Notes

1. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 23.

2. Some scholars have argued on source-critical and form-critical grounds that the term môšîaʿ is the older title used for these charismatic savior figures and that šōpēṭ is a secondary term used later when a redactor assumed a link between the “major” and “minor” judges. See, e.g., W. Beyerlin, “Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richtersbuch,” in Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, Festschrift A. Weiser, ed. by E. Würthwein and O. Kaiser (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 6–7. But such an approach blurs the literary function of the noncyclical judges (see more on this below).

3. T. L. J. Mafico, “Judge, Judging,” ABD, 3:1104–5. While the root špṭ occurs in a number of cognate languages, the use of the nominal form in Phoenician and Punic may come closest to the biblical usage, where the term is used to designate high functionaries or rulers. See J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/21; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1182–83.

4. Block, Judges, Ruth, 23–24.

5. Ibid., 25.

6. It is interesting that the noun šōpēṭ is never used of any named individual in the book, except for Yahweh. The verbal form is used, but only with the following individuals: Othniel (3:10), Deborah (4:4), Tola (10:2), Jair (10:3), Jephthah (12:7), Ibzan (12:8, 9), Elon (12:11), Abdon (12:13, 14) and Samson (15:20; 16:31).

7. See A. Hauser, “Unity and Diversity in Early Israel Before Samuel,” JETS 22 (1979): 289–303.

8. Block, Judges, Ruth, 54–55.

9. A. Malamat, “The Period of the Judges,” in Judges, ed. B. Mazar (WHJP 3; Tel Aviv: Jewish History Publications, 1971), 131. He argues that the differences in the accounts derive primarily from the sources used by the narrator: family chronicles for the minor judges; folk narratives for the deliverer judges.

10. The majority of scholars understand the book as part of the Deuteronomistic History (though, in part, variously defined). For this popular way of viewing the book, see R. Boling, “Judges, Book of,” in ABD, 3:1107–17. For an overview of the theory of the Deuteronomistic History, see S. L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD, 2:160–68. For an evaluation of the scholarly discussion, see M. A. O’Brien, “Judges and the Deuteronomistic History,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth, ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 235–59. See also Block, Judges, Ruth, 44–50.

11. Or perhaps, as an alternative, the statement “until the time of the captivity of the land” should be linked with the next verse, which states that the Danites “continued to use the idols that Micah had made, all the time the house of God was in Shiloh.” Thus “the captivity of the land” referred to in verse 30 is understood in relation to its fall, the historical context of this event being the Philistine ascendancy prior to the time of Saul. See J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (SOTBT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 110. A variant of this view is seen in the attempt to emend 18:30 to read “ark” (ʾ ^arôn) instead of “land” (ʾāreṣ) and to identify this event with the capture of the ark in the days of Eli by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:21). See E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 180.

12. Block, Judges, Ruth, 57–59.

13. J. Marius, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 133–34.

14. Ibid., 134.

15. For many scholars the book of Judges is an apology for the monarchy. More specifically, it is a defense of the Judahite/Davidic monarchy, as opposed to the Saulide monarchy. See R. H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996); M. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature As Politics,” JBL 108 (1989): 395–418; and M. A. Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges,” VT 47 (1997): 517–29. There are a number of good reasons why scholars have perceived this purpose for the book. However, while the book of Judges is concerned with and presents the general flow of the premonarchic political history of Israel, it is also clear that it is concerned with presenting Israel’s spiritual state during this period with all of its ramifications, and that this is the primary purpose of the book. See the discussion of Block, Judges, Ruth, 66–67, and our discussion of the double conclusion’s refrain below, pp. 30–33.

16. For some suggested chronological arrangements, see A. Hill and J. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 173–74; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 178–81; and Block, Judges, Ruth, 59–63.

17. Note that the first four major/cyclical judges are credited with forty years of rest for the land (in the case of Ehud, double forty, i.e., eighty). The Philistine oppression (13:1) is forty years. Samson’s judgeship is twenty years (half forty), as is the Canaanite oppression (4:3).

18. Perhaps their inclusion would have obscured his message. Also note that no precise information is given about the length of their judgeships.

19. Cf. the situation in the account of Abimelech and the bêt ʾāb of Gideon in the discussion of ch. 9 below.

20. F. Lambert, “Tribal Influences in Old Testament Tradition,” SEÅ 59 (1994): 33–58.

21. For further discussion, see S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ʾAb) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996).

22. D. I. Block, The Foundations of National Identity: A Study in Ancient Northwest Semitic Perspectives (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1983), 1–83.

23. Concerning the twelve-tribe systems of Israel, see Z. Kallai, “The Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel,” VT 47 (1997): 53–90.

24. Lambert, “Tribal Influences,” 46.

25. Cf. Deut. 13, which deals with a city involved in idolatry. In this case, the property is not forfeited to the priests but is to be destroyed along with the people (cf. also Ezra 10:8).

26. See Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Bedeutung und Funktion von ḥerem in biblisch-hebräischen Texten,” BZ 38 (1994): 270–75.

27. J. P. U. Lilley, “Understanding the ḥerem,” TynBul 44 (1993): 169–77, esp. 174.

28. K. L. Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 235–36.

29. Cf. Lilley’s conclusions, “Understanding the ḥerem,” 176–77.

30. P. C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).

31. An inclusio is a literary unit that begins and ends with the same or similar word, phrase, clause, or subject matter. For the double introduction and double conclusion as an inclusio, see C. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges,” CBQ 52 (1990): 410–31, esp. 413 and 429; and R. G. Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 29–38; K. L. Younger Jr., “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” in Faith, Tradition, History: Essays on Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 223–27.

32. The two repetitions at the center of the double conclusion (i.e., 18:1a and 19:1a) are intrinsically bound together by a chiasm, melek ʾên versus ʾên melek respectively.

33. Many biblical interpreters assume the reference in the formula is only to a human king and is the product of a promonarchical redaction. If one merely sees this as a promonarchical redaction, then one might miss the spiritual component that seems to be functioning to reinforce the proper theological understanding of the double conclusion. An example of this is found in the perspective asserted by J. A. Soggin, who writes, “It [the refrain] seems to be particularly ill-chosen for chs. 19–21: here the existence of an inter-tribal assembly is actually affirmed, an assembly which judges the controversies that have broken out among the various members and whose decisions appear to be binding on all. Thus the phrase ‘in those days . . . everyone did what seemed to him to be right’ seems somewhat inappropriate to indicate what happened in that era, at least according to the opinion of the pro-monarchical redaction” (Soggin, Judges: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981], 280).

Some interpreters assume the first line of the refrain refers to an idealized monarchy that redactionally supported the Davidic, as opposed to the Saulide, monarchy. See e.g., O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 268–69; Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics,” 517–29. But the first line of the refrain need not imply a promonarchic, let alone pro-Davidic, polemic. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 475–76, 484. Contra Soggin, the first line is intimately tied to the second, which has obvious moral and spiritual overtones that even the presence of a Davidic king could not necessarily deter. See also note 13 above.

34. R. M. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 200–202.

35. Ibid., 200, 202.

36. See D. W. Gooding, “The Composition of the Book of Judges,” in H. M. Orlinsky Memorial Volume (Eretz Israel 16; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 70–79, esp. 76–78.

37. P. Satterthwaite, “ ‘No King in Israel’: Narrative Criticism and Judges 17–21,” TynBul 44 (1993): 75–88.

38. For further discussion of this abuse of the book, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 71–72.

39. Interestingly, the order of four judges mentioned in 1 Sam. 12:9–11 is Jerub-Baal, Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel. Thus, since there is no clear indication in the book of Judges for chronological aspects beyond the number of years for certain items, the ordering principle may be governed by different criteria than simple chronology.

40. There is some disagreement among scholars concerning the number of framework components. Some count only five or six; others include as many as ten.

41. Block, Judges, Ruth, 149.

42. B. G. Webb, The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 175–76.

43. The Jephthah cycle is a blip in the pattern, for it includes many of the components.

44. D. N. Fewell, “Judges,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 67.

45. Concerning this, see the excellent discussion of F. E. Greenspahn: “The Theology of the Framework of Judges,” VT 36 (1986): 385–96. Greenspahn concludes that there is really no firm basis for describing the framework as Deuteronomistic (389–91, 395). Also, each judge may be seen as a microcosm of the nation. See A. Hauser, “Unity and Diversity in Early Israel,” 289–303.

46. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 412.

47. Again, the Jephthah cycle is a blip in the pattern (cf. note 43, above).

48. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 31; K. R. R. Gros Louis, “The Book of Judges,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1974, 1982), 1:144–45; M. O’Connor, “The Women in the Book of Judges,” HAR 10 (1986): 277–93.

49. J. P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 38, n. 11.

50. See, e.g., the popular NIV Study Bible notes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 327.

51. For the In-group/Out-group distinction, see D. J. Chalcraft, “Deviance and Legitimate Action in the Book of Judges,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter (JSOTSup 87; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 177–207.

52. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 412.

53. B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 141 n. 9.

54. The Abimelech account, the sequel to Gideon and conclusion to the fourth cycle, introduces for the first time in the book an oppressor who is internal rather than external. The work of the cyclical/major judge, Gideon, is undone by the antijudge, “king” Abimelech, Gideon’s son.

55. This “propensity for pairs” may help explain the preponderance of what have been dubbed “doublets” in the Gideon cycle.

56. See the discussion of G. E. Gebrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 123–29.

57. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews pairs these judges, with one pair being Gideon and Barak, the other pair being Samson and Jephthah; it leaves out the pair Othniel and Ehud. On the book of Hebrews usage, see the discussion of Samson below, pp. 325–28.

58. See further the discussion of Block (Judges, Ruth, 342–43).

59. For a discussion of many of these, see L. R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (BLS 14; Sheffield: Almond, 1988), 83–84.

60. Usually this is based on the observation that none of the five short notices in 10:1–5 and 12:8–15 refer to any external threat or military activity on the part of the judge, and thus these notices must represent generally peaceful interludes. See, for example, Webb, The Book of the Judges, 176.

61. By the way, it is worth noting that Samson fails in saving Israel too. In fact, he doesn’t really even attempt to “save” Israel.

62. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 3. Cf. also A. J. Hauser, “The ‘Minor Judges’—A Re-evaluation,” JBL 94 (1975): 190–200, esp. 200; and E. T. Mullen Jr., “The ‘Minor Judge’: Some Literary and Historical Considerations,” CBQ 44 (1982): 185–201, esp. 201.

63. This formula may be simply a device for signalling the next item for narration and is not indicative of chronology. See also the comment of Block, Judges, Ruth, 338 n. 871.

64. I recognize that the precise wording here is unique to the entire Hebrew Bible. But the use of “after” (ʾaḥ^arê) as an introductory phrase of the minor judge still argues for Shamgar’s inclusion in the minor judge list. In fact, the pattern revealed in the chart above showing the one-two-three pattern of the minor judges argues conclusively in favor of inclusion.

65. Following the warning given by J. H. Walton, L. D. Bailey, and C. Williford, “Bible Based Curricula and the Crisis of Scriptural Authority,” Christian Education Journal 13 (1993): 83–94.

66. See T. Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 70.

67. I. Provan, “To Highlight All Our Idols: Worshipping God in Nietzsche’s World,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 19–42.

68. Esarhaddon’s “Renewal of the Gods,” a text that describes at great length the renewal (or better, the “remaking”) of the cult images. See R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (AfO 9; Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1956), §53, AsBbA Rs. 2–38.

69. C. Walker and M. B. Dick, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. B. Dick (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 55–122.

70. This was “a performative ritual designed to dissociate the statue from its aspects of man-made artifact” (see T. N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context [Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995], 41).

71. A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 2d ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977), 184.

72. Compare the Neo-Assyrian letter that states: “The kizertu is set up in the temple; they say about it: ‘It is Nabû’ ” (LAS 318:6–7). Cf. also the Tanit signs, Baal Hammon signs, etc., in Phoenician contexts.

73. As opposed to the cosmic manifestations of the ancient Near Eastern deities, which are addressed in the first commandment (Ex. 20:3).

74. C. F. H. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988).

75. This underlying unbelief is traceable in Western culture back to the Renaissance.

76. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization, 27.

77. It is hard to preach or teach the double conclusion of the book (chs. 17–21) without feeling some of this depression.

1. On 1:1–2:5, see K. L. Younger Jr., “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1:1–2:5 and its Dependence on the Book of Joshua,” JSOT 68 (1995): 75–92; and “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” 207–27.

2. Josh. 10:1–5 is parallel to Judg. 1:4–7; Josh. 15:63 to Judg. 1:8, 21; Josh. 15:13–19 (cf. 14:6–15) to Judg. 1:10–15, 20; Josh. 13:2–3 to Judg. 1:18–19; Josh. 17:11–13 to Judg. 1:27–28; Josh. 16:10 to Judg. 1:29; Josh. 19:10–16 to Judg. 1:30; Josh. 19:24–31 to Judg. 1:31–32; Josh. 19:32–39 to Judg. 1:33; Josh. 19:41–48 to Judg. 1:34–35.

3. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 103.

4. A codicil is a short writing or addition to a will that modifies it in some way.

5. E. T. Mullen Jr., “Judges 1:1–36: The Deuteronomistic Reintroduction of the Book of Judges,” HTR 77 (1984): 33–54, esp. 43.

6. Concerning the translation “lord of Bezeq,” see S. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Names in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta: Scholars press, 1990), 117; and Younger, “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries,” 78 n. 9. See standard commentaries for discussions of the variant Adoni-Zedek. At the present, it seems impossible to conclude that there is a wordplay in the name, as some commentators have suggested, since the precise meaning of bezeq is uncertain.

7. Also see the close parallels 2 Sam. 1:1 and 2:1. The latter contains the same question-answer sequence found in Judg. 1:1: “In the course of time [lit., afterwards], David inquired of the Lord: ‘Shall I go up [ʿālâ] to one of the towns of Judah?’ he asked. The Lord said: ‘Go up.’ ”

8. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 148.

9. Ibid.

10. The difficulty in the handling of 1:2 is reflected in Webb’s analysis, where he understands verse 2 as part of Section A (Judges, 103) and yet as forming the prologue to the description of Judah’s activities in Section B (ibid., 90). It seems to me that 1:2a goes with A (“Who will . . . go up?” 1:1–2a) as part of the major chiasm of Introduction 1. It is not only the answer to the Israelites’ inquiry of God but serves as a counter to the angel/messenger of the Lord in A′ (2:1–5). Judg. 1:2b goes with the next section (B), “Judah goes up” (1:2b–21), functioning as part of the smaller chiasm. In a sense 1:3–21 is the exposition of the answer in 1:2, and 1:22–36 a further exposition of the question of 1:1. Nonetheless, 1:2b serves as a transitional prologue to 1:3–21, and I have included it in Section B to indicate this.

11. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 23. Note Judah’s subtle disobedience from the start.

12. If “Canaanites” are understood here as “urban dwellers” and “Perizzites” as “rural dwellers,” then the two together may function as a merism and signify the inhabitants of the land in their totality.

13. See Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts; also “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries,” 86, n. 31.

14. For the problem of multiple attributions of victory to different entities, see Younger, “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” 226.

15. For a discussion of the names see R. S. Hess, “Non-Israelite Personal Names in the Narratives of the Book of Joshua,” CBQ 58 (1996): 205–14.

16. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 233, n. 24.

17. Caleb is identified twice as “from the tribe of Judah” (Num. 13:6; 34:19). He is frequently designated as “the son of Jephunneh” (Num. 13:6; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:35; 32:12; 34:19; Deut. 1:36; Josh. 14:6, 13, 14; 15:13; 21:12; 1 Chron. 4:15; 6:56). Three times (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6, 14) he is given the further designation “the Kenizzite” (qnzy). This form is a gentilic (e.g., in the modern context, “the American, the German, the Russian, etc.”; in the Old Testament context, “the Midianite, the Philistine, the Assyrian, etc.”). Thus, it is an ethnic designation. Another way of forming a gentilic in ancient Semitic languages was the combination of the word for “son” (either singular or plural) and the name of an eponymous ancestor (e.g., “sons of Israel” = “Israelites”; “sons of Ammon” = “Ammonites”; etc.). Thus Othniel is designated “son of Kenaz” (bn qnz), hence “Kenizzite” (note that the JPSV translates bn qnz in every instance as “Kenizzite”). He is further designated as “Caleb’s [younger] brother [ʾaḥ]” (e.g., Judg. 1; 13), which probably means that Othniel was a younger relative or kinsman of Caleb (the Heb. word ʾaḥ has this range of meaning; see the discussion of levirate marriage in the introduction to Ruth). This explains why Caleb is called the son of Jephunneh and Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, and yet Othniel is called Caleb’s brother, and Caleb is called “the Kenizzite.” It also explains the apparent discrepancy in the Old Greek, where Othniel is described as Caleb’s younger brother (LXX^A) and yet also designated as Caleb’s nephew (LXX^B). As pointed out in the introduction, the tribe (šēbet) can be bound together by any one of the following: descent, residence, dialect, or religion. While some scholars disagree, the best way of understanding these designations in association with the statements that connect Caleb and Othniel with the tribe of Judah is to see them as proselytes from a different ethnic group who count in the tribe of Judah (i.e., through at least residence and religion, though not descent). For an analogy one can compare the case of Rahab, who is not a Judahite by descent but nonetheless counted as a Judahite after her proselytizing to the faith of Israel.

18. Caleb’s promise to give Acsah to whoever would take Debir (1:12) is pictured here in positive terms (i.e., the capturing of Deber in the conquest of the Promised Land, the inheritance of God). In contrast, Jephthah’s vow is a grotesque and tragic “giving” of one’s daughter (Judg. 11:30–31).

19. It is doubtful that Acsah “beguiled” her father at a moment of weakness, i.e., the capture of Debir (as argued by P. G. Mosca, “Who Seduced Whom? A Note on Joshua 15:18 // Judges 1:14,” CBQ 46 [1984]: 18–22).

20. See R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 152–53.

21. There is no need to emend this (with LXX and most scholars) to “he urged her,” since what immediately follows explains how she rather than Othniel actually does the asking (see Webb, The Book of the Judges, 233 n. 29; Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996], 245 n. 2).

22. Perhaps more than he had intended to give. See Y. Kaufmann, The Book of Judges (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1962; Hebrew), 80. Acsah’s practical shrewdness and resourcefulness in seizing the initiative from both Othniel and Caleb (the two male heroes of the story) is commended (see the introduction, p. 37).

23. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 26.

24. Fewell, “Judges,” 68.

25. D. M. Gunn and D. N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (The Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), 162–63.

26. Contrast the story of the total destruction and renaming of Laish by the Danites in Judg 18:27–30. On Hormah see also Num. 14:45; 21:1–3; Deut. 1:44; and Josh. 12:14; 15:30.

27. See the discussion of iron chariots in Judg. 4, below. These iron chariots (perhaps three or four thin plates hung over the front to protect the charioteer’s legs, which his hauberk did not cover) were obviously heavier. Once they were moving, they would be hard for opponents, especially foot soldiers, to withstand. This was a technology the Israelites did not possess and understandably intimidated them. They are the reason for Judah’s failure to take the plains where their military capability would be at its greatest. See A. R. Millard, “Back to the Iron Bed: Og’s or Procrustes?” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 193–203, esp. 194–95. Also see, Younger, “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries,” 82 n. 21.

28. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 259.

29. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 177–79; Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 423–25.

30. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 203.

31. The introduction of lāḥaṣ is ominous, foreshadowing things to come (cf. 2:18; 4:3; 6:9; 10:12). On the other hand, mas has connections to the past. During the earlier Canaanite period, people were put under forced labor.

32. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 101. While at this point a number of scholars opt for a possible textual variant reading “Edomite,” the reading “Amorite” seems to be preferred because of the literary context. There is a similar enigmatic territorial description at the end of the minor/noncyclical judge notices: “in the hill country of the Amalekites” (12:15).

33. Issachar is lacking in Judges. According to N. Naʾaman, one possible reason is the fact that Issachar’s territory contains only one main site, Tel Rekhesh (Tell el-Mukharkhash), which presumably was destroyed sometime during the thirteenth to twelfth centuries B.C. Thus at the time of the united monarchy no significant towns existed in Issachar to be included as points of reference in a list of unconquered cities (Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography [Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4; Jerusalem: Simor, 1986], 97).

Both the failure “to drive out” (lōʾ hôrîš) the Canaanites and their dwelling (yāšab) among the Israelites are presented in Judges 1 as Cisjordanian problems. In Joshua 13–19 these are portrayed as Transjordanian problems too (13:13). Naʾaman correctly observes that “since the Transjordan was regarded as an area not belonging to Canaan, one would never expect to find the Transjordanian tribes in a list of unconquered Canaanite cities west of the Jordan” (ibid., 97).

34. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 13.

35. “The angel of the Lord” is obviously an interpretive decision (which the NIV translators have made) for the Hebrew malʾak yhwh, “messenger/angel of Yahweh.” Some scholars understand his identity to be that of a prophet (e.g., Kaufmann, The Book of Judges, 92). Webb uses the neutral translation of “messenger of Yahweh” (The Book of the Judges, 239 n. 81). In the end, since it is Yahweh himself who threatens the resultant action for Israel’s failure to obey his words, the preferred understanding may be “the angel of Yahweh,” though this is still not demanded by the text.

36. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 103.

37. See R. H. O’Connell, “Deuteronomy vii 1–26: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Conquest,” VT 42 (1992): 248–65.

38. See Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 142, 144.

39. Lit., “They will be in [your] sides [l^eṣiddîm].” The term l^eṣiddîm is an abbreviated expression, an ellipsis, for liṣnînīm b^eṣiddêkem (“thorns in your backs”) in Num. 33:55 (cf. also Josh. 23:13). See Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes (New York: Ktav, rept. 1970), 266.

40. The term bkh is frequently used in the Old Testament to describe weeping or mourning for the dead. It is used four more times in Judges: 11:37–38 (Jephthah’s daughter bewailing her virginity and impending death); 14:16 (Samson’s wife weeping because he has not told her the answer to his riddle); 20:23 (weeping over the dead as the result of the first battle at Gibeah); 21:2 (weeping over the extinction of Benjamin).

41. This pattern will be mirrored in the book of Judges as a whole. See Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 413.

42. It is indeed ironic that it is this Canaanite monarch who acknowledges God’s retribution on evil, for this theme of retribution turns up again in the book and is not always recognized, even by God’s people.

43. This is also true in the most general sense: Israel did not “deserve” the land—the Israelites had not manifested great faith and obedience after coming out of Egypt and during the desert period!

44. Hess, Joshua, 245.

45. The very fact that there were “Great Awakenings” where people became true believers obviously indicates that in the early history of the United States there were many who were not believers.

46. E.g., the notion conveyed in Gal. 3:28 is a concept not found in the Old Testament.

47. For further discussion of the passage in Ephesians, see K. Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 338–61.

48. Hess, Joshua, 246.

1. Younger, “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” 222–24; Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 12.

2. An ancient example can be observed in Esarhaddon’s Babylon inscriptions (R. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, 12–15). J. A. Brinkman observes the following cyclical pattern in these inscriptions: “divine alienation—devastation: divine reconciliation—reconstruction.” Moreover, this cycle is used in Esarhaddon’s Babylon inscriptions as “a religious explanation (answering the question ‘why’)” for the destruction of Babylon. See J. A. Brinkman, “Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon,” in Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East: By Members of the American Oriental Society Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. J. M. Sasson (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1984; = JAOS 103 [1983]): 35–42. For this cyclical pattern in Judges, see Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 140–50.

3. In the ancient Near Eastern context, a number of nations interpret their national oppression by a foreign power as the work of their god’s angry reprises. For example, the Moabites understood their oppression by the Israelites as the result of Chemosh’s anger with them (Mesha Inscription, line 5). See K. A. D. Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” COS, 2.23.

4. Lit., incontinent means without self-restraint, especially in regard to sexual activity (the Heb. term znh has this nuance). It is used in a figurative description of the Israelites’ religious orientations.

5. See W. Koopmans, Joshua 24 As Poetic Narrative (JSOTSup 93; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 363–69.

6. The matter of the alternate names Timnath-seraḥ (Josh. 19:50; 24:30) and Timnath-ḥeres (Judg. 2:9) is difficult. Timnath-ḥeres means “portion of the sun,” and Timnath-seraḥ means “portion of excess.” Some scholars argue that Timnath-seraḥ is correct as in Joshua 19:50; 24:30; a scribe reversed the consonants (Boling, Judges, 72). Others argure that Timnath-ḥeres is the orginal and that a scribe changed the spelling to Timnath-seraḥ for polemically religious reasons (B. Lindars, Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. A. D. H. Mayes [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995], 96–97). The site is probably modern Khirbet Tibneh, about ten miles northwest of Bethel, sixteen miles southwest of Shechem. See E. Noort, “Joshua 24, 28–31, Richter 2, 6–9 und das Josuagrab. Gedanken zu einem Strassenbild,” in Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Zwickel (OBO 123; Fribourg: Edition universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 109–33.

7. Cf. Block’s discussion (Judges, Ruth, 123).

8. It is, as Block correctly notes (Judges, Ruth, 126), the opposite of what is often thought of today as “worship,” i.e., standing before God with hands raised in praise (which is actually exaltation).

9. The storm deity’s name divine name was “Hadad.”

10. Perhaps under the influence of the vocalizations in 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13.

11. For an example of this, compare the use of Ish-Bosheth in 2 Sam. 2:10 for Esh-Baal (1 Chron. 8:33).

12. J. M. Hadley, “The Fertility of the Flock? The De-personalization of Astarte in the Old Testament,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, ed. B. Becking and M. Dijkstra (Biblical Interpretation Series 18; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 115–33, esp. 132.

13. Cf. the careful discussion of J. A. Dearman, “Baal in Israel: The Contribution of Some Place Names and Personal Names to an Understanding of Early Israelite Religion,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes, ed. M. P. Graham, W. P. Brown, J. K. Kuan (JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 173–91.

14. A bull figurine discovered at the “Bull Site” (a reasonably certain Israelite cult installation of the period of the iudges, dating to the twelfth century B.C.) is thought by most scholars to represent either El, Baal, or Yahweh. For a discussion of the site and the figurine, see A. Mazar, “ ‘The Bull Site’—An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” BASOR 247 (1982): 27–42; idem, “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from the Time of the Judges,” BAR 9 (September/October 1983): 34–40.

15. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 96.

16. Both terms “sell” (mākar) and “hand over, give” (nātan) are economic expressions picturing Yahweh as transferring ownership of the apostasizing Israelites to the foreign oppressors.

17. Lit., “and the nose of Yahweh was kindled.” This is a figurative way of expressing divine wrath and fury.

18. The root of this verb is probably connected to the infamous “Shasu”—Siniatic, nomadic raiders/plunderers mentioned in a number of Egyptian inscriptions.

19. Block, Judges, Ruth, 128.

20. Goodfriend suggests five reasons why Israel’s spiritual infidelity is characterized as prostitution (znh) rather than adultery (nʾp): (1) znh implies iterative or habitual illicit behavior; (2) the motive is personal gain, not casual sex; (3) znh implies a multiplicity of sex partners; (4) the participle zônâ suggests a treacherous and hardened woman; and (5) znh refers only to illicit sex by a female partner. See E. A. Goodfriend, “Prostitution,” ABD, 5:505–10.

21. See the discussion of the šōpēṭ (“judge”) at the beginning of the introduction. This particular sentence in 2:17 is emphatic (lit.): “But to their tribal rulers (judges) they would not listen.”

22. On the new Philistine inscription from Tel Miqnê/Ekron, see K. L. Younger, “The Ekron Inscription of Akhayus,” COS, 2.42.

23. Possibly the same as the Horites (probably of Hurrian or Anatolian origin).

24. See E. C. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine’s Pre-Israelite Peoples (Bibal Dissertation Series 3; North Richland Hills, Tex: Bibal, 1995), 29–31, 41–43.

25. As noted in the Bridging Contexts section of 1:1–2:5, it is important not to misapply this passage on the national level or simply on the cultural level. The prime issue is, once again, spiritual.

26. Joash’s idolatry likely had an impact on his son, Gideon, who, after saving Israel from the Midianite oppression, makes an idol that the nation worships (see Judg. 8).

27. Provan, “To Highlight All Our Idols,” 31.

28. H. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 311.

29. Ibid., 139.

30. P. J. Achtemeier, “Idolatry in the New Testament,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 43–61, esp. 57.

31. Ibid., 57. The fact is there is nothing in creation that cannot be made into a focus of idolatrous worship!

32. This is nothing short of “everyone doing what is right in one’s own eyes” (cf. the refrain of the double conclusion in Judg. 17–21, which begins with the story of Micah’s making an idol).

33. Achtemeier, “Idolatry in the New Testament,” 58.

34. Provan, “To Highlight All Our Idols,” 33.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. For some additional reflections on idolatry, see B. Rosner, “Soul Idolatry: Greed As Idolatry in the Bible,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 73–86.

38. For some uplifting stories about modern prodigals, see Ruth B. Graham, Prodigals [and Those Who Love Them] (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), esp. 105–18. For a discussion of our point here, see J. C. Dobson, Parenting Isn’t for Cowards (Dallas: Word, 1987), 185–88.

1. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 82–83; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 127.

2. Only Othniel and Ehud are designated môšîaʿ (deliverer). Othniel, however, was the only one without fault. See O’Connell’s discussion (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83 n. 34).

3. Block, Judges, Ruth, 149.

4. For a discussion of this framework statement, see the comments on 2:6–3:6 (p. 88).

5. Besides Introduction 2 (2:6–3:6) and the Othniel cycle (3:7–11), these statements are only found in the Jephthah cycle (10:6a, 7a).

6. Block correctly notes that the idea here is not a case of temporary amnesia but a more intentional and active nuance akin to the notion of “abandoning” (ʿzb) (Judges, Ruth, 151).

7. See N. Wyatt, “Asherah,” in DDD, cols. 183–95.

8. R. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Veneration of the Holy Book in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. by K. van der Toorn (Kampen: Kok, 1999), 205–28.

9. For the inscriptions, see P. K. McCarter, “Kuntillet ʿAjrud,” COS, 2.47; and “Khirbet el-Qom,” COS, 2.52. For a discussion of these texts in connection with the worship of Asherah, see R. S. Hess, “Yahweh and His Asherah? Religious Pluralism in the Old Testament World,” in One God, One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. A. D. Clarke and B. W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 13–42; idem, “Asherah or Asherata?” Or 65 (1996): 209–19.

10. See most recently J. A. Emerton, “ ‘Yahweh and his Asherah: The Goddess or Her Symbol?” VT 49 (1999): 315–57. For the opposite view, see P. Xella, “Le dieu et ‘sa’ déesse: l’utilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des théonymes d’Ebla à Ugarit et à Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” UF 27 (1995): 599–610.

11. See the discussion of this framework statement on p. 90, n. 16.

12. On the significance of this framework statement, see the discussion of Block, Judges, Ruth, 148. The Old Testament usage of zʿq (or its alternate spelling ṣʿq) does not of itself imply repentance. See W. Brueggemann, “Social Criticism and Social Vision in the Deuteronomic Formula of Judges,” Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 101–14, esp. 108–9.

13. For the name Othniel, see M. P. Streck and St. Weninger, “Zur Deutung des hebräischen Namens ʿOṯnīʾēl,” BN 96 (1999): 21–29.

14. Boling, Judges, 80–81. See also Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128. Interestingly, Cushan-Rishathaim is mentioned twice as many times as Othniel.

15. This mention of the fact that Cushan-Rishathaim is a “king” on both sides of Othniel’s introduction is understood by a number of interpreters as an indication that Othniel represents the embodiment of an institution, namely, “judgeship.” Thus the clash between Othniel and Cushan-Rishathaim is a clash between two institutions: kingship (represented in Cushan-Rishathaim), which brings punishment, and judgeship (represented in Othniel), which brings deliverance. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83–84; Boling, Judges, 80–81.

16. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 244.

17. Some other examples of pejorative names in the biblical text are: Bera (“in/with evil”) and Birsha (“in/with wickedness”) (Gen. 14:2), and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:8). See also the belittling of the name of the Canaanite king in “lord of Bezeq” above (1:5). Also, compare the name Mahlon and Killion in Ruth 1:2 (see commentary). The case of Birsha is particularly interesting insofar as it comes from the same consonantal root (ršʿ ) and thus echoes Rishathaim (“doubly wicked”).

18. Some scholars feel that the term Naharaim is a later erroneous gloss. They are inclined to this opinion because (1) the term Naharaim only occurs once in the story (in v. 10 the designation is simply Aram without the term Naharaim) and (2) because the word Aram may be an easy corruption for Edom (a possibility since only one letter mistake is necessary). See J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (NCB; London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 260–61; Burney, Judges, 68. For examples of this confusion see 2 Sam. 8:12–13; 1 Chron. 18:11; 2 Chron. 20:2. Nevertheless, the place name is well attested in the MT tradition, and the term Naharin was a designation for the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (e.g., Thutmose III’s inscriptions). The term Naharaim is even found in v. 10 in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The term Aram was only applied to the region after the Aramean incursions during the decline of the Middle Assyrian empire. See W. T. Pitard, “An Historical Overview of Pastoral Nomadism in the Central Euphrates Valley,” in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. Coleson and V. Matthews (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 293–308; and G. M. Schwartz, “The Origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia: Research Problems and Potential Strategies,” in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon, ed. O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers, and P. M. M. G. Akkermans (Rotterdam and Brookfield: A. A. Balkema, 1989), 275–91.

19. It is difficult because of the designation Aram Naharaim and the uncertainty of date to know whether this designation indicates that Cushan-Rishathaim was of Hurrian origin or not (see previous note). For Hurrian movements into Canaan, see N. Naʾaman, “The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine,” Levant 26 (1994): 175–87; R. Hess, “Hurrians and Other Inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine,” Levant 29 (1997): 153–56.

20. Block states: “He was the most powerful of all the enemies of Israel named in the book. For him to have extended his tentacles as far as Judah in southern Canaan meant he was a world-class emperor, who held Canaan in his grip for at least eight years” (Judges, Ruth, 152). It may be a bit too much to characterize Cushan-Rishathaim as “a world-class emperor.”

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 149; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128. The lack of verbiage at this point is a significant indication of his outstanding quality (see the discussion concerning structure in the introduction).

22. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83.

23. See the extended footnote on this issue on p. 66, n. 17.

24. Block notes that the larger context of 1:11–15 is assumed in this story (Judges, Ruth, 150).

25. See also the discussion of Lindars, Judges 1–5, 131–34.

26. A. Malamat, “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East Around 1200 B.C.,” JNES 13 (1954): 231–42. Also see J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 179. Bright states: “But since a district of Qusana-ruma (Kûshân-rōm) is known in northern Syria (Aram) from a list of Ramesses III, the invasion may well have come from that quarter, possibly early in the twelfth century during the confusion attending the fall of the Nineteenth Dynasty. . . . But we cannot be certain.”

27. Boling, Judges, 81–82. See also now B. Oded, “Cushan-Rishathaim (Judges 3:8–10): An Implicit Polemic,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 89*–94* (Heb. with Eng. summary). But see footnote 18 above.

28. H. Hansler, “Die historische Umwelt des Richter 3, 8–10,” Bib 11 (1930): 391–418; 12 (1931) 3–26; 271–96, 395–410.

29. W. H. Shea, “Cushan-Rishathaim,” Catastrophism and Ancient History 14/2 (1992): 126–37.

30. Ibid., 126–37.

31. T. Muck, private communication.

32. For those scholars that perceive any historical core to the story. Many scholars believe the episode to be a contrived fiction. But the repeated traditions concerning Othniel as a Judahite (albeit Kenizzite) hero argue for caution in assuming the entire episode to be a fiction.

33. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83.

34. Acsah (Othniel’s wife) and Deborah are the only females so positively portrayed.

35. Actually, none of the cyclical judge accounts are biographies.

1. For the satirical aspects of the story, see M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), 79–90, 190–97; L. K. Handy, “Uneasy Laughter: Ehud and Eglon and Ethnic Humor,” SJOT 6 (1992): 233–46; J. A. Soggin, “ʾEhud und ʿEglon: Bemerkingen zu Richter iii 11b–31,” VT 29 (1989): 95–100; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 39–40.

2. See in particular Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128–32; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 84–100; Y. Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30): The Form and the Message,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. C. Exum (Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 97–123.

3. The city itself may not have been occupied at the time in which the story is set. It has been suggested that this was a temporary occupation of the oasis at ʾAin es-Sultan.

4. Gros Louis, “The Book of Judges,” 147.

5. See, e.g., Webb, The Book of the Judges, 131; Soggin, Judges, 50; idem, “ʾEhud und ʿEglon,” 96–97; L. Alonso-Schökel, “Erzählkunst im Buche der Richter,” Bib 42 (1961): 143–72, esp. 148–49. Note also the Targum’s translation “withered” and the Syriac’s “crippled.”

6. B. Halpern, The First Historians, 41.

7. Block, Judges, Ruth, 161. See also H. N. Rösel, “Zur Ehud-Erzählung,” ZAW 89 (1977): 270–72, esp. 270.

8. The word translated “Benjamite” is ben-hay^emînî rather than the more typical ben-y^emînî. This phraseology suggests that the irony of the situation was not missed by the author (Block, Judges, Ruth, 160).

9. Halpern, The First Historians, 40–43.

10. The term ḥereb, translated “sword” by the NIV, can refer to an item as small as a razor-blade knife (Ezek. 5:1) to a long sword. Hence in this context “dagger” is the preferred translation.

11. The term gōmed is used only in Judg. 3:16. If it equaled a “cubit” (ʾammâ), then it would be 44.4 cm or 17.5 inches (based on the Egyptian “royal cubit”). But since ʾammâ is used 245 times in the Hebrew Bible, in addition to many extrabiblical occurrences, this raises significant doubt that a gōmed was roughly synonymous with an ʾammâ. Just as a pym (1 Sam. 13:21) was two-thirds of a shekel, so the gōmed may have been two-thirds of an ʾammâ (hence 29.6 cm. or 11.6 inches). See D. J. Wiseman, “Weights and Measures,” IBD, 3:1636; also G. Cornfeld and G. J. Botterweck, Die Bible und ihre Welt: Eine Enzyklopädie (6 vol.; Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972), 3:564. In the most recent study of the problem, Hartman argues that the blade of the dagger was a gōmed, roughly equivalent to one “fist” (another measure used in the ancient Near East), i.e., 10.95 cm. (4.32 inches) in length. Adding 10 cm. for the hilt, the dagger was 21 cm. (8.27 inches) in length. See T. A. G. Hartman, “ in Richter 3, 16 oder die Pygmäen im Dschungel der Längermasse,” ZAH 13 (2000): 188–93. In any case, it is doubtful that the dagger was a cubit in length.

12. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 39.

13. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 192 n. 27. See also Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30),” 97–123.

14. See Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30),” 102, 112–18; see also the KJV and JPSV translations.

15. Perhaps a type of kudurru (boundary stone); see Burney, Judges, 71. However, note the comments of Block, Judges, Ruth, 163.

16. G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on judges (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 94, 100; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 131.

17. E. G. H. Kraeling, “Difficulties in the Story of Ehud,” JBL 54 (1935): 205–10, esp. 206; Block, Judges, Ruth, 163; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 90. O’Connell points out that “whatever may have been the meaning of in the traditional account of Ehud, its recontextualization, so as to be interpreted in the light of deuteronomic standards, suggests that it should now be taken to refer to idols (cf. Deut. 4:16–18; 23; 7:25; 12:3)” (p. 90 n. 50).

18. The assumption that Eglon knows about Ehud’s movements, although we are not told this, is reasonable in view of the compressed narrative style (Webb, The Book of the Judges, 246 n. 29).

19. M. Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Deriviations and Puns, trans. P. Hackett (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 1991), 215.

20. This is not the more usual and polite use of “my lord” (ʾ ^adōnî) as in 1 Sam. 24:8 [9]; 26:17; 29:8; 2 Sam. 4:8; 13:33; etc.

21. It is interesting that the text dwells on the contrasting physical characteristics of Ehud (“left-handed”) and Eglon (“very fat”).

22. Ehud’s deception would work best if he were a person of nonimposing physical appearance. Hence Eglon had no particular reason to retain the guards in the throne room since there did not appear to be a reason to suspect any danger from this man. While we cannot obviously say anything definitive about Ehud’s physical statue, it is not too much of a stretch to say he must have been rather “ordinary.”

23. The Hebrew word dābār is ambiguous and can mean “word,” “message,” “thing,” or “matter.” The shifting modifiers (“secret”) and (“of God”) deliberately elevate this ambiguity. In fact, Ehud is clever in his use of the divine names. He uses “God” (ʾ ^elōhîm) when he speaks to Eglon, so as to not raise suspicions. He will use the covenantal name the “Lord” (Yahweh) when he calls up the Israelite troops (3:28).

24. The verse contains four clauses. The last and climatic clause is transferred to second place by the NIV and mistranslated.

25. The term happařs^edōnâ is a hapax legomenon. The NIV translates “his back,” but this is unlikely on a number of grounds. Many modern commentators understand this hapax (pařs^edōn) as meaning “excrement.” See M. L. Barré, “The Meaning of pršdn in Judges iii.22,” VT 41 (1991): 1–11. While this is not free from difficulties (in particular, the uses of the initial and final h), it seems to be the best explanation within the context. Some past commentators have emended the text to read pereš (feces) (e.g., Moore, Judges, 97–98; Rösel, “Ehud-Erzählung,” 272). O’Connell has suggested understanding pršdn as “anus” with the final h being a h-locative (i.e., “at the anus”). That the sentence contains a scatological type reference is clear in the context since it enables an explanation of the guards’ hesitation.

26. See Halpern, The First Historians, 40 and 69 n. 3. See the discussion in note 25 above. The loss of excrement on such occasions is not unusual. Note in Sennacherib’s inscriptions the description of the Elamite nobility in the midst of the battle of Halule: “When I saw that they had voided their excrement [in their chariots], I left them alone.” See A. K. Grayson, “The Walters Art Gallery Sennacherib Inscription, Archiv für Orientforschung 20 (1963): 83–96, esp. 94–95, line 100.

27. Halpern gives a detailed description of the palace based on archaeological evidence and proposes a means of escape for Ehud (The First Historians, 43–58). However, see Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 191 n. 11.

28. For toilets in ancient Israel, see J. Cahill et al., “It Had to Happen—Scientists Examine Remains of Ancient Bathroom,” BAR 17 (May/June 1991): 64–69; U. Hübner, “Mord auf dem Abort? Überlegungen zu Humor, Gewaltdarstellung und Realienkunde in Ri 3, 12–30,” BN 40 (1987): 130–40.

29. Halpern, The First Historians, 60.

30. Some scholars see sexual overtones in the scene of the execution of Eglon. See, e.g., Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 38–41; G. P. Miller, “Verbal Feud in the Hebrew Bible: Judges 3:12–30 and 19–21,” JNES 55 (1996): 105–17. However, it seems that most of these so-called sexual innuendos can be easily and more properly explained in the context of the scatological overtones (which are clearly present).

31. The killing of Eglon and the discovery of his corpse is anticipatory of the killing of Sisera by Jael and the discovery of Sisera by Barak in 4:22. The discovery scenes use the same basic structure. In light of this, the irony of Barak’s leadership of Israel is heightened since he is paralleled to the gullible, incompetent Moabite guards.

32. See note 17 above.

33. Webb notes that the use of the perfect tense here, “has given,” is not simply an instance of the customary use of the past tense to assure the troops that the victory is as good as won, but a reference to the tangible grounds for such assurance in this particular case: The Moabite tyrant has already been given into the hand of Ehud and lies dead in his chamber.

34. Alonso-Schökel, “Erzählkunst im Buche der Richter,” 149–50; D. M. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987), 115.

35. Note that it matches the Ammonite oppression in length (Judg. 10:8b).

36. The significance of the usage of the number eighty (obviously twice forty) is difficult to determine.

37. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 100.

38. This is not a tension found in the Othniel cycle, where the human agent and the divine will merge so comprehensively.

39. E.g., Klein, Triumph of Irony, 38.

40. Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30),” 120. O’Connell notes that while the attribution of Ehud’s success is reflected in the cycle framework statements, the inference that God helped Ehud probably existed already in the traditional account (see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 85 n. 41).

41. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 132.

42. Block, Judges, Ruth, 171.

43. In fact, Block questions even this line, stating: “How genuine his declaration was we may only speculate. The role of the cult images at Gilgal in this story raises questions about the singularity of his spiritual devotion” (Judges, Ruth, 170). To me, this is overstating the evidence. Even if the proper understanding of the term happ^esîlîm is “idols/cult images” (see discussion above), the text never states or implies that Ehud worshiped or consulted them for an oracle. The tension in the text is with Ehud’s method—his deception and brutality—not with a supposed idolatrous tendency.

44. The case of Samson is different because he is apathetic to saving Israel and seeks no assurance for this reason. But Barak wants assurance (wants Deborah to come along), Gideon wants lots of assurance through various signs, and Jephthah will attempt to manipulate God’s assurance through his rash, calculating vow.

45. All of these judges will manifest to some degree faith in Yahweh (otherwise there is a problem with the writer of Hebrews’ understanding of them; cf. Heb. 11:32).

1. Note esp. the one-two-three sequence discussed there.

2. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 132.

3. See, e.g., N. Shupak, “New Light on Shamgar ben ʿAnat,” Bib 70 (1989): 517–25.

4. Craigie adduces examples of the phrase ben ʿ ^anāt from Mari, Ugarit, and Egypt, in which it functions as a description of the person as one dedicated to the service of the goddess Anath. Since Anath was a goddess of war, the phrase could denote a mercenary. See P. C. Craigie, “A Reconsideration of Shamgar Ben Anath (Judg 3:31 and 5:6),” JBL 91 (1972): 239–40; see also Boling, Judges, 89.

5. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 39. The word is a biblical hapax but is used in postbiblical Hebrew to describe a pointer or guiding instrument (M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [Brooklyn: Pardes, 1950], 793). Hence in the construction in 3:31 (malmad habbāqār) it means “the guiding instrument/pointer of the cattle.”

6. See also the ambiguous statement concerning Tola in 10:1.

7. B. Maisler, “Shamgar ben ʿAnat,” PEQ 66 (1934): 192–94; Craigie, “A Reconsideration of Shamgar,” 239.

8. Soggin, Judges, 57. He argues that the name could be West Semitic (and therefore possibly Canaanite), if it is a shaphel form of mgr = “submit,” citing a seal inscription that includes the theophoric name mgrʾl. This would make it a reduced theophoric name, i.e., “the god brings into submission.”

9. F. C. Fensham, “Shamgar ben Anath,” JNES 20 (1961): 197–98. Fensham even translates “ben Anath” as “son of a Ḫanaean,” suggesting that Shamgar was related to a seminomadic group of Ḫanaeans (from the Mesopotamian city of Ḫanat), who migrated to Palestine.

10. See Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 216; Bright states: “Presumably he was a city king of Beth-anath in Galilee, perhaps the head of a confederacy, who by throwing back the Philistines saved himself—and Israel” (Bright, A History of Israel, 179).

11. Stadelmann, Syrisch-Palestinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Probleme der Ägyptologie 5; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 20ff.; 135ff.; Jaroslav Černý, Ancient Egyptian Religion (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1979), 126.

12. See G. Hamilton, “The El Khadr Arrowheads,” COS, 2.84.

13. Ibid., n. 6. See also F. M. Cross, “Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,” BASOR 238 (1980): 1–20, esp. 7. For occurrences of the term on another arrowhead and elsewhere, cf. W. W. Hallo and H. Tadmor, “A Lawsuit from Hazor,” IEJ 27 (1977): 1–11, esp. 4–5. See also B. Beem, “The Minor Judges: A Literary Reading of Some Very Short Stories,” in The Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. L. Younger Jr., W. W. Hallo, and B. F. Batto (ANETS 11; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 147–72, esp. 158–62.

14. See note 8 above. Note also a new Philistine inscription that reads: bnʿnt (ben ʿAnat). See S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 47 (1997): 1–16, esp. 13–14.

15. Shupak, “New Light on Shamgar ben ʿAnat,” 523.

* Note that although this Song of Deborah and Barak is set up differently from the NIV, the translation used here is the NIV.

1. D. F. Murray, “Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story, Judges iv 4–22,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 155–89; Y. Amit, “Judges 4: Its Contents and Form,” JSOT 39 (1987): 89–111.

2. The phrase “after Ehud died” is probably better translated as a pluperfect, “after Ehud had died.”

3. Not to be confused with the Jabin, the king of Hazor, in Josh. 11. The name “Jabin” may possibly be a “dynastic name,” similar to “Ramesses” in Egypt, “Henry” in English history, and “Louis” in French history. See K. L. Younger Jr. “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?! Contextual Method and Intertextual Analysis: Judges 4 and 5,” in The Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. L. Younger, W. W. Hallo, and B. F. Batto (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 133 n. 90.

4. The precise location of the town is unknown. The name Harosheth Haggoyim probably means “cultivated field of the Gentiles.” See further A. F. Rainey, “Toponymic Problems,” Tel Aviv 10 (1983): 46–48; idem, “The Military Camp Ground at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo,” ErIsr 15 (1981): 61*–66*. The name may play a literary role as an intimation of the involvement of the nations (gôyīm).

5. Boling suggests that these were esp. sturdy chariots constructed with iron fittings (Boling, “Judges, Book of,” 3:1109). Millard thinks they were chariots with perhaps three or four thin plates hung over the front to protect the charioteer’s legs, which his hauberk did not cover (Millard, “Back to the Iron Bed,” 194–95). Cf. also 1:19 above.

6. For more on the archaeological background to Judges 4–5, see L. E. Stager, “Archaeology, Ecology, and Social History: Background Themes to the Song of Deborah,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1984, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 221–33.

7. Cf. Judg. 1:19.

8. Some have argued that perhaps this explains the origin of iron technology. However, for a more recent critique within the Hittite context, see S. Košak, “The Gospel of Iron,” in Kaniššuwar: A Tribute to Hans G. Güterbock on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. H. A. Hoffner and G. A. Beckman (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1986), 125–35.

9. The same verb (lḥṣ) is used here as in 1:34, where the Amorites confine (lḥṣ) the Danites to the hill country.

10. This location (between Ramah and Bethel) was relatively far away from Hazor. Kedesh Naphtali, Barak’s home, was close to Hazor. This heightens the irony that the one far away is the one who takes the initiative to deliver those whose “general” lives near the palace of the oppressor king and the home of the oppressing general, Sisera. The mention of Ephraim is also significant because it links the Deborah and Barak cycle to Ehud (the hill country of Ephraim was where Ehud sounded his trumpet and led the volunteers to victory at the fords, 3:27).

11. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 107–8.

12. For a discussion of the etymology of the term, see D. E. Fleming, “The Etymological Origins of the Hebrew nābîʾ: The One Who Invokes God,” CBQ 55 (1993): 217–24.

13. E.g., A. E. Cundall states: “Deborah was the savior of her people and the only woman in the distinguished company of the Judges” (Judges: An Introduction and Commentary [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968], 82 [see also p. 95]).

14. E.g., Soggin, Judges, 72.

15. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 107–8. See also Block, who gives twelve arguments against Deborah being understood as a “judge” in the delivering sense of the word.

16. Block, Judges, Ruth, 197.

17. Ibid.

18. Is there some irony in Yahweh’s command to take ten thousand men in light of the use of this figure in earlier contexts? To the original reader this must have raised an eyebrow since the figure was used to describe the number of Canaanite and Moabite dead. Is God assuring Barak (that much the more that), in spite of the figure, that he is to be trusted? With God’s involvement, the figure is not a symbol of defeat, but victory.

19. B. Lindars, “Deborah’s Song: Women in the Old Testament,” BJRL 65 (1982–83): 158–75, esp. 161, 164.

20. Note Boling’s discussion (Judges, 96).

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 199.

22. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 108.

23. Perhaps Sisera learns of Barak’s movements through Heber. This would only enrich the irony of what is to transpire.

24. These two instances of assurance foreshadow the two assurances through the fleece incidents of Gideon (see below). O’Connell notes also the use of the term qûm (arise) twice in the narrative (4:9, 14). It is used in 4:9b to describe the action of only Deborah when she arises (qûm) to go with Barak after rebuking him for his reluctance to follow Yahweh’s instructions. Later, it is used again by Deborah, who prompts Barak to arise (qûm) and follow Yahweh into battle (4:14a), so that Barak comes to be seen as a deliverer who will not “be raised up to save” apart from the initiatives and actions of a woman (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 108).

25. The Song of Deborah below will detail Yahweh’s intervention in poetic terms.

26. The situation appears to be one in which there is no treaty, but good relations prevailing between the urban center of Hazor and tent-dwelling people of Heber. Hence, Sisera flees to the tent of Jael the Kenite. The text explicitly states that there was šālôm between the two parties. Even if no formal treaty existed, the state of šālôm probably means that a fugitive could find asylum with the other party (see D. J. Wiseman, “ ‘Is It Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy,” VT 32 [1982]: 314).

27. Perhaps Jael (“mountain goat”) gave him goat’s milk.

28. Murray, “Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story,” 180.

29. Though undoubtedly not like Sisera, who entered expecting refuge, Barak is unsure of possible danger and expects the worst.

30. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 163.

31. For more explication of this, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 201.

32. Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative, 41) points out that the words “drive” (tqʿ ) and “peg” (yātēd) will recur in the Samson story, where Delilah will fasten (tqʿ ) Samson’s hair with a pin (yātēd) (16:14). Hence, Samson appears in the same position as Sisera!

33. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 137.

34. Ibid.

35. I am using the traditional heading as a descriptive for the song (as in The NIV Study Bible). The statement in 5:1, “On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song,” provides the narrative setting for the song and does not speak directly to the issues of authorship. There are a number of reasons according to the traditional view why Deborah is seen as responsible for the song’s composition (see Block, Judges, Ruth, 214–15), not least of which is the significant use of the first-person singular pronouns. But because of the poetic nature of the song, one must be cautious of attributing authorship on such grounds. See footnote 42.

36. One of the most recent analyses argues that the distribution of stylistic characteristics throughout the entire song indicate that it was composed at one time, as a unit. See H.-D. Neef, “Der Stil des Deboraliedes (Ri 5),” ZAH 8 (1995): 275–93. Neef dates the song’s composition around 1025 B.C. See now also Block, Judges, Ruth, 211–18.

37. Two important analyses that underlie the exposition here are J. P. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak: Its Prosodic Levels and Structure,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 595–628; and M. D. Coogan, “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,” CBQ 40 (1978): 143–66. For bibliography on the song, which is massive, see Younger, “Heads, Tails or the Whole Coin?!” 136–37, 143–46.

38. Fokkelman’s analysis (“The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 626–28) yields twenty strophes and seven stanzas. On a higher level, he sees the poem having three sections (vv. 2–8, 9–23, 24–31). But it seems clear to me that there are five acts on a level between the stanzas and Fokkelman’s sections.

39. Kempinski points out the important fact that “the references to Israel are numerous especially in vv. 1–11. Such an archaic song, even if put into written form in the early monarchic period, could not be altered so greatly as to add the name ‘Israel’ to almost ever line in these verses” (“Review of Gösta Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites?” IEJ 41 [1991]: 297–99). In fact, the name Israel occurs eight times in the poem, all in verses 1–11. See D. Block, “ ‘Israel’—‘Sons of Israel’: A Study in Hebrew Eponymic Usage,” SR 13 (1984): 301–26.

40. The word brk is often translated “bless.” It means “to fortunately empower.” When used to describe what a human being does to God, it has the meaning “to declare or acknowledge the origin or source of fortunate empowerment,” hence, “to praise.”

41. The difficulty lies in the term p^erāʿôt, which has a clear Akkadian cognate (pirtu, hair) and occurs in a similar context. See W. W. Hallo, “The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry,” RAI 17 (1969): 132.

42. Fokkelman points out the use of the “lyrical I” (“The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 601). In the context, according to 5:1, this “I” would be Deborah (note that the verb watāšar in this verse is feminine singular, referring to Deborah; cf. also 5:7). See footnote 35.

43. An epiphany is a revelatory manifestation esp. of a divine being.

44. Seir is used as a synonym for Edom.

45. The last line of each strophe in Stanza I (vv. 3c and 5b) ends with the phrase “the Lord, the God of Israel.” Note the great similarity of the epiphany in this strophe and epiphanies in Ps. 68:7–8[8–9] and Hab. 3:3.

46. The former seems preferred since it is reused with this meaning in v. 6d.

47. “Warriors” seems preferred in the context with the word’s reuse in verse 11c. Note the NRSV, which translates the last two lines: “The peasantry prospered in Israel, they grew fat on plunder.” Thus, these two lines would allude to a time of victory, not oppression. This translation is based on understanding ḥādal as being from a second root ḥdl meaning “to grow fat.” However, this does not seem to fit the context as well.

48. The line is difficult syntactically. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 226–27, although his solution is somewhat forced.

49. See O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 113–14.

50. This may have subtle royal overtones since rulers often rode on donkeys. The NIV’s “white” donkeys is doubtful; “tawny” is a better translation of the term.

51. The exact meaning of m^eḥaṣṣîm is uncertain.

52. The phrase “whose roots were in Amalek” might better be “thither into the valley.”

53. For the best detailed explanation of Dan and the phrase “why did he linger by the ships?” see A. F. Rainey, “Who Is a Canaanite?” BASOR 304 (1996): 1–15.

54. This same picture is observable in the famous Merneptah Stela, which contains the earliest extrabiblical reference to Israel. See J. K. Hoffmeier, “The (Israel) Stela of Merneptah,” COS, 2.6; idem, Egypt in Israel: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 27–31.

55. The noninvolvement of certain tribes may allude to some type of military confederation within early Israel. That is, there must be a basis on which tribes can be chastened for their noninvolvement, which seems to imply a tribal, military-type confederation.

56. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 614.

57. Ibid., 615.

58. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 234–36. For a different interpretation, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 237–38.

59. This malʾak yhwh seems to refer to the angelic figure who appears to perform both a leadership and protective function in leading Israel through the desert and into the land of Canaan (Ex. 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2; Judg. 2:1–5). See H.-D. Neef, “Meroz: Jdc 5, 23a,” ZAW 107 (1995): 118–22.

60. Ibid.

61. Following this logic, Neef’s argument seems correct, namely that Meroz lay in immediate proximity to the territory where the battle of Deborah and Barak transpired (i.e., in the region between Mount Tabor and the Kishon River, the south Jezreel Plain). See ibid.

62. Block, Judges, Ruth, 239.

63. Her act is praiseworthy and unique because she is not an Israelite (5:24b reminds the reader); her act, however, makes her an Israelite, poetically speaking. In this respect, she is parallel to another non-Israelite woman, Ruth.

64. Poetically specified as “curdled milk” (ḥemʾâ), a type of curds/yogurt. See C. Grottanelli, “Aspetti simbolici del latte nella bibbia,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17–19, 1990, ed. L. Milano (Padova: Sargon, 1994), 381–97, esp. 391–96; idem, “The Story of Deborah and Barak: A Comparative Approach,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni N.S. 11 (1987): 311–16.

65. Strophe 16 is the only syndetic one of the stanza (i.e., the only one that uses the waw conjunction) to emphasize the narrative, sequential flow of Jael’s action.

66. J. K. Hoffmeier, “Some Egyptian Motifs Related to Warfare and Enemies and Their Old Testament Counterparts,” in Egyptological Miscellanies: A Tribute to Professor Ronald J. Williams, ed. J. K. Hoffmeier & E. S. Meltzer (Ancient World 6; Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1983), 156–74.

67. K. L. Younger Jr., “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?!” 131.

68. A. J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. Follis (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 265–84, esp. 278–79.

69. Cf. the description of the death of Eglon. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 135–37.

70. Block, Judges, Ruth, 242.

71. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 623.

72. See D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “Controlling Perspectives: Women, Men and the Authority of Violence in Judges 4 and 5,” JAAR 58 (1990) 389–411.

73. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 624. He further notes “Whether reḥem with its pataḥ vowels means “womb” (elsewhere raḥam) or “darling” does not matter very much; what counts is the humiliating, reducing point of view” (624 n. 68).

74. Block, Judges, Ruth, 243.

75. Ibid.

76. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 625. For a similar use of the root gbr, see 2 Sam. 1.

77. See K. L. Younger Jr., “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?!” 109–45.

78. See also the mention of this event in 1 Sam. 12:9–11.

79. Block, Judges, Ruth, 209.

80. Ibid., 209–10. This comment seems to be based on the narrative alone (i.e., ch. 4) without integrating the statements concerning Jael in the song of ch. 5. However, note that later in his commentary Block argues that the author’s intention in the Jael/Sisera scene is to “glorify God whose mysterious but providential hand produces the victory” (p. 241 n. 446).

81. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 110.

82. Ibid., 112–13.

83. This motif can already be observed in the book of Joshua in the dealing with the various Canaanite kings/leaders (Josh. 8:29; 10:16–27, 28, 30, 37, 38–39; 11:10, 12, 17).

84. Some interpreters argue that Jael was an Israelite. But it seems on the parallel with Shamgar in the Song of Deborah and the association with the Kenite clan that it is more likely that she was a non-Israelite. The name (yʿl) does not contain the Yahwistic theophoric element.

85. Cf. Ex. 20:5–6.

86. Neither Deborah nor Jael are involved in the actual combat in the battle between Sisera and Barak. Their roles are on either end of the battle (Deborah before the actual fighting takes place, Jael after the major part of the battle is over). Thus, neither one is a warrior figure (contra G. Yee, “By the Hand of a Woman: The Metaphor of the Woman Warrior in Judges 4,” Semeia 61 [1993]: 99–132).

87. With the fall of Berlin in 1945 to the Soviet army, an estimated 100,000 rapes of women occurred by Russian troops in the conquered city. There is no way of knowing the astounding number of Russian women raped by German troops during the Nazi occupation of Russian territory.

1. See J. P. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges,” BSac 149 (1992): 146–61; idem, “Textual Patterning in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Case Study in Judges 6–8” (Ph.D. diss.; Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1990).

2. The narrative development seems to be clearly based on Lev. 26 and Deut. 28.

3. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 145.

4. This becomes clear from the fact that while they are crying out to Yahweh, they are continuing to worship Baal at cult sites like the one in Ophrah that belonged to Gideon’s father, Joash (Judg. 6:25–32).

5. Obscured by the NIV translation is the sevenfold usage of first-person singular pronouns in a framing construction that emphasizes Yahweh’s integrity. See M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (AUUSSU 12; Uppsala: Uppsala Univ. Press, 1990), 78 n. 54.

6. Again it should be emphasized that the clause “Israel cried out to Yahweh” does not mean a repentance on the Israelites’ part.

7. Gideon’s fear of the Midianites (6:11) will be paralleled by his fear of the people of his village (6:27).

8. Adapted from Klein, Triumph of Irony, 51.

9. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 149, n. 184.

10. This interpretation is reinforced in the context by the preceding indictment of the Israelites by the prophet. These preceding verses enhance the negative tone of Gideon’s response.

11. In spite of Gideon’s argument here, it is clear that from the standpoint of his father, Joash, who appears to have been a man of considerable wealth and standing in the community, this is not entirely accurate—at least in the impression that it attempts to convey.

12. Klein develops the comparisons in her analysis of the passage (Triumph of Irony, 51).

13. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 149 n. 184.

14. These requests all occur before the first battle. In keeping with the narrative’s tendency toward pairs, there will be a pair of requests for signs by Gideon. The first request is narrated here, and the second request for a sign occurs in the pair of fleece incidents below.

15. For some similarities between the sacrifice of Gideon and the sacrifice of Manoah, see Y. Zakovitch, “The Sacrifice of Gideon (Jud 6, 11–24) and the Sacrifice of Manoaḥ (Jud 13),” Shnaton 1 (1975): 151–54, xxv (Hebrew; English summary); A. G. Auld, “Gideon: Hacking at the Heart of the Old Testament,” VT 39 (1989): 257–67, esp. 257–58.

16. Block, Judges, Ruth, 263.

17. The miraculous fire introduces a motif that will recur throughout the Gideon/Abimelech cycle (6:26; 7:16, 20; 9:15, 20, 49).

18. In this phrase there is an echo of the Jacob story at the Jabbok (Gen. 32:23–32), but there are also major differences between the stories overall.

19. For the socioreligious practice of building altars in open contexts, cf. the “Bull site” in Manasseh, an open cult place of Iron Age I (Mazar, “The Bull Site,” 27–42).

20. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 148–49.

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 265.

22. This pair of deities was mentioned earlier in the first of the in-group judges, Othniel (Judg. 3:7). Here they are mentioned in connection with the very household of the first of the out-group judges.

23. The syntax of the first clause in v. 25 is not entirely clear, and the mention of a “second” bull seems problematic (why mention the “second” when only one bull is offered?). Some scholars have resolved this by understanding the phrase “the second bull” as a later scribal insertion. Others have attempted to explain the phrase as meaning “bull of high rank” (see Block’s discussion, Judges, Ruth, 266). However, the reference to “the second bull” may well serve a literary function in the narrative through the binary force of the passage: second altar to Yahweh, second bull (i.e., the number two bull that is seven years old—the perfect sacrifice in this instance).

24. Block, Judges, Ruth, 267.

25. It is ironic that the sentence which should have been imposed on the idolaters (Deut. 13:1–18 [Heb. 13:2–19]) is pronounced on the one who destroyed the idol. The irony in Israel’s response to Gideon’s actions will be heightened in the later narrative where the Israelites demand the Benjamites to hand over the men who had done the crime in Gibeah (20:12–13)

26. Note the interchange of subject for these two clauses: “the Lord” and “I.”

27. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative As the Focal Point of Judges,” 158.

28. The choice of the term in 6:34 builds a contrastive wordplay between the Spirit’s “clothing” Gideon and the article of “clothing” (i.e., the ephod) that Gideon later produces (8:27). See also next note.

29. Waldman has demonstrated that the Spirit’s clothing of Gideon reflects a wellknown ancient Near Eastern idiom that describes an individual as clothed/covered/overwhelmed by a divine or demonic force. See N. M. Waldman, “The Imagery of Clothing, Covering, and Overpowering,” JANES 19 (1989): 161–70. See also previous note.

30. D. I. Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration under Tribal Rule,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 52.

31. In-Group judges: Othniel (3:10): “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him” (hyh ʿl, lit., “was upon”). Out Group judges: Gideon (6:34): “The Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon” (lbš ʾt, lit., “clothed”); Jephthah (11:29): “Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah” (hyh ʿl, lit., “was upon”); Samson (14:6): “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power” (ṣlḥ ʿl, lit., “rushed upon); (14:19), “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power” (ṣlḥ ʿl, lit., “rushed upon); (15:14), “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power” (ṣlḥ ʿl, lit., “rushed upon). JPSV translates ṣlḥ as “gripped.” See also 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 18:10. Perhaps in a contrastive context, note Abimelech (9:23): “God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem” (ṣlḥ byn). I treat 13:25 as a different and special case. The vocabulary and syntax are uniquely different from the other instances in the book of Judges and hence the meaning is altogether different in this context.

32. In this light, it is informative to compare Gideon’s fleecings with Jephthah’s vow. Both are manipulative; both are utterly unnecessary.

33. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 416.

34. Block, Judges, Ruth, 273.

35. Ibid.

36. For a brief but helpful discussion of divination, especially in the Mesopotamian context, see A. K. Guinan, “Divination,” in COS, 1:421–26. For a discussion of the proof by token type of divination, see M. Dijkstra, “KTU 1.6 (= CTA).III.1FF. and the So-called Zeichenbeweiss,” VT 35 (1985): 105–9.

37. John Walton, personal communication.

38. Block, Judges, Ruth, 273. In addition, Gideon admits that he is testing God, and this reminds the reader of Israel’s testing of God in the desert (Ex. 17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Ps. 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14).

39. Deut. 20:8 states: “Then the officers shall add, ‘Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too.” It is ironic in this context that one of the tests for eliminating unnecessary Israelite warriors (viz., “fear”) is the very problem that affects the leader, Gideon, himself.

40. For the complex textual difficulties in 7:6, see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 467–69.

41. Boling, Judges, 145. Of course, wild animals drink from springs this way all the time with alertness to what is around them.

42. The construction w^ehinnēh + subj. + ptc. = “just then.”

43. Note the use of another “pair.”

44. The dream is absurd: A round loaf of barley bread tumbles into the Midianite camp, smashing into the tent with such force that it overturns and collapses. The divinatory type interpretation (remember, this is a Midianite doing the interpreting) happens to match perfectly Yahweh’s earlier words.

45. In light of this, Barak’s lack of faith seems like nothing compared to Gideon’s.

46. This phrase lyhwh wlgdʿwn (“for Yahweh and for Gideon”) is no doubt literarily anticipatory of things to come. It is paralleled syntactically to a new inscription discovered at Ekron that reads: lbʿl wlpdy (“for Baʿal and for Padi”). Interestingly, the editors of this inscription discuss the syntax of “for ‘Divine Name’ and for ‘Royal Name.’ ” In light of this new inscription one must wonder if the narrator is using a stock phrase to make a subtle royal illusion in the text. See S. Gitin and M. Cogan, “A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 49 (1999): 193–202. See also C. R. Krahmalkov, “The Foundation of Carthage, 814 B.C.: The Douïmès Pendant Inscription,” JSS 26 (1981): 85–86. He interprets this form as the soldier’s oath of allegiance to God and ruler.

47. Surprise night attacks do not always succeed. Much depends on the vigilance and disposition of the enemy.

48. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative As the Focal Point of Judges,” 159.

49. Some interpreters understand Gideon’s mobilization of the Israelites in both stages of the pursuit to be indications of his reliance on human strength and strategy rather than his reliance on God’s guidance. For example, see Klein, Triumph of Irony, 57–58; Block, Judges, Ruth, 283–84. However, on the basis of analogy with the story of the pursuit in the Ehud cycle, this may not be correct.

50. Gideon’s generous and timely compliment to the Ephraimites (8:2) that “the gleaning of Ephraim’s grapes [is] better than the full grape harvest of Abiezer” is not just a clever allusion to their slaughter of Zeeb at a winepress (7:25), but also recalls the beginning of the story, where Gideon himself is skulking in another winepress (6:11).

51. Block, Judges, Ruth, 286. Block also notes that Gideon refers to God as Elohim rather than Yahweh and is silent on Yahweh’s call of him as the leader to deliver Israel.

52. No doubt this is where certain preachers and teachers stop in their reading of the Gideon account!

53. The names Zebah and Zalmunna appear to be pejoratives or distortions, like Cushan-Rishathaim in 3:8. Zebah means “sacrifice,” and Zalmunna means “shelter/protection refused.” The names obviously apply to the kings’ outcomes. Zebah and Zalmunna are designated “kings” (m^elākîm), while Oreb and Zeeb are designated “leaders” (śārîm.) This creates a link with the previous Deborah/Barak cycle, where Jabin is designated as “king” (melek) and Sisera as “commander” (śar).

54. The question that the leaders (śārîm) of Succoth ask is literally: “Is the palm [kap] of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand [yād]?” This refers to the ancient Near Eastern military practice of counting the dead on the battlefield by the number of hands (cut off). Thus they are asking: “Have you already defeated Zebah and Zalmunna so that they are no longer a threat (with the implication that he may not succeed in this)?” This reaction of the Transjordanians contrasts sharply with their Cisjordanian countrymen, who responded immediately to Gideon’s summons in 7:23.

55. In the case of Succoth, Gideon glibly invokes the name of Yahweh and threatens to take the law into his own hands by beating (rather than NIV, “tear”) their bodies with switches of desert thorns (qôṣîm) and briars (barqānîm), like a man beats grain on the threshing floor. In the case of Penuel, he declares his intention to tear down their defensive tower. For these plants, see K. L. Younger Jr., “,” NIDOTTE, 1:770–71; idem, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:907.

56. Boling, Judges, 158.

57. Webb states: “Gideon is the first judge to turn the sword against his compatriots” (The Book of the Judges, 158). The domestic clashes continue with Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson. Along with Gideon’s ephod and the theme of monarchy, they set the stage, so to speak, for the double conclusion with its domestic wars and atrocities (Judg. 17–21).

58. Although there has been no mention of a battle at Tabor in the Gideon cycle, the seven years of hostilities alluded to in 6:1–5 may provide a possible context. Boling argues that the question in 8:18 “is intended to be as startling as it sounds” (Judges, 157). The explanation for Gideon’s behavior is held back until the climax so that it might strike the reader with greatest force.

59. The two Midianite kings are defiant to the very end, unlike the lord of Bezeq in 1:5–7, who recognized Yahweh’s justice being applied in his case. However, these executions are the work of Gideon’s private vengeance.

60. Block calls Gideon’s use of the oath “as the Lord lives,” “a glib reference to Yahweh to sanctify his personal vendetta” (Judges, Ruth, 295).

61. There is also a contrast in the dialogue of Gideon with the Ephraimites after the first battle, which results in no further action (8:1–3), and his dialogue with the leaders of the two Israelite cities (8:4–9), which results in vengeful overreaction (8:13–17).

62. The term ʿābar can be used to designate a violation or transgression of God’s law or covenant.

63. This does not excuse the people of Succoth and Penuel from helping Gideon and his men; they should have helped. But Gideon’s response is one of vengeance, and it is disgusting in light of where he had come from.

64. Nevertheless, Gideon’s answer is the interpretive key for the double conclusion’s refrain “in those days there was no king. . . .” It demonstrates that the term melek (“king”) has a double entrende: not only is there a lack of a human monarch, but more importantly in the context of the covenant theocracy, there is no spiritual king (which, of course, should be Yahweh!). This heightens the second part of the refrain “and every man did what was right in his own eyes,” which is far more comprehensible when one understands melek to refer to the Lord. Simply having a human king does not deter people from “doing what is right in their own eyes.”

65. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” 114.

66. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 152.

67. The parenthetical statement at the end of verse 24 notes that it was “the custom of the Ishmaelites to wear gold earrings.” The term “Ishmaelites” is probably used as a parallel designation or a metonymy in general for “the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples” (6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; cf. Gen. 37:25–36; 39:1). In fact, the designation “the eastern peoples” (b^ebê qedem) is used as a summarizing appositive: “Midian and Amalek, the easterners”; see Boling, Judges, 124–25.

68. For the shekel weight (11.4 grams or .4 ounces), see R. Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (JSOTSup 276; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

69. See Gunn’s discussion and note the prohibition of Deut. 17:17 against a king amassing for himself silver and gold (“Joshua and Judges,” 114).

70. CAD, E, 183. Interestingly, the Old Assyrian epattu is equivalent to Hittite ipantu. One Hittite text refers to an ipantu of silver (i.e., “a garment of silver”). This could indicate that silver was used for the garment’s ornamentation or that the garment itself was made out of silver fibers. See H. A. Hoffner Jr., “Hittite Equivalents of Old Assyrian kumrum and epattum,” WZKM 86 (1996): 154–56.

71. As suggested by A. E. Cundall, Judges: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968), 123. Compare the Hittite garment (ipantu) described in the previous note.

72. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 64; Block, Judges, Ruth, 300.

73. Block, Judges, Ruth, 300. For similar interpretations, see Klein, Triumph of Irony, 64–65; Boling, Judges, 158; Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 299.

74. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 152–53.

75. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 64–65.

76. Block, Judges, Ruth, 300.

77. Perhaps the image is supposed to represent Gideon himself, clothed with the Spirit of Yahweh.

78. As a replacement for the Baal altar and Asherah pole? In effect, the altar of Yahweh and Gideon’s ephod served this purpose.

79. The motif of ignorance of God’s law and its devastating results will recur in the Jephthah and Samson cycles. The Out-group judges show ignorance of the law (Torah) again and again. In the cases of Gideon and Jephthah, there may have been some right motivations (though tainted here and there with improper ones). In the case of Samson, he is ignorant and doesn’t seem to care.

80. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 65.

81. Gideon’s production, from plundered gold, of an illegitmate cult object that later becomes an object of Israel’s (Manasseh’s) cultic deviation foreshadows the scenario involving Micah’s making from stolen silver the private cult objects that the Danites come to worship in Judg. 17–18. See O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 153.

82. Block understands this as a subtle indication of Gideon’s rule as king (Judges, Ruth, 300–301).

83. Cf. the seventy vassal kings of the lord of Bezeq in 1:7 and the seventy sons/grandsons of Abdon in 12:14. The number “seventy” may have been used in the ancient Near East as symbolic of an ideal or perfect royal household. For example, the Samalian Aramaic inscription of Panamuwa refers to the killing of the “seventy brothers of his father” (see K. L. Younger Jr., “The Panamuwa Inscription,” COS, 2.37). Cf. also 2 Kings 10:1–11, which mentions the execution of the seventy sons of Ahab. In this case, the number plays an “actual” role in the story since in Judg. 9:5, Abimelech will murder his “seventy brothers” with the help of “seventy empty and reckless men,” hired with “seventy pieces of silver” donated by the Shechemites to Abimelech. For further discussion, see J. C. de Moor, “Seventy!” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollagen, ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (AOAT 250; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1998), 199–203; and F. C. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat,” PEQ 109 (1977): 113–15.

84. Jacob had two wives plus two concubines, who gave birth to twelve sons; David had eight wives plus concubines that gave birth to nineteen sons. Thus it seems reasonable to posit that Gideon must have had, at the least, fourteen and perhaps as many as thirty wives!

85. Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” 50. There may be an even deeper level of wordplay in the name; see J. P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 33–45, esp. 33–34.

1. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 38.

2. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 154.

3. Ibid., 159.

4. T. J. Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” JBL 115 (1996): 401–23.

5. It is possible that the Shechemite deity El Berith is represented by one of the bronze idols discovered in excavations at Shechem (ibid., 423).

6. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 174.

7. Cf. 1:24, where the phrase ʿāśâ ḥesed (to show loyalty/faithfulness) occurs.

8. The use is extensive: 9:2, 3, 6, 7, 23 (2x), 24, 25, 26, 39, 46, 47, 51 (reference not to Shechem but Thebez). Note that in 9:57 the naming is changed from “the citizens/nobles of Shechem” (baʿ ^alêš^ekem) to “the men of Shechem” (ʾanšēš^ekem). Fokkelman argues that this may have been to honor God, who is the agent there and has let nemesis take its course in order to fulfill Jotham’s curse (“Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 35 n. 7). Note the similar expression in Josh. 24:11 and 1 Sam. 23:11–12. In both Judg. 9 and 1 Sam. 23 it describes a group or assembly that makes decisions for Shechem and Keilah. Such an expression occurs at Amarna and Ugarit, where it refers to a group distinguished from the king or chief leader (Moran, The Amarna Letters, 175, n. 5). The usage is also observable in Phoenician and Old Aramaic inscriptions.

9. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 143–46.

10. The words translated “clan” are different (ʾelep in 6:15 and mišpaḥâ in Judg. 9:1) but are synonyms (cf. their usages in 1 Sam. 10:19, 21).

11. Abimelech was certainly of the spiritual mold of Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Note that the number seventy is used in this murderous vignette too. Moreover, there are a number of similarities and differences between Abimelech’s murder of his brothers and Jehu’s murder of the sons of Ahab (2 Kings 10). See Block, Judges, Ruth, 312–13.

12. The total disregard for the fifth commandment (“honor your father and mother”) is evident.

13. Beth Millo may refer to an earth-filled platform on which walls and other large structures were built, perhaps here identical to the stronghold in 9:46 (Boling, Judges, 171).

14. Cf. NRSV, “by the oak of the pillar” (cf. Josh. 24:26).

15. Jether, Gideon’s eldest child (8:20), and Jotham, his youngest son, stand in contrast to their father and Abimelech. Thus Jether vs. Gideon is parallel to Jotham vs. Abimelech.

16. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 155–56.

17. HALOT, 375.

18. For the olive tree and the vine, see Rafael Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries (JSOTMS 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

19. The identity of these three is not important to the fable, since it is the fourth item that is the climax and focus of the fable. Two features—the breaking of an established rhetorical pattern and a content variation (i.e., the offer is not made to a valued member of the forest family)—have a significant rhetorical function. They indicate that verses 14–15 are the most important part, the rhetorical climax or focus of Jotham’s presentation. See G. S. Ogden, “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9,” BT 46 (1995): 301–8, esp. 303.

20. Ironically, the phrase “in your/his shade” is used in the ancient Near East to mean “under the special protection of the king”—one of the traditional roles of monarchs. Compare the following passage from an Akkadian poem: “O the shade of the cedar, the shade of the cedar, the shelter of kings! O the cypress shade of the magnates! The shade of a sprig of juniper is shelter for my darling Nabu and for my fun and games!” See A. Livingstone, “Love Lyrics of Nabu and Tashmetu,” in COS, 1.128.

21. The thornbush (ʾāṭād) can be identified with the Ziziphus spinachristi, a plant common in the northern part of Israel, especially on the eastern slopes of the adjacent plains of Samaria or with the Rubus species, a thorny and prickly plant. See K. L. Younger Jr., “,” NIDOTTE, 1:363–64. In the “Aramaic Wisdom of Ahiqar” there is a conversation between the bramble and the pomegranate tree.

22. Thus the first conditional clause, despite its positive form, is actually a null condition. It is the second conditional clause that indicates the point Jotham wishes to make, namely, that they acted in bad faith by making Abimelech their king.

23. And thus the only “legitimate heir” to Gideon’s rule disappears permanently from the scene.

24. In Gen. 34 (another story of Israelites and Shechem), it is “three” days between the time that a covenant is established and a devastating calamity comes on the city.

25. The phrase rûaḥ rāʿâ appears to have the nuance of “calamitous spirit.” This phrase is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 16:14–23; 18:10–12; 19:9; 2 Kings 19:7) and appears to indicate that this “bad,” “calamitous spirit” produces negative and destructive effects on the object, i.e., unpropitious conditions. Here this rûaḥ rāʿâ produces enmity, distrust, and bad faith between Abimelech and the Shechemites. For further discussion see Block, Judges, Ruth, 323–324; idem, “Empowered by the Spirit of God: The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Historiographic Writings of the Old Testament,” SBJT 1 (1997): 42–61.

26. Again, following O’Connell’s observations (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 143–50).

27. This verb is the eighth and climactic verb in the series of verbs describing the activities of the Shechemites.

28. Hamor was the Hivite ruler before the Israelites ever settled in or around Shechem, according to Gen. 33:19; 34:1–31; Josh. 24:32. Thus if Abimelech could play the ethnicity card, so could Gaal.

29. Cf. Ezek. 38:12. The NIV’s “the center of the land” has commonly been understood as “the navel of the earth,” which may have been a reference to Mount Gerizim, the center of the land of Canaan. Eshel and Erlich have identified the phrase used here with Ras e-Tagur, on the southwestern corridor of Jebel el-Kabir, northeast of Shechem. See H. Eshel and Z. Erlich, “Abimelech’s First Battle with the Lords of Shechem and the Question of the Navel of the Land,” Tarbiz 58 (1988–1989): 111–16. Block has recently argued that the phrase in question should be understood as “elevated ground” and refers to some “elevated plateau without external fortifications” (Judges, Ruth, 328–29).

30. Arumah was apparently Abimelech’s base of operations. Most scholars feel that Arumah sat on top of Jebel el-ʿUrmeh.

31. From the following incidents, it is clear that opponents to Abimelech are still in certain quarters of the city.

32. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 148–53.

33. For the destruction and salting of cities in the ancient world, see S. Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem: A Religio-Literary Aspect of City Destruction,” VT 13 (1963): 52–62. Compare the Roman salting of the land after the destruction of Carthage in the Third Punic War.

34. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 148–53.

35. L. E. Stager has recently reassessed the archaeological data concerning the temple structures at Shechem and concluded that G. E. Wright’s temple 2, which he associated with the temple of El-/Baʿal-Berith, was actually part of a ninth-eighth century B.C. building known as the “Granary” (Building 5900) and that Wright’s temple 1, the great fortress (or migdāl) was the temple of El-/Baʿal-Berith. See L. E. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant,’ ” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, ed. P. H. Williams Jr. and T. Hiebert (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 228–49. For Wright’s earlier discussion, see G. R. H. Wright, “Temples at Shechem,” ZAW 80 (1968): 26; G. E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965), 95–100. For further discussion, see E. F. Campbell Jr., Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale (ASOR Archaeology Reports 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 107–9; idem, “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 263–67.

36. Cf. the destruction of the tower of Peniel (Judg. 8:17).

37. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 160–62.

38. Cf. 2 Sam. 11:21. The location of Thebez (tēbēṣ)) is uncertain. Some identify it with modern Tubas, thirteen miles northeast of Shechem. Others understand the name to be a corruption of “Tirzah” (tirṣâ), six miles northeast of Shechem. Campbell has recently suggested a tell about 2 km north of modern Tubas and that the name shifted to its present location during the Roman period. See Campbell, Shechem II, 107.

39. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 161.

40. K. van der Toorn, “Mill, Millstone,” in ABD, 4:831–32.

41. See further Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 38–39.

42. The term rōʾš is a key word in the story (vv. 7, 25, 34, 36, 37, 43, 44[2x], 53, 57). Its range of meanings (“head,” “mountain top,” “company”) allows it to serve as another binding element for the story as well as to hint at this final denouement, when Abimelech is struck on the head and mortally wounded while the evil of the Shechemite leaders also falls (like a stone) upon their heads. See Ogden, “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9,” 302.

43. Block, Judges, Ruth, 334.

44. Fokkelman (“Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 34) points out that Abimelech has desperately craved to prove himself a worthy successor to his father by living up to one interpretation of his name (“the king [Gideon] is my father”), only to experience the original intention of the name (“The king [divine] is my father”).

45. Though it must be remembered that the Shechemites were unquestionably the (twice) instigators of Abimelech’s demise that eventually led to his death.

46. O’Connell points out the structural (chiastic) as well as thematic parallels between 9:23–24 and 9:56–57 (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 167–69).

47. There are some interesting parallels between Abimelech and Hitler. Both had severe hatred for their fathers, which manifested itself in the hatred of others. Both rose to power through the brutal elimination of their potential rivals. Both used morally empty and reckless men to aid their rise to power and in the maintaining of that power. Both made pacts with elite power structures: Abimelech with the lords of Shechem and Hitler with the German industrialists and bankers. Both of these elite power structures realized soon after their pacts that they had misjudged their coconspirator and had gotten much more than they had bargained for. Both Abimelech and Hitler brought almost total destruction on their lands. Both died ignominious deaths, leaving their lands in ruins.

1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 160. See also Boling, Judges, 187.

2. This statement may be a type of replacement for the component statement “and the land had rest for X years,” which occurs with the four cyclical judge narratives prior to the introduction of Tola.

3. As pointed out in the introduction, this phrase functions as a literary device, signaling narratorial rather than strict historical sequence.

4. The name appears to mean “worm,” which Block suggests invites the reader to interpret this “lowly person” against the backdrop of the ambitious and pretentious Abimelech (Judges, Ruth, 338).

5. See Boling, Judges, 187; L. Stager, “Shemer’s Estate,” BASOR 277/278 (1990): 93–108. See also Z. Gal, “The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations,” Tel Aviv 9 (1982): 79–86. According to excavations, the site of ancient Samaria was apparently occupied from an early period. Numerous oil and wine presses have been discovered, which appear to be a small part of a large and impressive estate with vineyards and olive yards occupying the surrounding slopes of the hill of Samaria. See R. E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria (HSM 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Stager, “Shemer’s Estate,” BASOR 277/278 (1990): 93–108.

6. Based on noun pattern, it is more likely that Samaria (šōmrôn) is derived from Shemer (šemer) than from Shamir (šāmîr). For an analogy of the same name pattern in the book of Judges, note “Samson” derived from “Shemesh,” i.e., “sun” (šemeš šimšôn).

7. From the biblical and archaeological evidence it seems that some of the tribe of Issachar may have settled together with Cisjordanian Manasseh, at least in the latter’s territory in the northern Samarian hills (see Gal, “The Settlement of Issachar,” 82–85). The strong connections of Issachar to this region are illustrated by the outstanding position this tribe held in the history of Israel. Several important kings came from Issachar, while Manasseh, a much larger tribe, contributed not even one king.

8. The choice to live in another tribal allotment will be encountered again in the double conclusion.

9. The Hebrew text is difficult at this point. See Boling’s discussion (Judges, 188).

10. Boling understands the “sons” to be metaphoric for “confederates.” However, the notice concerning Ibzan (12:8–10) seems to argue convincingly that these were literal “sons,” though the number “thirty” may, of course, be symbolic of an ideal royal family, though the narrator does not make this connection.

11. For biblical evidence see 2 Sam. 13:29 (David’s sons on mules [pered]); 18:9 (Absalom as an acting king on his mule); 1 Kings 1:33 (Solomon on David’s mule); cf. Gen. 49:11 (the donkey [ʿayir] of the one to whom the scepter belongs); Zech. 9:9 (a king will come riding on a donkey [ʿayir]); Matt. 21:5; Luke 19:30 (Christ’s riding on a donkey). Cf. also Judg. 5:10. Evidence from the ancient Near East can be seen from Mari and elsewhere; see, e.g., ARM, 6:76:20–25; for discussion, see A. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), 2–4, 80.

1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 41–78. See also Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 176–81.

2. Block, Judges, Ruth, 381–82.

3. Yahweh’s remarks in 10:11–14 demonstrate that there were other oppressions that Israel suffered during the judges’ era that are not fully narrated (or for that matter alluded to). The oppressions of the Egyptians, Amorites, Sidonians, and Maonites have no corresponding narration in the book. See the comments and discussion in the introduction (pp. 28–30). The attempt to root these oppressions in the history of the nation (esp. to the period of the judges) is to force the data beyond its intention.

4. This word is used in 9:53 of the “crushing” of Abimelech’s head by the upper millstone.

5. Cf. also the previous confrontation of the messenger of Yahweh in 2:1–5.

6. Block, Judges, Ruth, 347.

7. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 46.

8. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 187.

9. Block, Judges, Ruth, 348.

10. See R. D. Haak, “A Study and New Interpretation of QṢR NPŠ,” JBL 101 (1982): 161–67.

11. Block, Judges, Ruth, 349; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 187–88; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 75, 230 n. 75; Klein, Triumph of Irony, 95; Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 178.

12. In this section, śārê gilʿād (“leaders of Gilead”) is parallel to ziqnê gilʿād (“elders of Gilead”).

13. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 188.

14. The name Jephthah means “He [DN] has opened [the womb]” or “May he [DN] open [the womb].” As a personal name, it is attested in the form yptḥʾl in Old South Arabic and as a place name in the Heb. yiptaḥēl (Josh. 19:14, 27).

15. Indicated by the circumstantial clause at the beginning of 11:1.

16. Block correctly notes: “The narrator’s characterization of Jephthah as a ‘valiant warrior’ (gibbôr ḥayil, 11:1) hardly commends him spiritually for the role of savior of Israel. Indeed, he was a most unlikely candidate for leadership, being the ostracized son of a harlot and leader of a band of brigands in the mountains of Gilead (11:1–3)” (“The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” 50).

17. For a discussion of this term in v. 1, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 353.

18. D. Marcus, “The Bargaining Between Jephthah and the Elders (Judges 11:4–11),” JANES 19 (1989): 95–110, esp. 98; idem, “The Legal Dispute Between Jephthah and the Elders,” HAR 12 (1990): 107–11. In addition, one might surmise from the text that Jephthah was older than his brothers, otherwise there would not be any need to specify “when they were grown up.” See also T. M. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” CBQ 59 (1997): 33–44.

19. Ironically, after the Israelites plead with Yahweh, “Do with us whatever you think best [haṭṭôb, lit., good]” (10:15), Yahweh arranges that their deliverer comes from the land of Tob (Ṭôb, 11:3a)—the land to which his Gileadite half-brothers had unjustly banished him! See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 50, 223 n. 19.

20. For a discussion of this term, see A. F. Rainey, “Who Is a Canaanite?” 1–15; and “Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite Society,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 481–96.

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 354.

22. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 35.

23. Marcus, “The Bargaining Between Jephthah and the Elders,” 98. Marcus shows that (1) the clauses before maddûaʿ always state undeniable facts and (2) the maddûaʿ clause either calls into question a situation or assumption, or indicates incredulousness that, given the preceding facts, certain acts could be carried out. Thus nobody in one’s right mind would think that such a thing could happen (pp. 97–98).

24. Marcus, “The Bargaining Between Jephthah and the Elders,” 99. Marcus argues that the dispute between Jephthah and the elders in Judges 11 centers only on the issue of Jephthah’s disinheritance and reinstatement. He argues against the view of a distinction in the elders’ offer between “commander” (qāṣîn) and “head” (rōʾš). I feel that it is not an either/or in this context, but a both/and. Jephthah wants to be reinstated, and he wants more than just qāṣîn; he wants rōʾš. The heightened employment of rōʾš in the pericope, the elders’ attitude described below, as well as other factors seem to indicate that both issues are present in the text’s dialogue.

25. Block righty observes: “Jephthah’s appeal to Yahweh sounds pious—a tacit recognition of Yahweh as the national deity—but like Abimelech he was driven only by self-interest” (Judges, Ruth, 355).

26. Malamat, “The Period of the Judges,” 158.

27. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 41.

28. Block, Judges, Ruth, 356.

29. See O. Bächli, “ ‘Was habe ich mit Dir zu shaffen?’ Eine formelhafte Frage im Alten Testament und Neuen Testament,” TZ 33 (1977): 69–80.

30. See esp. the extensive discussion in O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 193–203.

31. For the deliberate patterning of Judg. 11 along the lines of Num. 20–24 and Deut. 2–3, see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 199.

32. There may have been some emotional charge in the tone of this question, since Jephthah has personally been “dispossessed” or “disinherited” by his half-brothers.

33. See Soggin, Judges, 210.

34. This is esp. ironic since Jephthah has deliberately patterned his speech along the lines of Num. 20–24 and Deut. 2–3. Yahweh alone determines the boundaries of nations (cf. Deut. 32:8–9; Amos 9:7).

35. Some scholars (see most recently O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 196–99) take the view that the disputation was against a king of Ammon who had recently taken part of the Moabite territory and was thus entitled, by diplomatic protocol, to claim Moabite land rights and to defer to Moabite deities. While this is a remote possibility, it is really begging the question. There is no evidence for such an assumption. Ammonite inscriptions do not refer to Chemosh, and to assume that this was permissible with the Ammonite king is a great assumption indeed without any evidence. The fact that Jephthah has committed a theological error in his statement opens the door to the possibility that he has committed a factual error. While it would be wrong to conclude that Jephthah was an inept negotiator (inept is certainly too strong a term), it is certainly true that Jephthah, for all his verbal facility, opens his mouth too quickly in other places in the narration of his story and thus likely has committed a bungle here.

36. Recently, Aufrecht proposed that the national deity of the Ammonites was El, not Milcom, since Milcom does not appear as a theophoric element in Ammonite personal names. The evidence, however, is small for Ammonite personal names, and I believe it is better to reserve judgment on this issue until more data are produced. See W. E. Aufrecht, “The Religion of the Ammonites,” in Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald and R. W. Younkers (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 152–62.

37. Milcom (mlkm) is attested 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13. Some of the Greek manuscripts and other versions read Milcom in seven other passages (many of which modern English translations opt to read as Milcom): 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Kings 11:7; 1 Chron. 20:2; Jer. 49(30):1, 3; Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5. According to 2 Sam. 12:30, Milcom, like a number of deities, was depicted by an anthropomorphic image. There are a number of extrabiblical attestations from Ammon, most notably the Amman Citadel Inscription (see COS, 2.24), and seals and bullae (see COS, 2.71).

It has been commonly thought that Milcom is another form of the god Molech/Malik (mlk). See, e.g., R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (2 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 2:444–46. The facts that both deities’ names derive from the same Semitic root mlk (to rule, reign) and 1 Kings 11:7 (MT has mlk; LXX has mlkm) have added to the possible confusion. Many recent scholars understand the two as separate deities with only Milcom being definitely identified with the Ammonites as their national deity. Second Kings 23:10–13 seems to treat the two separately. Yet both deities appear to have had connections to the netherworld and with fire (see E. Puech, “Milcom,” DDD. col. 1078; G. C. Heider, “Molech,” DDD, col. 1096).

38. Chemosh is not only attested as the Moabite national deity in a number of biblical texts (e.g., 1 Kings 11:5, 7, 33), but is also attested in the Mesha Inscription (see COS, 2.23) and Moabite seals (e.g., COS, 2.72).

39. Block takes this to be a deliberate, intentional error on the part of Jephthah to insult him and start the war.

40. Cf. Num. 22–24. That this mention of a Moabite king is evidence that the king of Ammon has taken Moabite land is doubtful (see comments in note 35). In that Jephthah has rehearsed the history including the other identifiable characters, it is not surprising that he mentions the next character in the historic narration of the book of Numbers after Sihon.

41. Soggin observes that this has an approximate analogue in the Mesha Inscription (Judges, 211). Line 10 states: “Now the Gadite [lit., man of Gad] had settled in the land of ʿAḥarot from antiquity; and the king of Israel had fortified for him [the Gadite] ʿAḥarot.” One must be cautious in accepting Jephthah’s number “three hundred” as an accurate number. Since Jephthah has been wrong on a number of points in the speech already, this may also be erroneous (see the discussion of Block, Judges, Ruth, 363).

42. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 63–64. Willis argues that the actions of Jephthah beginning in 11:29 indicate that he has stepped over the line of traditional authority into the arena of charismatic authority. He is no longer leading Gileadites alone; he is attempting to expand his authority to include all the other clans of Manasseh and even Ephraim (“The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 42).

43. Gideon usurps the victory after the battle(s) and does so subtly. But Jephthah does so before the battle in a blatant manner.

44. E.g., Klein, Triumph of Irony, 95; Boling, Judges, 215–16; D. Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock, Tex.: Texas Tech Univ. Press, 1986), 54–55.

45. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 64; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 180–81; Soggin, Judges, 215–16; Block, Judges, Ruth, 367–72. Block states: “Although some may interpret the vow as rash and hastily worded, it is preferable to see here another demonstration of his shrewd and calculating nature, another attempt to manipulate circumstances to his own advantage” (p. 367). But he also states: “Ironically, the one who appeared to have become master of his own fate has become a victim of his own rash word” (p. 372).

46. Manipulation speaks to its intent; rashness to its content.

47. The Heb. b^ešālôm carries this connotation (Soggin, Judges, 213). The NIV’s “in triumph” is not as accurate.

48. Cf. Mesha’s action in 2 Kings 3:27. See Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” 50.

49. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 64, 227 nn. 51, 52; Klein, Triumph of Irony, 91 (cf. 221 n. 13); Block, Judges, Ruth, 367.

50. Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow; Boling Judges, 208–9.

51. Note in this instance the clear use of w^ehinnēh to denote surprise and shock.

52. Gen. 14:17 appears to be a parallel, where the verbs yṣh and qrʾ are used to describe someone (here the king of Sodom) “going/coming out to meet” someone after a military victory (Abram’s victory over the kings of the east). However, there is a difference in referent (in Judg. 11:31 it is indeterminate) and a difference between a straightforward narrative and the direct speech of a vow. In my opinion, the context—esp. in its relating of the grievous surprise of Jephthah—must come into consideration so that the combination of the verbs yṣh and qrʾ are not limited only to human beings but also include animals. In any case, this ambiguity only heightens the irony of the passage.

53. See Y. Shiloh, “The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City,” IEJ 20 (1970): 180–90; A Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 340–45; 485–89.

54. Compare the empty word shibboleth, below.

55. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 74.

56. Only by overlooking the plain meaning of ʿôlâ, and overestimating Jephthah’s spirituality by not taking into account the macrostructure of the cycles section can one argue that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter but devoted her to some kind of perpetual virginity (for this interpretation, see G. L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 164–65). The phraseology of the Hebrew here eliminates this interpretation: “He did his vow to her,” namely, “whatever comes out is Yahweh’s, and I will burn it up as a burnt offering [haʿ ^alîtīhû ʿôlâ].”

57. The Jewish sources struggled with Jephthah’s vow. Targum Jonathan states: “And at the end of two months she returned to her father and he fulfilled on her his vow, which he had vowed. She had not know any man. And it became a decree in Israel that no one may offer up his son or his daughter for a burnt offering, as Jephthah the Gileadite did, who did not ask Phinehas the priest. For if he had asked Phinehas the priest, he would have rescued her with a monetary consecration.” For a translation and discussion, see W. F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges (OTS 36; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 555–57.

58. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 93.

59. Ibid., 96.

60. Cf. also Lev. 18:21: “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”

61. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 181.

62. Note the contrast between the despicable behavior of Jephthah and the sensitivity and submissiveness of his daughter.

63. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 40. Cf. also Abimelech with the two women, one of whom gives him life, the other death.

64. No doubt for the same reason that he does not intervene in stopping the slaughter of Gideon’s sons by Abimelech.

65. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 182.

66. Sandra Wilson, Hurt People Hurt People (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993).

67. We recognize that some abortions are the tragic result of the hard choice in favor of the life of the mother. But the vast bulk of abortions performed throughout the world are not for this reason.

68. Willis argues that the “squabble did not erupt until Jephthah had claimed authority beyond Gilead. The Ephraimites did not object (indeed, had no right or reason to object) to the Gileadite elders making Jephthah qāṣîn and rōʾš, because that right was beyond Ephraimite ‘jurisdiction’: by intertribal tradition it was confined to Gilead’s sphere of control. Only when matters moved beyond the traditional were objections raised” (“The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 43 n. 33). While this may have been a factor, the text states that the Ephraimite disquiet is caused by the noninvitation of Jephthah to participate in the war against the Ammonites.

69. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature As Politics,” 408.

70. According to Malamat, the heavy Ephraimite losses may indicate that Jephthah exploited this opportunity to clear Gilead of all the Ephraimites who had settled there (“The Period of the Judges,” 159–60).

71. D. Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites: The Shibboleth Incident (Judg 12:6),” Maarav 8 (1992): 95–105, esp. 100.

72. Lit., “I was a rîb man, I and my people, with the Ammonites.” Jephthah asserts that he resorts to diplomacy first, in contrast to the Ephraimites, “who would fight first and negotiate later” (Boling, Judges, 212).

73. He may have appealed to the Ephraimites during his movements in 11:29, but this is purely conjecture.

74. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 71.

75. Cf. Josh. 22, where the Transjordanians feared this very thing, namely, that they would be considered second-class citizens of Israel.

76. The etymology of the word is uncertain, possibly “ear of wheat” or “current of water.” See Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites,” 99.

77. Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites,” 100–101.

78. For this illustration, see J. A. Emerton, “Some Comments on the Shibboleth Incident (Judges XII 6),” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu (AOAT 215; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 155–56.

79. G. von Rad, Gottes Wirken in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 41.

80. For the dialectal issues, see A. Faber, “Second Harvest: šibbōlet Revisited (Yet Again),” JSS 37 (1992): 1–10.

81. Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites,” 100.

82. Perhaps in some cases, only because we have a civil government that prevents it.