Introduction
An analysis of the critical-interpretive issues of the book of Judges allows the student to identify and engage in disparate views that inform coherent conclusions. Unfortunately, scholars not only disagree regarding the outcomes of the arguments, but they also disagree on which interpretive issues need debated. If the critical-interpretive issues are ignored, then the student risks the possibility of engaging in a discussion that does not exist. An identification of the primary critical-interpretive issues within the book of Judges provides the interpreter the opportunity to sharpen hermeneutical acumen while, simultaneously, joining an ongoing conversation surrounding relevant scholarly initiatives. The following analysis identifies three of the most debated topics in recent times by juxtaposing differing scholarly perspectives. First, a discussion regarding the methodology of Israel’s entrance into Canaan ensues followed by an analysis of the complex chronological issues surrounding the period of the Judges, and, finally, the research concludes with a brief assessment of the distinct views of judgeship.
Interpretive Issues
The Entrance
Invasion and Conquest
Scholarly debate continues around the relationship between the book of Judges and the settlement methods documented in Joshua. Conservative scholars often lean toward the conquest model. Joshua 10:40 is representative, which states that “Joshua struck the whole land…and all their kings. He left none remaining.”[1]
A Biblical History of Israel, Second Edition
- F. Albright championed the conquest model with the support of archaeological evidence, and, more recently, Yigael Yadin carries the baton.[2] Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman recognize that the conquest model builds its case primarily upon archaeological evidence from the destruction of Canaanite cities such as Bethel, Debir, Eglon, Hazor, and Lachish during the Late Bronze Age.[3] Yadin builds on Albright’s work by recognizing that the archaeological evidence does, at times, contradict the biblical account, but the excavations at sites like Hazor cannot be ignored (cf. Josh 11:10-11). Yadin explains that his excavations at Hazor provide evidence of the destruction and conflagration of a large Canaanite city in the late thirteenth century BC.[4] Pottery provides an important key to the dating of the destruction of Hazor. Yadin explains that Mycenean IIIB pottery found in Hazor’s destruction layer was not used after about 1230 BC.[5] However, the dating of the destruction of Hazor to the thirteenth century creates two additional chronological challenges.
Judges 4:2 refers to the king of Hazor, which states, “And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.” If Yadin is correct and Hazor was destroyed in the thirteenth century by Joshua (cf. Josh 11), then how is it possible for Deborah to be fighting against the king of Hazor in Judges 4? Some scholars, such as Benjamin Mazar, answer the question by reversing the chronological sequence of Joshua and Judges, but Yadin concludes the reference to the king of Hazor in Judges 4 is an editorial gloss assigned to a later date.[6]
The issues surrounding the dating continue with attempts to reconcile the destruction of Hazor in the thirteenth century with the dating of the Exodus. In Judges 11:26, Jephthah claims that Israel had possessed the Transjordan territory for 300 years. Provan, Long, and Longman place Jephthah in the eleventh century BC, which resolves the issue by putting the conquest in the fourteenth century.[7] Alternatively, Wright discounts the round number of 300 years and, regardless, assumes that characters within a story may provide incorrect chronological data.[8] In sum, although the conquest model continues to garner favor, many scholars disagree.
Infiltration and Revolt
Two popular alternative views to the conquest model also exist, the exogenous peasant infiltration model and the endogenous peasant revolt model. According to Provan, Long, and Longman, the peasant infiltration arose from the work of Albrecht Alt who asserted that the Israelites entrance into Canaan occurred over a long period in an environment of relative peace.[9] Alt did not completely subvert the existence of military campaigns, but instead, the military encounters were isolated.[10] Martin Noth picked up Alt’s theory and, according to Larry James, expanded it by adding the concept of a twelve-tribe amphictyony, which is a union of people centered around a religious temple and common religious beliefs.[11] Both Alt’s theory and Noth’s expanded version of Alt’s theory have faced criticism from the archaeological evidence provided by proponents of the conquest model. However, Provan, Long, and Longman point out that much of the archaeological evidence supporting a thirteenth-century destruction of cities occurred subsequent to Alt’s work, and regardless, Noth was not convinced the destructions were at the hands of the Israelites.[12] Furthermore, James concludes that the genealogical reality of the tribal relationships as described in the Pentateuch provides the explanation for a common religion and language; thus Noth’s subjective theory of amphictyony is not necessary.[13]
The peasant revolt model is a hypothesis that provides another alternative to the conquest model. According to Provan, Long, and Longman, George Mendenhall differed from both the conquest and peasant infiltration models and argued that Israel emerged through a sociocultural transformation from within Canaan.[14] Mendenhall did not believe that the Bible provided sufficient information for historical reconstruction for the activities of God seem “to modern man the very antithesis of history, for it is within the framework of economic, sociological and political organization that we of today seek understanding.”[15] Accordingly, Mendenhall assumes that the conquerors were indigenous people of Canaan who were mostly peasant farmers joining forces in religious solidarity through their relationship with Yahweh to challenge the dysfunction of the societal system’s oppressive taxation.[16] Understandably, critics have accused Mendenhall of reductionism, and K. Lawson Younger identifies the following criticisms of the peasant revolt model: (1) nomadism does not require egalitarianism, (2) farmers and urban dwellers often live in an interdependent reality, (3) egalitarian, anti-imperialistic tendencies appear to contradict the worldview espoused in Joshua.[17] Although grasping the historical realities of the Israelite people during the time of the Judges offers the opportunity to significantly enhance the interpreter’s understanding of the narratives, at the present time, no scholarly consensus exists regarding Israel’s entrance into Canaan.
The Chronology
Overlapping Judgeships
The chronological conundrum revolves around 1 Kings 6:1, which states, “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel … he began to build the house of the Lord.” To reconcile the 480 years with the narrative, the interpreter must first compile the events and sum them. Daniel Block uses the following formula: (1) the desert wanderings (40 years), (2) conquest (7 years), (3) the judges (410 years), (4) the period of Eli and Samuel (52 years), (5) the Saul and David monarchy (80 years), and (6) the years of Solomon’s reign (4 years).[18] The sum of the time frame from the desert wanderings to the fourth year of the Solomonic monarchy is 593 years rather than the 480 years as documented in 1 Kings 6:1. Scholars have proposed a multitude of solutions to reconcile the perceived discrepancy.
Although David Washburn provides the most straightforward approach by simply overlapping certain judgeships, the complexity resides in the details. For example, Judges 3:31 states that after Ehud was Shamgar, thus the two judges are not contemporaries. However, Washburn asserts that, based on Judges 5:6, Deborah and Shamgar were contemporaries and their judgeships overlapped.[19] Furthermore, Washburn notes that the introductory formula to the Jephthah narrative is not strictly sequential, and there is no rest period prior to the Jephthah narrative.[20] Accordingly, Washburn claims that the judgeships of Jephthah and Gideon overlap. Finally, Washburn also suggests that Samson overlaps Jephthah and Gideon and the minor prophets of Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Jair, and Tola are also contemporaries.[21] Although Washburn does not claim chronological perfection, he does condense the timeframe.
Gershon Galil takes a different tactic by examining the potential overlap between Judges and the Philistine oppression in Samuel and by viewing the chronological framework of Judges through the lens of Deuteronomistic History. First, regarding the former, twenty-one years prior to Samuel’s victory over the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam 6:1; 7:2) the battle of Eben-hezer was fought and since Eli died from the shock experienced as a result of the battle, “it is clear that the last 19 years of Eli overlapped the first period of the Philistine oppression.”[22] In other words, the judgeships of Jephthah and Samson that faced the Philistine oppression overlapped with the period of Eli and the time of the exiled Ark that faced the same oppressive forces. Second, according to Galil, since the minor judges were not part of the deuteronomistic version of Judges, then they do not become part of the Deuteronomist’s chronology.[23] In sum, according to Galil, the overlap of the period of Philistine oppression along with the exclusion of the minor judges provides the data necessary to reconcile the chronology of the narratives to 1 Kings 6:1.
Literary Parallels
Although overlapping the dates and events of judgeships provides the most common approach to reconciling the dates of the stories with 1 Kings 6:1, Robert Chisolm proposes an alternative approach that utilizes linguistic evidence. The solution revolves around the statement in Judges 3:7 and 6:1, “The people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Chisolm identifies an A-B-B-A-B-B pattern where A represents Judges 3:7 and 6:1, and B represents the same phrase, but it commences with the verb וַיֹּסִפוּ, “and they added,” thus resulting in the statement, “The Israelites again did evil in the Lord’s sight” (Judg 3:12; 4:1; 10:6; 13:1).[24] In other words, the ABB-ABB literary pattern creates two panels where the Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah cycles run concurrently with the Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson cycles.
Chisolm also applies the theory of literary panels to specific dates and recognizes the difficulty of reconciling Judges 11:26 with his hypothesis. First, regarding the dates, Chisolm begins panel one with the Cushan-Rishathaim oppression (Judg 3:8) at approximately 1336 BC and panel two with the Midianite oppression (Judg 6:1) at 1334 BC, and then he concludes panel one with the land resting after deliverance (Judg 5:31) at 1130 BC and panel two with Samson (Judge 15:20) at 1130 BC. By removing almost 200 years from the chronological sequence, Chisolm provides a potential resolution to the 1 Kings 6:1 dilemma.[25] Second, Judges 11:26 asserts that Israel occupied the trans-Jordanian area for 300 years. The statement is problematic because Jephthah’s speech would have occurred only 185 years after the trans-Jordan invasion based on the literary reconstruction, thus Chisolm suggests that Jephthah could have used hyperbole or was simply inaccurate.[26] Although no consensus exists regarding the methodology to reconcile the narrative chronology of the book of Judges with 1 Kings 6:1, several viable options exist.
The Definition
Leaders and Judges
The Hebrew term for judge (שׁפט) has a broad semantic range; thus, the nature of the judges referred to in the book of Judges (cf. 2:16) remains debated. Although the term certainly does not align with the modern courtroom perspective, Deborah does seem to render a type of judgement that may engage in settling disputes in Judges 4:4-5. Richard Schultz summarizes the semantic range of the term as follows: (1) a preservation of social justice, (2) a divine establishment of justice through deliverance or punishment, (3) an official of Israel, and (4) a human ruler or governor.[27]
The final category, according to Block, fits the cognate expressions found in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician and support the concept that the verb to judge, שָׁפַט, refers to a human leading or ruling.[28] In light of the possibility, Tomoo Ishida explains that, under the influence of Martin Noth, scholars have distinguished between major and minor judges and their respective functions.[29] More specifically, Noth determined that the major judges were originally identified as judges, but the minor judges were a later redaction by the deuteronomistic historian who decided to identify them by the same title as the major judges even though their functions were different: the major judges led military campaigns, and the minor judges ruled the amphictyony.[30] However, additional investigations into texts from Mari and Ugarit led Ishida ultimately to conclude that the judges were military leaders who “organized local tribal confederations called ‘Israel,’ and went to war as the commander of the arm of their confederations.”[31] Although not conclusive, contextual clues from Judges 3:10 also support the basic construct of military rule, “The Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he judged Israel. He went out to war, and the Lord gave Cushan-rishathaim king.” Finally, Richard Schultz identifies the common formula “and x judged Israel for y years” (cf. Judg 10:2, 3; 12:7, 8–9, 11, 13–14; 15:20; 16:31), which points to the meaning, “to lead.”[32]
Saviors and Deliverers
Not all scholars agree that שָׁפַט means to strictly rule or lead within the context of the book of Judges. Judges 2:16 extends the semantic range to encompass the possibility of a savior or deliverer, “Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them.” Accordingly, Block asserts that the salvific definition of the judges in verse 16 communicates three important facts: (1) the judges’ power came from Yahweh, (2) the judges’ purpose was soteriological, and (3) the judges’ function was instrumental.[33] Furthermore, Schultz explains that Noth’s hypothesis that distinguishes between major and minor judges and applies the latter to duties relegated to the amphictyony lacks textual evidence and, besides, the minor judges, at times, engaged in military activity (cf. 3:31; 10:1, 3).[34]
Intertextual evidence also supports a nonjudicial use of the term. In 1 Samuel 8:5, the elder of Israel made the following request to Samuel and Ramah, “Appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” The context of the request resides within a military threat from the Philistines; thus, it appears the elders are looking neither for judicial oversight nor merely a military ruler but instead, a military ruler that will deliver them from their enemy. Accordingly, Schultz is correct and agrees with Block that the soteriological nature of the office pertained primarily to deliverance from foreign oppression.[35]
Conclusion
The critical-interpretive issues within the book of Judges illuminate just how much diversity of interpretation exists within scholarship. First, regarding the entrance into Canaan, the options range from a conquest to an infiltration as well as the possibility of an endogenous revolt. Next, the issue of reconciling the chronological narrative in Judges with 1 Kings 6:1 allows for numerous options, most of which land into various methods of judgeship overlap or the possibility of literary panels as a result of linguistic analysis. Finally, the issue of the nature and function of the judges rests on the result of semantic analysis of the term שׁפט, which could suggest a judicial function, a ruler or leader, or a savior or deliverer. Without question, the primary critical-interpretive issues within the book of Judges provides interpreters the opportunity to sharpen hermeneutical acumen and join the ongoing scholarly conversation. From a practical perspective, analyzing the interpretive options allows for deeper understanding and offers the possibility of integrating differing viewpoints into the work of the burgeoning student or expositor.
___________________________________________
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
[2] See W. F. Albright, “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 74 (1939): 11–23 and Yigael Yadin, “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable,” Biblical Archaeology Review 8, no. 2 (March 1982): 16–21.
[3] Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 192.
[4] Yadin, “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable,” 19.
[5] Ibid., 20.
[6] Yadin, “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable,” 23.
[7] Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 192.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 193–194. Note: The original German sources from Albrecht Alt are not readily accessible.
[10] Yadin, “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable,” 5.
[11] Larry James, “An Evaluation of Martin North’s Idea of Amphictyony as Applied to Israel,” Restoration Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1976): 165.
[12] Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 194.
[13] James, “An Evaluation of Martin North’s Idea of Amphictyony as Applied to Israel,” 167, 174.
[14] Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 194.
[15] George E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” The Biblical Archaeologist 25, no. 3 (1962): 66.
[16] Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” 73-85.
[17] K. Lawson Younger, “Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 181–182.
[18] Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, ed. Kenneth A. Mathews and David S. Dockery, vol. 6, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 61. For purposes of the analysis, Solomon’s fourth regnal year is assumed to be around 966 BC, which would place the exodus event circa 1446 BC.
[19] David L Washburn, “The Chronology of Judges: Another Look,” Bibliotheca sacra 147, no. 588 (October 1990): 419–420.
[20] Ibid., 422–423.
[21] Ibid., 423–425.
[22] Gershon Galil, “The Chronological Framework of the Deuteronomistic History,” Biblica 85, no. 3 (2004): 419.
[23] Galil, “The Chronological Framework of the Deuteronomistic History,” 420-421.
[24] Robert B Chisholm, “The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to Solving a Pesky Problem,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 2009): 251.
[25] Chisholm, “The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to Solving a Pesky Problem,” 252.
[26] Ibid., 255.
[27] Richard Schultz, “שָׁפַט,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 214–219.
[28] Block, Judges, Ruth, 6:24–25.
[29] Tomoo Ishida, “The Leaders of the Tribal Leagues: Israel in the Pre-Monarchic Period,” Revue Biblique 80, no. 4 (1973): 515.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid., 527.
[32] Schultz, “שָׁפַט”, 215-216.
[33] Block, Judges, Ruth, 6:23.
[34] Schultz, “שָׁפַט”, 218.
[35] Ibid.
Bibliography
- Albright, W. F. “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 74 (1939): 11–23.
- Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Edited by Kenneth A. Mathews and David S. Dockery. Vol. 6. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
- Chisholm, Robert B. “The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to Solving a Pesky Problem.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 2009): 247–255.
- Galil, Gershon. “The Chronological Framework of the Deuteronomistic History.” Biblica 85, no. 3 (2004): 413–421.
- Ishida, Tomoo. “The Leaders of the Tribal Leagues: Israel in the Pre-Monarchic Period.” Revue Biblique 80, no. 4 (1973): 514–530.
- James, Larry. “An Evaluation of Martin North’s Idea of Amphictyony as Applied to Israel.” Restoration Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1976): 165–174.
- Mazar, Amihay. “Additional Philistine Temples at Tell Qasile.” The Biblical Archaeologist 40, no. 2 (May 1977): 82–87.
- Mendenhall, George E. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist 25, no. 3 (1962): 66–87.
- Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman. A Biblical History of Israel. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015.
- Schultz, Richard. “שָׁפַט.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
- Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 3 (September 2005): 491–500.
- Washburn, David L. “The Chronology of Judges: Another Look.” Bibliotheca sacra 147, no. 588 (October 1990): 414–425.
- Weippert, Manfred. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Scholarly Debate. Translated by James D. Martin. London: S.C.M., 1971.
- Wright, G. Ernest. Biblical Archaeology. Rev. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1962.
- Yadin, Yigael. “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable.” Biblical Archaeology Review 8, no. 2 (March 1982): 16–23.
- Younger, K. Lawson. “Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship.” In The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
