-part organizations is Butler’s division of 1:1–36 and 2:1–23.[17] Frolov divides it into 1:1–26 and 1:27–3:6.[18] However, most scholars who take 1:1–3:6 as the limit see a double introduction consisting of 1:1–2:5 and 2:6–3:6.[19]

One of the major reasons why scholars differ in their division of the prologue lies in their understanding of where the author inserts the flashback to the time when Joshua was still alive. This is because despite the report of his death in Judges 1:1, which clearly marked the events that follow as happening after his death, Joshua was alive in Judges 2:6. It is clear then that somewhere between 1:1 and 2:6 the narrative retreats to the time before Joshua died in order for him to be alive again in 2:6.

For instance, Frolov considers 1:27–3:6 as occurring before the events of 1:1–26, i.e. before Joshua’s death. He argues against taking 2:6 as introducing the flashback to the time of Joshua. He suggests that 2:6 is part of the flashback that started with 1:27–33.[20] He builds his argument by making the following four observations from 1:27–33: (1) Out of 15 main clauses, only eight are wayyiqtols, which are normally used to narrate consecutive events. (2) The plain perfects[21] that open the report on each tribe digress the narrative and move the story’s temporal clock to a time when Joshua was still alive. He particularly regards verse 27 as the beginning of a new section, considering the syntax of the verse (waw-לא‎-perfect) as signaling a major break.[22] (3) The narrator implicitly specifies the scale of the regression by opening it with somewhat modified but easily recognizable quotations of Joshua xvii 11–13 (Judg. i 27–28) and Josh. xvi 10 (Judg. i 29). (4) He claims that the asyndetic clauses in 1:30–33 signal discontinuity.

The first observation cannot be a criterion for identifying flashback. If 1:27–33 were indeed a flashback, one disjunctive qatal could be enough to introduce it and wayyiqtols could carry the narrative forward.

The second observation seems to go against his own criterion of clauses that disrupt the narrative. He says, [p]erfect main clauses outside quoted speech are disruptive unless the use of the form is attributable to rhetorically motivated shift of the subject or the object to the forefront or the presence of the negative particle לא‎ before the verb.[23] The presence of the negative particle לא‎ before the verb necessitates the change from wayyiqtol to qatal.

The construction לא‎ + qatal has three possible functions: (1) it provides a summary; (2) it contrasts as a background or off-line comment; and (3) it occasionally could be a momentous negation that "furthers the narrative along in the same way that a wayyiqtol verbal form would."[24] In Judges 1:27–33, the construction לא‎ + qatal is used to provide a negative summary statement on each tribe that constitutes the house of Joseph–Ephraim and Manasseh. It would also be correct to say that it moves the narrative of the account of the house of Joseph, which began in verse 22, forward.

Frolov’s third observation is a solid criterion for identifying flashbacks, but it also is not without fault. Though taking quotation as a criterion for identifying flashbacks is appropriate, Judges 1:27–28 cannot be considered a direct quotation of Joshua 17:11–13 and so cannot be a flashback. Since the quoted material contains a negated clause, one cannot ascertain that the author is referring to a flashback to a time before Joshua’s death. When bounded events – achievements and/or accomplishments such as dispossessing, which is the topic of 1:27–33 – are negated, they become temporally unbound because if there is no actualization, the situation cannot be interpreted as having boundaries.[25] Since Ephraim still did not take possession of his inheritance even after the time of Joshua, the way of describing his failure to take possession of the land cannot change. It would still be described with לא‎ plus qatal.[26] Again, the change from wayyiqtol in Judges 1:22–26 to weqatal in 1:27 is primarily due to the presence of the negative לא‎.

As for the fourth observation, the asyndetic clauses of 1:30–33 do not signal discontinuity. Rather, they can be attributed to the genre of these verses – and verses 3–36 as a whole – being a list. Verses 3–36 lists the tribes’ involvement or lack of involvement in the conquest after the death of Joshua.[27]

Therefore, Judges 1:27 cannot be a point of major break that moves the narrative clock back to the time when Joshua was still alive. Following 1:1–2, verses 27–36 speak of events that took place after Joshua’s death.[28] Frolov, however, is correct in arguing that Judges 2:6–10 is not an isolated flashback. This dissertation will argue for three more flashbacks inserted in Judges 1:1–3:6.

Those who consider the prologue as being made up of 1:1–2:5 and 2:6–3:6 argue for such organization not only on the basis of where they think the flashback is found but also on their understanding of the different emphasis of the two introductions. It is often said that whereas the so-called first introduction (1:1–2:5) focuses on political issues, the second introduction (2:6–3:6) focuses on religious issues. Though these two sections clearly differ in emphasis, the conclusion that there are two introductions does not seem to be the best interpretation of those distinctions, for two reasons: (1) The two introductions speak of two separate events that have a cause–effect relationship with each other. Taking them as two introductions would be appropriate if the events described were identical. If it were so, it could be said that the author chose to view the same event from two different angles. (2) In the first introduction, there are many religious overtones 1:1–2, 4, 19, 22; 2:1–5. The second introduction also consists of many political reports as in 2:6, 14b–16, 18, 2:20–3:4.

Thesis

This dissertation proposes a structure that is actually based on the plot structure of the narrative of the prologue of Judges. The prologue is a single-narrative story with a five-stage plot structure: an exposition (1:1–2), a complication (1:3–36), a change (2:1–10), an unraveling (2:1–3:4) and an ending (3:5–6). Into this single-plot narrative are inserted four flashbacks at four stages in the narrative (1:8–16, 20, 2:6–10, and 2:23–3:4) to evaluate the events preceding the flashbacks (1:4–7, 17–19; 2:1–5, and 2:21–22 respectively).

The prologue of the book of Judges is a single narrative that tells the story of the Israelites in relation to the inhabitants of the land of Canaan during the period of testing, which began with the death of Joshua and ended before the appearance of the first judge. It reports how the Israelites failed to completely dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan from their allotted land despite the Lord’s clear command to do so. Though the Lord warned them in 2:1–5 that their failure would result in their entrapment by the Canaanites’ gods, the Israelites failed to act on the warning and ended up being lured by foreign gods, and as a result enraged the Lord.

The Lord then punished Israel by declaring that he would not continue to dispossess the Canaanites. He also allowed the Canaanites to repeatedly attack and rule over Israel during the period of the judges. The Lord in his mercy gave Israel judges who would deliver them from their enemies, but he never again continued to dispossess the Canaanites, who remained to live with the Israelites, intermarry with them, and lure the Israelites to continue worshipping their gods.

With regard to the function of the prologue, this dissertation argues that the prologue is an etiological introduction to the book of Judges. It explains how Israel’s situation as described in the central section came to be: That is, it gives the cause of Israel’s constant suffering at the hands of the surrounding nations. The prologue argues that their suffering was the result of their failure, during the period of testing, to completely dispossess the inhabitants. It also serves as a bridge between the end of Joshua and the central section of Judges.

Method

This dissertation is a literary-rhetorical study that gives attention to such narratives features as: narrative structure, recurring themes, differing points of view, allusion, and flashback. Basically, it agrees with Webb’s approach, which is a literary analysis of the book of Judges in its canonical form. Webb describes his method:

The analysis was guided throughout by two basic questions: How precisely is the text structured? and, what does it mean as a complex whole? Basic to the methodology was the assumption that these two questions are inextricably related to one another, although it was with the latter, not the former, that the analysis was ultimately concerned.[29]

This dissertation differs from Webb in two ways: (1) This basic methodology is applied only to the prologue; whereas, Webb employs it to the entire book. (2) Unlike Webb, who focuses on the second question, this dissertation focuses on the structure of the prologue since, as Webb himself agrees, our understanding of its meaning depends on our understanding of its structure. A different structure for the prologue will be proposed and a discussion of its implications for understanding the meaning and function of the prologue will be offered.

In the discussion of the structure, both genre and syntax are given their due place. In the exegetical undertaking of any given text, one needs to begin with a structural analysis of the text. Frolov encourages both form-critics and exegetes with these sound statements that argue for the key role that structure plays in form-critical and exegetical analysis of a biblical text:

Although the form of the communication is by no means reducible to its structure, the importance of the latter is difficult to overestimate: no form-critical investigation (and indeed no other exegetical project) can proceed until the studied fragment is positioned vis-à-vis the hierarchy of the literary units that make up the received HB.[30]

Judges 1:1–3:6 is