The Book of Judges

The Book of

JUDGES

BARRY G. WEBB

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

© 2012 Barry G. Webb

All rights reserved

Published 2012 by

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /

P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Webb, Barry G.

The Book of Judges / Barry G. Webb.

pages cm—(The New international commentary on the Old Testament)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

eISBN 978-1-4674-4247-3

ISBN 978-0-8028-2628-2 (cloth: alk. paper)

1. Bible. O.T. Judges—Commentaries. I. Title.

BS1305.53.W43 2012

222′.3207—dc23

2012018250

www.eerdmans.com

To my mother, Gladys Webb,

who passed away on 29 July 2009,

soon after her 100th birthday

CONTENTS

General Editor’s Preface

Author’s Preface

Principal Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION

I. JUDGES AS AN ISRAELITE CLASSIC

A. An Ancient Book

B. A Conceptual Unit?

II. THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES IN ISRAEL’S HISTORY

A. Dating the Period of the Judges

B. Canaan in the Period of the Judges

C. Israel’s Internal Affairs in the Judges Period

D. The Judges Period in the History Wars of Critical Study

III. THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK’S FORMATION

IV. ITS SHAPE AND CONTENT

V. RECENT SCHOLARLY STUDY OF JUDGES

VI. ITS CONTRIBUTION TO OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

VII. JUDGES AS CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE

A. Judges in New Testament Perspective

B. Women in Judges

C. Judges and Violence

VIII. THE TEXT

IX. THE TRANSLATION

A. General Characteristics

B. The Divine Name

C. The Problem of the Large Numbers

X. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

TEXT AND COMMENTARY

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1–3:6)

A. After Joshua: Military Decline (1:1–2:5)

1. The Israelites Inquire of Yahweh (1:1–2)

2. The Successes and Failures of the Southern Tribes (1:3–21)

a. The Battle for Jerusalem (1:3–8)

b. Battles in the Southern Hills, the Negeb, and the Shephelah (1:9–17)

c. The Judah Appendix (1:18–21)

3. The Successes and Failures of the Northern Tribes (1:22–36)

a. The Victory at Bethel (1:22–26)

Excursus 1: Judges 1:22–26 in the Light of the Jacob/Bethel Traditions

Excursus 2: Judges 1:22–26 and the Taking of Jericho in Joshua 2 and 6

b. The Subsequent Deterioration in the Fortunes of the Northern Tribes (1:27–35)

c. The Amorite Appendix (1:36)

4. Israel Accused of Disobedience (2:1–5)

Excursus 3: Bethel as a Sanctuary in Joshua

B. After Joshua: A Religious Decline (2:6–3:6)

1. From Joshua to Another Generation (2:6–10)

2. The Downward Spiral (2:11–19)

3. The Outcome (2:20–3:6)

a. Yahweh’s Verdict (2:20–22 + 23)

b. Appendix: The Remaining Nations (3:1–6)

Excursus 4: The Lists of Nations in 3:3 and 3:5 and the Arrival of the Philistines

Summary: 1:1–3:6 as the Introduction to the Book

II. CAREERS OF THE JUDGES (3:7–16:31)

A. Othniel (3:7–11)

B. Ehud (3:12–30)

C. Shamgar (3:31)

D. Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)

1. The Story (4:1–24)

a. The Prologue (4:1–3)

b. The Liberation of Israel and the Undoing of Sisera (4:4–24)

(1) Links with the Ehud and Shamgar Episodes

(2) The Surprising Jael

(3) Irony and the Reader

(4) Conclusions

2. The Song (5:1–31)

a. The Structure of the Song

b. The Thematic Development of the Song

c. Conclusions

E. Gideon and Abimelech (6:1–9:57)

1. The Career of Gideon (6:1–8:28)

a. Yet Again—Apostasy, Oppression, and a Cry for Help (6:1–6)

b. Israel’s Cry Rebuffed by a Prophet (6:7–10)

c. Gideon’s Career, Part I: The Expulsion of the Midianites from Israelite Territory West of the Jordan (6:11–8:3)

(1) The Commissioning of Gideon as the Chosen Deliverer (6:11–24)

(2) Gideon Challenges and Defeats Baal (6:25–32)

(3) Gideon Emerges as a Man of War (6:33–35)

(4) Gideon Uses a Fleece to Seek Reassurance from Yahweh (6:36–40)

(5) Yahweh Reduces Gideon’s Fighting Force to Three Hundred (7:1–8)

(6) Yahweh Reassures Gideon by Means of a Dream (7:9–15)

(7) Gideon and His Three Hundred Rout the Midianites (7:16–25)

(8) Gideon Appeases the Midianites (8:1–3)

d. Gideon’s Career, Part 2: His Pursuit of the Midianites in Transjordan and Its Consequences (8:4–28)

(1) Gideon’s Pursuit, Capture, and Execution of Zebah and Zalmunna (8:4–21)

Excursus 5: Gideon’s Pursuit of Zebah and Zalmunna and the Duty of the gōʾēl haddām (redeemer/avenger of blood)

(2) The Offer of Kingship and the End of Gideon’s Career (8:22–28)

Summary: The Shape and Development of the Gideon Narrative in Perspective

2. Transition: from Gideon to Abimelech (8:29–35)

3. Abimelech’s Disastrous Experiment with Kingship (9:1–57)

a. Abimelech Becomes King in Shechem (9:1–6)

b. Jotham’s Fable and Its Application (9:7–21)

c. The Battle for Shechem (9:22–41)

d. Abimelech’s Downfall (9:42–57)

Summary Reflections on 6:1–9:57 as a Whole

F. Tola and Jair (10:1–5)

G. Jephthah (10:6–12:7)

1. Episode 1: Israel and Yahweh (10:6–16)

2. Episode 2: The Gileadites and Jephthah (10:17–11:11)

3. Episode 3: Jephthah and the King of Ammon (11:12–28)

4. Episode 4: Jephthah and His Daughter (11:29–40)

a. The Making of the Vow (11:29–33)

b. The Keeping of the Vow (11:34–40)

Excursus 6: Should Jephthah Have Broken His Vow?

5. Episode 5: Jephthah and the Ephraimites (12:1–7)

Summary: The Themes of the Jephthah Narrative

H. Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (12:8–15)

I. Samson (13:1–16:31)

1. Introduction—The Birth of Samson and the Shape of Things to Come (13:1–25)

2. Samson’s Career, Part 1: From Timnah to Ramath-lehi (14:1–15:20)

a. Samson’s Marriage (14:1–20)

b. Growing Conflict with the Philistines (15:1–8)

c. Climax 1: Confrontation and Victory at Lehi (15:9–19)

d. Epilogue (15:20)

3. Samson’s Career, Part 2: From Gaza to Gaza (16:1–31)

a. Samson and the Prostitute (16:1–3)

b. Samson and Delilah (16:4–22)

c. Samson Fulfills His Destiny (16:23–30)

d. Epilogue (16:31)

Summary Reflections on 13:1–16:31

III. EPILOGUE (17:1–21:25)

A. Religious Chaos: Micah and the Danites (17:1–18:31)

1. The Establishment of Micah’s Shrine (17:1–5)

2. Break: The First Occurrence of the Refrain (17:6)

3. The Appointment of a Levite as Micah’s Priest (17:7–13)

4. Break: The Second Occurrence of the Refrain (18:1a)

5. The Migration of the Danites and the Transference of Micah’s Idol to the Shrine at Dan (18:1b–31)

a. The Selection and Commissioning of the Spies (18:1b–2)

b. The Spies Inquire of Micah’s Levite (18:3–6)

c. The Spies Discover and Appraise Laish (18:7)

d. The Spies Report Back (18:8–10)

e. The Danites Begin Their Migration (18:11–12)

f. They Acquire Micah’s Priest and Idols (18:13–21)

g. Micah’s Fruitless Pursuit (18:22–26)

h. The Danites Complete Their Migration (18:27–31)

Summary Reflections on 17:1–18:1

Excursus 7: The Migration of the Danites as an Anti-Conquest Narrative

B. Moral Chaos: The Outrage at Gibeah and Its Consequences (19:1–21:25)

1. Transition: No King in Israel (19:1a)

2. Episode 1: The Outrage at Gibeah (19:1b–28)

a. Part 1: Five Days (and Four Nights) in Bethlehem (19:1b–10a)

(1) Scene 1: Journeying and Arriving (19:1b–3)

(2) Scene 2: Staying (19:4–8)

(3) Scene 3: Leaving (19:9–10a)

b. Part 2: One Night in Gibeah (19:10b–28)

(1) Scene 1: Journeying (19:10b–14)

(2) Scene 2: Arriving (19:15–21)

(3) Scene 3: Staying (19:22–25)

(4) Scene 4: Leaving (19:26–28)

3. Episode 2: Preparations for War (19:29–20:11)

4. Episode 3: The War Itself (20:12–48)

a. Attempt at Negotiation (20:12–17)

b. Inquiry of Yahweh (20:18)

c. Defeat (20:19–22)

d. Inquiry of Yahweh (20:23)

e. Defeat (20:24–25)

f. Inquiry of Yahweh (20:26–28)

g. Victory (20:29–48)

5. Episode 4: Postwar Reconstruction (21:1–25)

a. The Problem (21:1–4)

b. An Apparent Solution (21:5–12)

c. A Further Problem (21:13–18)

d. The Final Outcome (21:19–24)

e. Epilogue: No King in Israel (21:25)

Summary Reflections on 19:1–21:25

Chapters 17–21 as the Conclusion to the Book

Notes

INDEXES

Authors

Subjects

Scripture References

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

Long ago St. Paul wrote: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth (1 Cor. 3:6 NRSV). He was right: ministry indeed requires a team effort—the collective labors of many skilled hands and minds. Someone digs up the dirt and drops in seed, while others water the ground to nourish seedlings to growth. The same team effort over time has brought this commentary series to its position of prominence today. Professor E. J. Young planted it forty years ago, enlisting its first contributors and himself writing its first published volume. Professor R. K. Harrison watered it, signing on other scholars and wisely editing everyone’s finished products. As General Editor, I now tend their planting, and, true to Paul’s words, through four decades God has indeed graciously [given] the growth.

Today the New International Commentary on the Old Testament enjoys a wide readership of scholars, priests, pastors, rabbis, and other serious Bible students. Thousands of readers across the religious spectrum and in countless countries consult its volumes in their ongoing preaching, teaching, and research. They warmly welcome the publication of each new volume and eagerly await its eventual transformation from an emerging series into a complete commentary set. But as humanity experiences a new century of history, an era commonly called postmodern, what kind of commentary series is NICOT? What distinguishes it from other similarly well-established series?

Its volumes aim to publish biblical scholarship of the highest quality. Each contributor writes as an expert, both in the biblical text itself and in the relevant scholarly literature, and each commentary conveys the results of wide reading and careful, mature reflection. Ultimately, its spirit is eclectic, each contributor gleaning interpretive insights from any useful source, whatever its religious or philosophical viewpoint, and integrating them into his or her interpretation of a biblical book. The series draws on recent methodological innovations in biblical scholarship, for example, canon criticism, the so-called new literary criticism, reader-response theories, and sensitivity to gender-based and ethnic readings. NICOT volumes also aim to be irenic in tone, summarizing and critiquing influential views with fairness while defending their own. Its list of contributors includes male and female scholars from a number of Christian faith-groups. The diversity of contributors and their freedom to draw on all relevant methodologies give the entire series an exciting and enriching variety.

What truly distinguishes this series, however, is that it speaks from within that interpretive tradition known as evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is an informal movement within Protestantism that cuts across traditional denominational lines. Its heart and soul is the conviction that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, written by gifted human writers, through which God calls humanity to enjoy a loving personal relationship with its Creator and Savior. True to that tradition, NICOT volumes do not treat the Old Testament as just an ancient literary artifact on a par with the Iliad or Gilgamesh. They are not literary autopsies of ancient parchment cadavers but rigorous, reverent wrestlings with wonderfully human writings through which the living God speaks his powerful Word. NICOT delicately balances criticism (i.e., the use of standard critical methodologies) with humble respect, admiration, and even affection for the biblical text. As an evangelical commentary, it pays particular attention to the text’s literary features, theological themes, and implications for the life of faith today.

Ultimately, NICOT aims to serve women and men of faith who desire to hear God’s voice afresh through the Old Testament. With gratitude to God for two marvelous gifts—the Scriptures themselves and keen-minded scholars to explain their message—I welcome readers of all kinds to savor the good fruit of this series.

ROBERT L. HUBBARD JR.

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

Commentaries are generally judged good or bad according to what the reader expects of them. I hope this one will satisfy those who want the meatiness and analytical character normally expected of a commentary that includes an original translation and notes. But I have chosen to write it in an emotionally warm, rather than cool, detached, academic way, partly because that is my natural writing style, partly because I think it is what is needed to engage properly with a dynamic, narrative work like the book of Judges, and partly because I think it is what people who buy and read NICOT commentaries will most want and appreciate. I have always felt cheated by the kind of exegetical vivisection that kills by analysis until all that’s left is lifeless bits and pieces, classified and arranged, conquered rather than read. For me the text is a living thing, whose life has to be respected if it is to be understood.

In keeping with this general approach, I have not tried to achieve the kind of exhaustive thoroughness that insists on putting back into the text all the data that the author has left out. There is a perverseness about this that is not only pedantic but damaging, especially when it obscures the light and shade of the text, and its background and foreground distinctions, as though they don’t matter. There is a proper place for background, of course, especially in an ancient work like Judges, where the original readers presumably had a knowledge of it that cannot be assumed for modern readers. No text exists in a vacuum, and the historical setting is often important for understanding. Nevertheless, the commentator, like the original author, must be selective and not try to say everything, even if this were possible. What I have tried to do in what follows, especially in the body of the commentary, is to concentrate on what the text itself throws into prominence, and give space to background issues only where I think they throw significant light on the foreground. Of course this has required judgments to be made which I am sure I have not always gotten right. But that is where footnotes prove useful; they provide a convenient middle ground between inclusion and exclusion, where those who want more may hopefully find it, or at least be pointed in the right direction. All translations from the Hebrew are my own, unless otherwise identified.

My labors on Judges began a long time ago. I spent most of 1982–84 in Sheffield, England, working on it for my Ph.D., which was published as a monograph in 1987 and again in 2008. Those familiar with it will recognize the echoes of it here. But they will also find much that is new. In particular, large parts of Judges that were treated only in summary fashion in the monograph have been treated here with the kind of even-handed thoroughness required for a commentary. New material has been added, and old material reworked in the light of new research that has been done since the 1980s. The result is a new and different kind of work. I have had to start again, even if building on old, proven foundations.

The commentary itself has been in the making, off and on, for twelve years. I am grateful to Eerdmans for giving me the time I needed, and trusting me to finally produce what I promised them. Thanks are also due to the Governing Board of Moore College, Sydney, for their generous provision of study leave, and to the Warden and staff of Tyndale House, Cambridge, where much of the research and writing was done. Like all commentary writers, I have benefited enormously from the labors and hard-won insights of a host of other scholars and students, some of whom I have met and been able to thank personally, but most of whom I have not. I am indebted to them all, and have hopefully acknowledged them appropriately in the bibliography and footnotes.

Alison, my wife now for forty years, has shared my excitement when I have made discoveries, and patiently endured many mealtimes when I have been brooding over knotty problems instead of talking to her. I know she forgives me, but want her to know that I do not take her love for granted.

Judges is not a nice book. It’s rough and raw and confronting. Working on it has been like living with someone who always tells you the truth: it is good for you, but not pleasant. In this commentary I have tried to let Judges be what it is instead of taming it. Readers will have to judge whether or not I’ve succeeded.

I am an evangelical Christian, and have tried to put whatever scholarly abilities I have at God’s disposal. I trust this commentary will serve, in some way, his purposes for his church and his world.

BARRY G. WEBB

Principal Abbreviations

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman

ABR Australian Biblical Review

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition, ed. J. B. Pritchard

ARM Archives royales de Mari

AV The Authorised (King James) Version

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge

BBC The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, ed. J. H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas

BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BO Berit Olam commentary series

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. D. J. A. Clines

Dtr Deuteronomist

DtrG basic Deuteronomist

DtrN nomistic Deuteronomist

DtrP prophetic Deuteronomist

edd. Editions

ESV The English Standard Version

ET The Expository Times

FBCS Focus on the Bible Commentary Series

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GKC Genesius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Study Edition, ed. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, tr. M. E. J. Richardson

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick

ISBE The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, ed. G. W. Bromiley

JB Jerusalem Bible (1966)

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JPSA Jewish Publication Society of America

JPSV Jewish Publication Society Version (1917)

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup JSOT Supplement

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

JTSNS Journal of Theological Studies, New Series

JTSSup JTS Supplement

KJV King James Version

KTU Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, ed. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín

LCL Loeb Classical Library

LXX The Septuagint

MSS manuscripts

MT The Masoretic Text

NAC The New American Commentary

NASB The New American Standard Version

NBC New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham

NBD New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, ed. D. R. W. Wood et al.

NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary

NEB New English Bible

NIDB The New International Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. D. Douglas and M. C. Tenney

NIV New International Version

NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary

NJB New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

NJPS New Jewish Publication Society Version (1985)

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT New Testament

OBA The Oxford Bible Atlas, Fourth Edition, ed. A. Curtis

OL Old Latin

OT Old Testament

OTR Old Testament Readings

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

RSV Revised Standard Version

RTR Reformed Theological Review

TBT The Bible Translator

TGUOS Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society

TNIV Today’s New International Version

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TynB Tyndale Bulletin

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplement

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZPEB Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. M. C. Tenney

INTRODUCTION

Settlement and Tribal Territories

A commentary is a book about a book. But what is a book? The question is not as simple as it appears. There are so many different kinds of books that a generic definition is hard to produce, and to assign a different definition to each kind of book is pointless. Nevertheless, generic definitions abound, and fall into four basic categories. There are material definitions that identify a book in terms of its design and what it is made of. For example, a book is a number of leaves of paper or other material, joined down one side and bound between a front and back cover. There are functional definitions that take its material features as given and define it in terms of its purpose. In English this is normally done by prefixing a descriptive term, for example, exercise book (a book for doing schoolwork) or accounts book (a book for recording commercial transactions). Then there are definitions that identify a book by its contents, normally by a following descriptive phrase, for example, a book of stamps, vouchers, or tickets. Finally, there are literary definitions. These identify a book in terms of the genre of writing it contains: a comic book, an anthology (of poetry), or a novel. In this latter kind of definition the material properties of the thing in question become irrelevant, and we are approaching the definition of a book as a literary work of some kind, regardless of its material form. The Hebrew and Greek terms sēper and biblos/biblion respectively, in both their biblical and extrabiblical usage, have a semantic range that can accommodate all these definitions.¹

Historically, it is the material aspect of book that has been most changeable, and therefore least suitable as a basis for definition. The material definition above (leaves bound between covers) is technically the definition of a codex. But the codex is only one of many forms books have taken. Before the codex was the scroll, and before that there were writing boards and tablets of various kinds. Before paper there were vellum, papyrus, wood, baked clay, and stone. Since the invention of movable type the form of books has remained fairly stable until quite recently, but as I write this commentary it is again undergoing radical change. New forms of books are appearing, especially virtual books of various kinds, including e-books, which tend to mimic the hard-copy form as far as possible, and online books that have never existed in anything but electronic form.

Through all these changes the notion of book in the literary sense has remained constant. A literary work is a text, a piece of writing, but it is distinguished from other pieces of writing by a number of qualities. First, its length: a book is more than a bill of sale, a list, or a brief inscription. Second, its completeness: it is not a piece of text whose length is determined by nonliterary factors such as the size of a page or scroll, for example, but it has a deliberately constructed beginning and end. It is a crafted unit, or a major, clearly identifiable part of such a unit. Finally, it is distinguished by its artistic, literary quality. It is different in this respect from, say, a manual on how to operate a piece of mechanical equipment. It may surprise some readers to discover that in biblical studies scholars have not always credited Judges with being a book in this sense. The present commentary does do this, and seeks to respond to it with the kind of literary sensitivity that this requires—to serve rather than dominate it. In this sense the commentary, too, has been written as a literary work. To be sure, its literary quality will be more apparent in some parts than others; more in its treatment of the Judges narratives themselves than in the more technical parts of the introduction and footnotes. But hopefully these will not spoil the enjoyment of the reader or distract him or her from the literary quality of the book of Judges itself. Readers who do not find this material suitable to their tastes or relevant to their interests should happily ignore it.

I. JUDGES AS AN ISRAELITE CLASSIC

A. AN ANCIENT BOOK

Judges has been around for a very long time indeed. What we know as the book of Judges existed as part of the documented history of Israel from the early sixth century B.C., and the oldest material in it goes back, in oral or written form, almost to the time of the judges themselves. But attestation of it as a distinct literary unit, a book in its own right, begins with Philo in the first century A.D., who refers to it in this way in his treatise On the Confusion of Tongues. In his treatment of the tower of Babel story of Genesis 11 he compares God’s scattering of the builders there to Gideon’s punishment of the men of Penuel in Judges 8:8–17. Both stories involve a tower, and since for Philo they have the same allegorical significance, he can draw on the one to fill out his exposition of the other. He does this particularly with reference to the vain self-aggrandizement of the tower builders of Genesis 11:

Having received from their father [Cain] self-love as their portion, his children desire to add to it and raise it heaven high, until Justice, who loves virtue and hates evil, comes to their aid. She razes to the ground the cities which they fortified to menace the unhappy soul, and the tower whose name is explained in the book of Judges. That name is in the Hebrew tongue Penuel, but in our own turning from God. (On the Confusion of Tongues xxvi.128 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL; my italics])

The expression here translated in the book of Judges is en tē tōn krimatōn anagraphomenē bibliō, which, if rendered in more transparent fashion, would be "in the recorded book of judgments. Philo distinguishes this from books he refers to elsewhere. For example, in his treatment of the expression the sons of men" in Genesis 11:5, he refers to what is written in the books of Kings:

I bow, too, in admiration before the mysteries revealed in the books of Kings (en basilikais biblois) where it does not offend us to find described as sons of God’s psalmist David those who lived and flourished many generations afterwards (1 Kings 15:11; 2 Kings 18:3), though in David’s lifetime probably not even their great-grandparents had been born. (On the Confusion of Tongues xxix.148 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL; my italics])

The allusion, as indicated by the references in parentheses, is to the naming of David as the father of such worthies as Asa and Hezekiah. The method of citation used here (reference to a named book or books) is not typical of Philo’s general practice.² His reference to the book containing the Penuel incident is therefore striking, and is the earliest extant reference to Judges as a distinct literary work. It had a long history prior to Philo’s reference to it, but documentation of that history is all later than he.³ The Greek (LXX) version of Judges to which Philo refers, predates him by a century or more. While it differs in numerous details from the still earlier Hebrew version reflected in the MT, it is unmistakably the same work.⁴

Josephus claims to have based his Antiquities of the Jews on the sacred books (hai hierai bibloi),⁵ of which he tells us elsewhere⁶ there were twenty-two in all, five dealing with the period from creation to Moses and thirteen with the period from Joshua to Artaxerxes I. He does not give them individual titles, however, or indicate which of them he is utilizing at any given point. So it is not surprising that he does not refer to Judges by name. However, he does use almost its entire contents in his treatment of a quite distinct age of judges which he defines in the following terms:

After Joshua’s death for full eighteen years the people continued in a state of anarchy; whereafter they returned to their former polity, entrusting supreme juridical authority to him who in battle and in bravery proved himself the best; and that is why they called this period of their political life the age of judges. (Antiquities vi.84–85; Loeb translation, my italics)

He first surveys the material in 1:1–2:5, then moves directly to the outrage at Gibeah and the resulting war in chapters 19–21. He gives a brief account of the northward migration of Dan (chs. 17–18), omitting the parts of this narrative involving Micah’s image. He then returns to 3:7 (ignoring 2:6–3:6) and moves systematically through the stories of the individual judges, omitting Tola (10:1–2), and concluding his account of the period with the Samson story (chs. 13–16).⁷ Interestingly, he does not locate the story of Ruth in this age of judges but in the high priesthood of Eli,⁸ implicitly bracketing it with 1 Samuel rather than Judges. For Josephus, therefore, the age of Judges appears to be co-terminous with what we know as the book of Judges.

Early references to Judges in its original Hebrew form yield much the same picture. There are only three references to it in the Mishnah,⁹ but these are supplemented in the Gemara by approximately two hundred further references.¹⁰ In line with general practice in the Talmud, most of these references are made without naming the book as their source. In a couple of cases, however, it does receive specific mention. Quotations below are from the English text of the Soncino editions.¹¹

ʿAbodah Zarah 25a contains a discussion of the reference to the Book of Jashar in 2 Samuel 1:18, namely, he bade them teach the children of Judah [to handle] the bow; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. In the course of this discussion R. Samuel b. Naḥmani is quoted as having said:

It is the Book of Judges, which is here called the Book of Jashar, because it contains the verse, In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was Jashar [right] in his own eyes. And where is [Judah’s skill in archery] referred to in it? That the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war; now what kind of warfare requires teaching? Surely archery. But how do we know that this verse refers to Judah?—From the scriptural verses, Who shall go up to the Canaanites for us first, to fight them? And Yahweh said, ‘Judah shall go up.’

The three citations in this quotation are from Judges 21:25 (the closing words of the book),¹² 3:2, and 1:1–2 (the opening words of the book), in that order.¹³ Judges is reckoned to be the second book in the Prophets: Our Rabbis taught: the order of the Prophets is Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve (Baba Bathra 14b). Later in the same paragraph Samuel is credited with its authorship: Samuel wrote his [own] book, and Judges, and Ruth. The tractate Sopherim provides an interesting insight into scribal practice involved in the transmission of the prophetic books:

Between a book of the Prophets and another, one should not leave the same empty space as between two books of the Torah, but in each case the space must be that which has been prescribed for it. Furthermore, a book of the Prophets must begin at the top. (Sopherim 111.2)

This tractate is generally reckoned to date from the closure of the Babylonian Talmud proper, and by some from as late as the eighth century. But appeal is constantly made in it to what is established practice, with supporting quotations from distinguished rabbis from as early as the first century A.D. Whatever its date, this tractate witnesses to the manner in which the distinctions among the various books of the Prophets named in the Talmud were carefully preserved in subsequent transmission.

Such is the book that this commentary is concerned with. It is a given entity, a received object for study, not one whose existence or parameters must be postulated before interpretation can begin. The close scrutiny to which we will subject it is justified in part, at least, by the institutional endorsement which has guaranteed its preservation and brought it within the purview of serious interpretation. It has the antiquity and status of a classic.

B. A CONCEPTUAL UNIT?

While it is clear that early authors and commentators recognized Judges as a book with clearly defined limits and its own distinctive subject matter, it is not clear to what extent they recognized it as a conceptual unit—a literary work with its own unique message.

The descriptive title used by Philo, "the recorded book of judgments (krimatōn)" (my italics), appears to identify judgment as the ideological focus of the book. This is in keeping with the theme of judgment on impiety that he is developing in On the Confusion of Tongues at that point, and presumably the reason why he refers to it. Judgment is the allegorical meaning Philo finds in the Penuel incident of Judges 8. But whether this is for him also the theme of the whole book is impossible to determine because we do not know whether he coined the title book of judgments himself or inherited it from others. In contrast, the standard Greek and Hebrew titles, kritai and šōpetîm respectively, refer to the divinely energized agents of Yahweh’s deliverance (the judges), and therefore suggest that salvation rather than judgment is the main focus.

In the Talmud, as in Philo, the message of the book as such is never discussed. The rabbis use it as a source from which texts can be extracted for use in theological discussion, but the book itself is hardly ever named as the source. It is significant only as part of a larger whole (the Prophets, the Scriptures) which is the true interpretive context for any of its parts, regardless of which book they come from. It is only on rare occasions, when the requirements of a particular discussion demand it, that the book as such receives any mention at all.

It is Josephus who comes closest to treating Judges as a meaningful whole. In line with his historiographical purpose he takes a more holistic approach to it, utilizing most of its contents, as we have seen. He does not use all of it, however, and his omissions significantly alter the perspective, especially in relation to particular characters. Gideon, for example, becomes a man of moderation and a model of every virtue;¹⁴ all mention of his involvement with the ephod cult at Ophrah is omitted. The arrangement of the contents, too, is drastically modified in Josephus’s account, as we saw, the civil war of chapters 19–21 coming before the advent of the first judge, Othniel. By implication, Josephus does offer an interpretation, however forced, of the book as a whole. Nevertheless, in the Antiquities, as we have seen, attention is never drawn to the separate books as such, or the breaks between them. The effect is to emphasize their continuity rather than their separateness, their meaningfulness as a corpus of sacred books (hierai bibloi) rather than as literary units in their own right.

That the stretch of material comprising our present book of Judges is part of a larger narrative, and to that extent incomplete in itself, is almost too obvious to warrant attention. Moreover, it is theoretically possible that the distribution of this larger narrative over a series of books was occasioned by the physical constraints imposed on ancient writers by, for example, the length of ancient scrolls, so that the book divisions are simply divisions of convenience without any literary significance at all.¹⁵ Yet, as far as I am aware, it has never seriously been proposed that the book of Judges is in fact an entirely arbitrary unit of this kind, and scholarly study of it, especially in recent years, has tended to show that the reverse is actually the case. We will return to this below; but first we turn our attention to the period of Israel’s history that the book deals with (Section II) and (as far as we are able to determine it) the process by which the book came to be in the form we have it today (Section III).

II. THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES IN ISRAEL’S HISTORY

Since the main focus of this commentary is literary and theological, this section will not attempt to go into the complex historical background issues in detail. Excellent treatments are available in the standard histories of Israel, and in commentaries which are more historically oriented.¹⁶ Matters of direct relevance to the meaning, and therefore exegesis, of particular passages will be dealt with as they come up in the commentary. But no responsible exegesis can or should proceed in a vacuum, so what we will attempt here is a general introduction to the history of the period in question and some of the more significant recent developments in the study of it.

A. DATING THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES

The book of Judges deals with the history of Israel between the death of Joshua and the transition to the monarchy that began with Samuel. The end of this period can be established fairly securely by working backward from the reign of David (1010–970 B.C.).¹⁷ Allowing thirty-two years for Saul’s reign,¹⁸ this brings us back to 1042 B.C. Samuel and (before him) Eli are both said to have died in old age, after very long ministries: forty years for Eli (1 Sam. 4:18), and (we presume) at least that for Samuel. So it would seem reasonable to allow about eighty years for the Eli-Samuel period as whole. Since Samuel’s ministry overlapped with the first part of Saul’s reign, however, the Eli-Samuel period proper was probably more like seventy years. This would give us an approximate date of 1092 B.C. for the end of the period covered by the book of Judges.

The book of Judges begins its account of the period with the death of Joshua (1:1; 2:8), but unfortunately this event is difficult to date with the same degree of confidence. Allowing for Israel’s forty years of wilderness wandering (which may be a round number rather than a precise one) and Joshua’s lifetime of 110 years (Josh. 24:29), and supposing that his commissioning by Moses was in about his thirtieth year, the starting point for the period covered by the book of Judges must be approximately 120 years after the exodus from Egypt. 1 Kings 6:1 locates the exodus at 480 years before Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, which is commonly accepted as 966 B.C. This gives a date for the exodus of 1446 B.C., close to the middle of the fifteenth century B.C. Admittedly 480 years, too, sounds more like a round number than a precise one, but the date it leads to is in line with what we would expect from the three hundred years that Israel is said to have resided in the lands east of the Jordan prior to Jephthah’s judgeship (Judg. 11:26). While this, too, is probably approximate rather than precise, it is not as immediately open to suspicion as another multiple of forty might be. Furthermore, Israelite occupation of Transjordan for this period is unproblematic in terms of the archeological evidence,¹⁹ and a fifteenth-century date for the exodus and conquest has been supported on broader archeological grounds by, among others, Jack, Bimson, Bimson and Livingston, Aling, and Shea.²⁰

However, the majority of scholars who accept the historicity of the exodus place it, on archeological grounds, at about 1267 B.C. in the reign of Rameses II, near the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. Even such a strongly conservative scholar as Kenneth Kitchen continues to favor this date, taking the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 as representing twelve generations (in reality only about three hundred years), and dismissing the three hundred years of Judges 11:26 as an exaggeration by Jephthah for diplomatic advantage. It is noteworthy that Hoffmeier, after a judicious weighing of all the evidence in 1997, considered the date of the exodus still an open question,²¹ and Provan, Long, and Longman in their recent history of Israel do the same, although cautiously favoring the earlier date.²²

It would be foolish to think that we could resolve all the difficulties here, and there is no need to do so, given that nothing of great importance hangs on it for the exegesis of Judges. However, on balance I am more convinced by the arguments for the earlier date, and will assume for the purposes of this commentary that the exodus took place about 1446 B.C., giving us a date of 1326 B.C. for the beginning of the judges period. So we can think of the judges era as extending roughly from 1326 to 1092 B.C., about 234 years in all. This accords reasonably well with the total of 296 years obtained by simply totaling the data from the book of Judges itself,²³ especially in view of the uncertainties involved in round numbers such as the forty years of 3:11, 5:31, 8:28, and 13:1, the eighty of 3:30, and the twenty of 15:20 and 16:31.²⁴

B. CANAAN IN THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES

The Canaan that was Israel’s immediate environment in the judges period was diverse in every way. It was ethnically diverse in that the subjugation of the region was incomplete and various people groups still resided in different parts of it. Among the peoples that the book mentions as living in Canaan at the time are Perizzites, Jebusites, Amorites, Philistines, Sidonians, Hivites, and Hittites.²⁵ It is not possible to identify all these peoples precisely, and some of the terms may simply be regional rather than ethnic, but the number of them testifies to the diversity of peoples and undoubtedly of cultures as well.

It was also diverse politically, with city-states with their own kings (melāḵîm) as perhaps the most clearly attested form of government, though no doubt the precise form of such kingship varied from one city to another. The Philistines, with their confederation of five cities in the southeast, seem to have had their own distinctive form of government by lords (sarnîm, 16:18). It was an unstable environment, with a tussle going on between Israel and some of these groups for control of certain areas; and there were periodic incursions by outside groups, such as Ammonites and Midianites. This instability was exacerbated by the fact that Egypt was in a period of weakness and was unable to impose any kind of unity.²⁶ In part this instability was caused by competition for arable land and (perhaps) by uprisings against the feudal power of the city-state rulers.²⁷

Most significantly for the book of Judges, it was also a very diverse environment religiously (see the comments at 2:11–13 on the nature of the Canaanite gods and the worship associated with them). The Israelites, who had been taken out of one polytheistic environment in Egypt and inserted (in the next generation) into another polytheistic environment in Canaan, found it difficult to survive there and remain faithful to their monotheistic faith. Their failure to do so is at the very heart of the account that Judges gives of the fortunes of Israel in the judges period.

C. ISRAEL’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD²⁸

Little is known about Israel’s way of life in the judges period apart from what can be gleaned from the Old Testament. The chief source of information is the book of Judges itself, but the books of Ruth and 1 Samuel also shed valuable light.

Israel’s territory at the time was divided into tribal areas (see Josh. 13–21). Of the twelve tribes, nine and a half occupied the region between the Jordan River (including the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea) and the Mediterranean coast. The other two and a half occupied the plateau region east of the Jordan. Incursions by neighboring peoples such as the Midianites, Moabites, and Ammonites (to the east) and the Philistines and other so-called Sea Peoples (to the west) usually involved only part of Israel’s territory, which meant that only one or two tribes were directly affected.

The essential bond between the tribes was their common history and their allegiance to Yahweh. He himself was their supreme Ruler or Judge (Judg. 11:27), and his law was their constitution. It was this covenant relationship with him which bound them together and gave them their identity as a distinct people. At least once a year a religious festival was held at which the people were reminded of their identity and of the obligations which this entailed. One such annual festival was held at Shiloh, which was centrally located and the place where the Tent of Meeting had originally been set up after Israel’s arrival in Canaan (Josh. 18:1; Judg. 21:19; 1 Sam. 1:3). This most likely remained the place of the central sanctuary throughout the judges period, although the ark of the covenant was sometimes moved to other places, especially in times of crisis (Judg. 18:27). How well attended these festivals were and exactly what happened at them are not definitely known; the one explicit statement about them in Judges indicates that at least some of what took place was of questionable orthodoxy,²⁹ and the description of the state of affairs at Shiloh in the opening chapters of 1 Samuel confirms this impression.³⁰ There was a functioning priesthood (18:27), and the judge in office at the time may also have had a role in these festivals (see the comments on 2:17). Given the precedent set by Joshua (Josh. 24), it is likely that at least one of the festivals involved a covenant renewal ceremony of some kind.

For the most part, day-to-day administration of justice and oversight of community affairs was provided locally by the elders of the various clans and tribes (11:4–11; Ruth 4:1–12). But matters which could not be settled locally were brought for settlement to the judge who was in office at the time, either at some central location (4:4–5) or at certain designated towns which the judge visited regularly (1 Sam. 7:15–17). From time to time, as occasion warranted, ad hoc assemblies of representatives from the various tribes were convened to deal with matters of common concern, such as serious misconduct by one of the tribes or an enemy attack on one or more of them (10:17–18; 20:1–3). On such occasions decisive, concerted action was required to preserve the integrity of Israel. There was no standing army, so it was necessary to raise a fresh force of volunteer fighters each time a national emergency arose, and the personal charisma of an individual often played a crucial role in getting this done quickly. It seems that at least some of the judges³¹ rose to office precisely because of their ability to provide inspiring leadership on such occasions (11:1–10). Others seem to have been appointed in more peaceful circumstances (12:8–15), though precisely how this was done is not known.

In practice, however, the system (if that is the correct term for it) rarely if ever worked as smoothly as this. There was in fact little effective unity among the Israelite tribes in the period of the judges. For a start, they were separated from each other by settlements of unconquered Canaanites, some of them in fortified cities commanding major trade and communication corridors (1:19, 27–36; 4:2–3). Furthermore, the gods of these people became a snare to the Israelites, as Joshua had warned they would (2:3; Josh. 23:12–13). This inevitably led to a weakening of their loyalty to Yahweh and to one another, and resulted in spiritual and moral decline that was so serious that it threatened to destroy Israel from within. The tribes were often slow to help one another in times of crisis (5:16–17; 12:2) and even fell to fighting among themselves (8:1–3; 12:1–6; 20:1–48). Most people were concerned only for their own interests, and took advantage of the absence of central government to do as they pleased (17:6; 21:25). This inner decay threatened to destroy the very fabric of Israel, and actually constituted a far more serious threat to its survival in the judges period than any external attack.

But as always in such circumstances, there were faithful Israelites who continued to quietly pursue lives of genuine piety. The book of Judges focuses mainly on the frequent crises that Israel faced, and gives a rather turbulent impression of the period. But it also clearly indicates that there were long periods of peace and relative prosperity, in which life at the local level could settle down into a more even tenor (3:11, 30; 8:28; 10:3–5; 12:8–10). In this respect Judges is nicely complemented by the book of Ruth with its gentle, moving story of one family’s affairs in Bethlehem. Here farmers struggled against the vagaries of the weather, people met and fell in love, and the elders sought to guide the affairs of the community along the tried and proven paths of covenant law and local custom; and both books testify to the fact that, whether in the turbulence of national crisis or the more quiet ebb and flow of village life, Yahweh was deeply involved and sovereignly at work in the lives of his people, preserving and disciplining them, and overruling all things for their good.

D. THE JUDGES PERIOD IN THE HISTORY WARS OF CRITICAL STUDY

In the context of the history of ancient Israel as a field of study, the judges period belongs to the more specific area of the history of Israelite settlement in Canaan. Specific issues relating to the book of Judges include its value as a historical source (is it, in part or as a whole, a record of real history?) and its relationship to the book of Joshua (is it an alternative, more realistic account of the Israelite settlement than the one given in the book of Joshua?).

Excellent summaries and reviews of recent developments in Israelite historiography are readily available, and it is not my intention to duplicate them here.³² Suffice it to say that the increasing application of sociological approaches to Old Testament study and advances in the archeological study of early Iron Age Palestine in the latter part of the twentieth century have led to a widespread loss of confidence among scholars regarding the value of the Old Testament as a source for the study of the history of early Israel. The confident assertions of the Albright school in America and Y. Yadin and his followers in Israel regarding a basic congruence of the biblical picture of Israel’s early history with what may be known from archeology about conditions in Palestine in the relevant period have been increasingly challenged (and discredited in the minds of many scholars) by the followers of a radically revisionist approach to the history of early Israel championed by scholars such as N. P. Lemche, Philip Davies, and Keith Whitelam. According to the latter school of thought, archeology gives virtually no support to the biblical account of the Israelite conquest and settlement of Canaan, and in fact the Old Testament account of Israel’s early history is an ideologically motivated creation of the early Judaism of the postexilic period.

The same period has seen the rise of new literary approaches to the study of Old Testament texts (especially narratives) associated in America with scholars such as Robert Alter, and in Britain with the Sheffield School associated with David Clines. While there have been many positive results from these new approaches, they have tended to produce an artificial separation between historical study of the Old Testament (interested in the Old Testament texts only as possible sources for historical reconstruction) and literary study of the same texts (interested in them only as vehicles for the artistic exploration of themes). The popularity of the new literary approaches among evangelical scholars has had the unfortunate consequence that most of them opt out of the ongoing debate about the historicity of the Old Testament. This has meant that the critical response to the new historical minimalism has not been as robust and thorough as it could have been if the current generation of evangelical scholars had remained as engaged in the area as their forebears had been.³³

Fortunately, however, the new minimalism has not had it all its own way. Significant challenges have continued to be mounted in the United States by scholars such as William Dever, James Hoffmeier, and V. Philips Long, and in Britain by the Liverpool School associated with Kenneth Kitchen and Alan Millard, and their followers. Kenneth Kitchen’s recent, substantial book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), is encyclopedic in the mass of hard historical data it brings to bear on the issues (something he believes his opponents fail to do). Of particular significance for the current state of the debate is the work by Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (also published in 2003). In a long and tightly argued first section (History, Historiography, and the Bible) it mounts a strong critique of the minimalist approaches at the level of epistemology (how we know things about the past) and historical method (responsible use of primary sources, including texts). Its special contribution is to bring back together historical and literary approaches to the study of Israel’s history by reinstating narrative history (stories about the past) as a valid source of historical knowledge, and narrative poetics (how such narratives work as literature) as essential to a correct use of them in historical study. Part 2 of the book then presents a history of Israel drawing on both textual evidence (biblical and extrabiblical) and relevant archeological data, in line with the principles presented in Part 1. This work has drawn praise from mainline scholars on both sides of the debate³⁴ and goes a long way to redressing the relative lack of participation by the current generation of evangelical scholars referred to above. Of particular relevance for the task before us in this commentary is its treatment of Israel’s settlement in the land in chapter 7.

While making full allowance for the theological agenda of Judges and its literary quality (to which we will give a lot of attention in this commentary), there is no reason in principle why it should not preserve, and indeed be anchored in, real historical knowledge of the period in question. Nor is it necessary, or even right, to subordinate its witness about this history to reconstructions based on the current state of archeological knowledge. Both texts and material remains deserve respect and careful analysis, and it is more likely that sound conclusions will be reached by some kind of synthesis between what these two have to tell us than by simply dismissing one in favor of the other.

If we set aside, then, the extreme negativity at the minimalist end of the spectrum, two particular issues have featured in scholarly discussion of the period referred to in the book of Judges: how does the book of Judges relate to the various conquest/settlement models that have been proposed in critical scholarship, and does Judges present an alternate and more realistic account of Israel’s arrival and settlement in the land than Joshua does?

The various alternatives that have been proposed (the conquest, peaceful infiltration, peasant revolt, and other endogenous models that assume that Israel emerged within Canaan rather than entering it from outside) are generally well known, and good summaries are given in the recent works just referred to.³⁵ The conquest model, at one end of the spectrum, gives primary weight to the biblical account of Israel’s entry to the land (especially the book of Joshua) and seeks corroboration from archeology. The various endogenous models, at the other end, base their conclusions on archeology alone and neither seek nor find confirmation from biblical material (which is regarded as of no historical value). Conservative scholars generally favor the conquest model associated with the work of W. Albright and his followers. However, the reality is that the whole truth does not lie at one end of the spectrum or the other, and that there is some value in most if not all of the models that have been proposed. The main problems that scholars have found with the conquest model is that the archeological evidence does not support widespread Israelite destruction of Canaanite sites in the relevant period. Such evidence as does exist does not correlate well with the thirteenth-century date of Israel’s entry to the land favored by most scholars, and in any case is distributed across too wide a time span to have been caused solely by Joshua’s concentrated campaigns. Furthermore, the material remains of early Iron (re)settlement of the hill country of Canaan suggest that the people involved were essentially Canaanites rather than Israelites with a distinctive new culture.

However, it now appears that some of the crucial weaknesses of the conquest model have been due as much to a failure to read Joshua and Judges carefully enough as to a failure to give sufficient weight to the archeological record. The fact is that the book of Joshua does not claim that the Israelites caused widespread destruction of cities; in fact, it explicitly denies this (Josh. 11:13).³⁶ Joshua speaks of cities being taken and people (especially kings) being killed, but only three cities—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor—are said to have been burned (Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:11, 13).³⁷ Furthermore, some areas seem to have been taken by something more like accommodation (or interpenetration) than conquest (e.g., Gibeon, Josh. 9; Shechem, Josh. 24:1, 25; Gen. 34). Finally, there is abundant evidence in the biblical record, especially in Judges, of Israelites intermarrying with Canaanites and worshiping their gods, so much so that Daniel Block can speak of the Canaanization of Israel in the judges period.³⁸ It should hardly surprise us, therefore, if in the material remains of the period Israelites are virtually indistinguishable from Canaanites. All of this suggests that the conflict between the biblical account and the archeological evidence has been greatly exaggerated, and that both need to be read and compared with one another much more carefully.³⁹ Wholesale dismissal of either is unwarranted.

A similar problem (and solution) appears when we consider the ways in which Israel’s occupation of Canaan is described in Joshua and Judges respectively. Scholars who have rejected the conquest model, if they give credence to the biblical material at all, tend to favor Judges as an alternative and more realistic account of what happened than Joshua: a rather messy process of the meeting and mixing of various tribes and people groups. This is a picture much more compatible with the endogenous models, at the righthand end of the spectrum, which currently have the ascendancy in critical scholarship. On this view Judges covers the same historical period as Joshua, but much more realistically. It is a view that seems justified, at least in part, by the fact that there is undeniable overlap between Joshua and Judges; some material found in the former is repeated in the latter, for example, the death and burial of Joshua (Josh. 24:29–30; Judg. 2:6–9), Othniel’s capture of Debir (Kiriath-sepher), and Othniel’s marriage to Achsah, Caleb’s daughter (Josh. 15:15–20; Judg. 1:11–15). However, several things need to be borne in mind. First, such overlap is the exception rather than the rule; the vast majority of the material in Judges is quite different from that in Joshua, and, second, the way Judges opens explicitly locates the events it is about to describe as "after the death of Joshua" (1:1), that is, in a different period and situation. Third, there are repetition and overlap within the book of Judges itself, apparently for compositional and thematic purposes (1:1–2:5 and 2:6–3:6 both start from the death of Joshua and describe what happened after his death from two different and complementary perspectives). These observations provide a starting point for a much more discerning comparison of the books of Joshua and Judges as a whole than the one that simply sets them over against one another as competing and conflicting accounts of Israel’s occupation of the land.

Careful observation of the content of the two books indicates that there is more than a merely artificial or narrative sequentiality between them. As noted by Kaufmann back in 1953, "At the time of Joshua’s wars the Philistines of the Pentapolis [Ekron, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, and Gath] were not yet in the land of Canaan. Joshua