TEXT [Commentary]

I.   Introductory Overview: The End from the Beginning (1:1–3:6)

A.   Faltering Conquest: The View from the Outside (1:1–2:5)

1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Which tribe should go first to attack the Canaanites?”

2 The LORD answered, “Judah, for I have given them victory over the land.”

3 The men of Judah said to their relatives from the tribe of Simeon, “Join with us to fight against the Canaanites living in the territory allotted to us. Then we will help you conquer your territory.” So the men of Simeon went with Judah.

4 When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed 10,000 enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. 5 While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. 6 Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes.

7 Adoni-bezek said, “I once had seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them.” They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there.

8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire. 9 Then they went down to fight the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills.[*] 10 Judah marched against the Canaanites in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath-arba), defeating the forces of Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.

11 From there they went to fight against the people living in the town of Debir (formerly called Kiriath-sepher). 12 Caleb said, “I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the one who attacks and captures Kiriath-sepher.” 13 Othniel, the son of Caleb’s younger brother, Kenaz, was the one who conquered it, so Acsah became Othniel’s wife.

14 When Acsah married Othniel, she urged him[*] to ask her father for a field. As she got down off her donkey, Caleb asked her, “What’s the matter?”

15 She said, “Let me have another gift. You have already given me land in the Negev; now please give me springs of water, too.” So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

16 When the tribe of Judah left Jericho—the city of palms—the Kenites, who were descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, traveled with them into the wilderness of Judah. They settled among the people there, near the town of Arad in the Negev.

17 Then Judah joined with Simeon to fight against the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they completely destroyed[*] the town. So the town was named Hormah.[*] 18 In addition, Judah captured the towns of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, along with their surrounding territories.

19 The LORD was with the people of Judah, and they took possession of the hill country. But they failed to drive out the people living in the plains, who had iron chariots. 20 The town of Hebron was given to Caleb as Moses had promised. And Caleb drove out the people living there, who were descendants of the three sons of Anak.

21 The tribe of Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem. So to this day the Jebusites live in Jerusalem among the people of Benjamin.

22 The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. 23 They sent men to scout out Bethel (formerly known as Luz). 24 They confronted a man coming out of the town and said to him, “Show us a way into the town, and we will have mercy on you.” 25 So he showed them a way in, and they killed everyone in the town except that man and his family. 26 Later the man moved to the land of the Hittites, where he built a town. He named it Luz, which is its name to this day.

27 The tribe of Manasseh failed to drive out the people living in Beth-shan,[*] Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and all their surrounding settlements, because the Canaanites were determined to stay in that region. 28 When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them completely out of the land.

29 The tribe of Ephraim failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, so the Canaanites continued to live there among them.

30 The tribe of Zebulun failed to drive out the residents of Kitron and Nahalol, so the Canaanites continued to live among them. But the Canaanites were forced to work as slaves for the people of Zebulun.

31 The tribe of Asher failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. 32 Instead, the people of Asher moved in among the Canaanites, who controlled the land, for they failed to drive them out.

33 Likewise, the tribe of Naphtali failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, they moved in among the Canaanites, who controlled the land. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali.

34 As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them back into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. 35 The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves. 36 The boundary of the Amorites ran from Scorpion Pass[*] to Sela and continued upward from there.

CHAPTER 2

1 The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said to the Israelites, “I brought you out of Egypt into this land that I swore to give your ancestors, and I said I would never break my covenant with you. 2 For your part, you were not to make any covenants with the people living in this land; instead, you were to destroy their altars. But you disobeyed my command. Why did you do this? 3 So now I declare that I will no longer drive out the people living in your land. They will be thorns in your sides,[*] and their gods will be a constant temptation to you.”

4 When the angel of the LORD finished speaking to all the Israelites, the people wept loudly. 5 So they called the place Bokim (which means “weeping”), and they offered sacrifices there to the LORD.

NOTES

1:1 After the death of Joshua. This chapter weaves blocks of material adapted from the book of Joshua into a syntactical network shaped by Hebrew consecutive and disjunctive clauses (Stone 1988:190-259). The opening temporal clause wayhi ’akhare moth yehoshua‘ [TH3091, ZH3397] begins a chain of Hebrew Waw-consecutive clauses continuing through the end of 1:8, with 1:9 beginning a new syntactical segment of the narrative. That segment, adapted from materials in the book of Joshua (see commentary below) runs through 1:15. At 1:16 a pair of Hebrew disjunctive clauses starts a new subsection running through 1:21. Starting in 1:21, the writer relies almost completely on material adapted from the book of Joshua to make the major points (cf. Stone 1988; O’Connell 1996; Brensinger 1999; Olson 1998). The critical note in BHS suggests the word “Joshua” here is a textual error for “Moses,” since the events following are directly derived from Josh 13–24, which occur during Joshua’s lifetime. Plus, Joshua’s death appears again in Judg 2:6-10 adapted directly from Josh 24:29-31. No manuscript evidence supports the change, however, and the author of Judg 1 seems to be adapting material with a specific purpose, so “Joshua” should be retained.

the Israelites asked the LORD. The reference here, and in most other passages in which ­persons “inquire” of Yahweh, is to structured inquiry employing a set ritual, probably involving the Urim and Thummim. The Urim and Thummim are associated in the Pentateuch with the ephod, which was apparently used for inquiring of Yahweh, particularly in battle (cf. 1 Sam 23:9-11; 30:7-9).

Which tribe should go first to attack the Canaanites? This chapter frequently uses the Hebrew verb “go up” (‘alah [TH5927, ZH6590]) in the sense of “move out on the attack” (cf. 1:2-4, 16, 22). The use of “go up” in the original is obscured in NLT for stylistic reasons.

1:2 The LORD answered, “Judah, for I have given them victory over the land.” Normally the reference to victory specifies a foe or territory, but here Judah is given victory over “the land,” suggesting a more extensive divine commission.

1:3 Join with us. . . . Then we will help you. The Hebrew construction behind “then we will help you” is emphatic, stressing Judah’s promise of mutuality.

1:4 When the men of Judah attacked. Again, the verb “go up” (‘alah [TH5927, ZH6590]) is used for a military assault. This verse looks like a generalization concerning the whole of 1:4-21, with “Canaanites and Perizzites” possibly denoting city dwellers and village dwellers, or urban and rural population. It would serve as a merism for “everyone” (ABD 5.231).

Bezek. This seems not to be Khirbet Ibzik, but Salhab, a site near Jerusalem that matches the details of this passage as well as 1 Sam 11:8-11 (ABD 1.717-718). The name “Bezek” seems to have passed from Salhab to Khirbet Ibzik by the middle of the Iron Age, suggesting the reference in Judges derives from the early part of the Iron Age.

1:5 Adoni-bezek. This looks like a typical northwest Semitic personal name in which a divine name is associated with the word “my lord,” such as Adonijah, meaning “my Lord is Yah(weh).” But no deity named “Bezek” has been documented. G. E. Wright (1946) ­suggested the name is a corruption of “Adoni Zedeq” and should be identified with the king of Jerusalem captured and killed by Joshua in Josh 10.

Some see here the intentional change of a name to an “alias” with pejorative nuance, citing the similarity of “Bezek” to a term meaning “potsherd,” thereby making “lord of the potsherd” a demeaning alias for this Canaanite king. The use of apparent “aliases” elsewhere in Judges might support this interpretation of the name. Most likely the name is simply a title: “Master of [the town] Bezek” (ABD 1.174). Since 1:1-21 stresses how Judah continued the faithful victories begun by Joshua, even replicating Joshua’s achievements, some resonance with Adoni Zedeq could still be present.

1:6 cut off his thumbs and big toes. Compare the ordination of Aaron in Lev 8:23, where the sacrificial blood is dabbed on Aaron’s earlobe, his right thumb, and his right big toe. There it is a symbolic enabling. The mutilation described in Judges likely served not only as a literal disabling of the king, but as a ritual humiliation or shaming. That a shaming figures in the event seems clear from 1:7, where the vanquished, mutilated king confesses the justice of what the Judeans have done.

1:7 paid me back. The text employs the verbal root shalem [TH7999, ZH8966] in the Piel. The popular association of this root (sh-l-m) with “peace” obscures its strict sense. The root denotes the equilibrium of the community resulting from every member fulfilling their obligations, and the community itself maintaining its equilibrium with its social and natural environment. Thus sh-l-m (often, “peace”) can denote just retribution per the lex talionis (i.e., “payback”), reminding the reader that “peace” in the OT was not seen merely as the end of conflict, or an abstract serenity, but rather the restoration of the community’s equilibrium, often by actions of punishment or restitution—this is the case in the present passage. That the Judeans could take Adoni-bezek to Jerusalem, where he died, suggests a modicum of control over the area around Jerusalem. That Josh 12:10 also records a vanquished “king of Jerusalem” suggests some basis for the writer in Judges asserting a victory over Jerusalem.

1:8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire. The capture of Jerusalem by the Judeans stands in tension with the report in Josh 15:63 and later tradition of an unvanquished city of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 5:6-10). But no report of Judean glories could possibly be convincing without a report of Jerusalem’s capture. The idiom employed for the burning of the city, lit. “to send (off) the city to the fire” is not common, appearing in the form used in 1:8 only in 20:48; 2 Kgs 8:12; and Ps 74:7. Most translations render it “set on fire,” suggesting only the torching of the city, not its permanent or even complete destruction, though the usage in Ps 74:7 could suggest total destruction. Had the author wanted to stress the total destruction of the city, stronger expressions existed.

1:9 Then they went down. The NLT registers a major geographical transition here, signaled syntactically in the Hebrew by a disjunctive temporal clause we’akhar yaredu [TH3381, ZH3718] (go down). The Judeans turned from a successful campaign in the center of the country to the south, just as Joshua and the original conquest army turned south (Josh 10:29-43) following the successful penetration of the central highlands (Josh 6–10:28).

the western foothills. Heb., shepelah [TH8219, ZH9169] (Shephelah, foothills); these hills formed the critical transitional zone from the “hill country”—the high watershed ridge and the highway running atop it, to the coastal plain with its urban centers, international highways, and resources. Land forces moving between the hill country and the coast, whether the Israelites and the Philistines, the Maccabees and the Syrians, or Saladin and the Crusaders, are funneled down one of six wadis, making control of these seasonal streambeds and the valleys they have carved out a tactical necessity (Smith 1931:201). Early in the era of the judges, by 1165 BC, the Philistines had established themselves on the Coastal Plain and would eventually start pushing up through the Shephelah via these valleys, making immediate control of the Shephelah critical not just to Israel’s full possession of Canaan, but to its very survival.

1:10 Judah marched . . . defeating the forces of Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai. In Judg 1:10 and 20 the author splices material from Josh 14:6, 13, 15 and 15:13-14 to create a frame for Judg 1:11-19, which in turn includes a block adapted from Josh 15:15-19 (Judg 1:11-15). The editor of BHS suggests replacing “Judah” with “Caleb” here, citing the parallel with Josh 15, ignoring the apparent intentions of the author to adapt the Joshua material toward a different purpose. The LXX here also adds “and Hebron came out against them,” which conceivably could have dropped out of the Hebrew via haplography, though no other manuscript evidence supports the reading. Also, LXX conflates the names “Kiriath Arba” and “Kiryath Sepher” (cf. 1:11) and reads “Kiriath Arbaksepher,” suggesting the LXX is expansionistic here. The three commanders noted are named as “sons of Anak,” and characterized by the Israelite spies as “nephilim” in Num 13:33. So daunting in appearance, their very presence unhinged 10 of the spies and caused them to despair of victory. Caleb’s victory over these Anakites (cf. Josh 15:13-14) in the book of Joshua vindicated his confidence in divine power. But in Judges, these persons lack any such luster of legendary battle prowess. A number of etymological parallels might be proposed between these foes and a range of other persons, but none seems relevant to this passage (Boling 1975:374). The passage directly resonates Josh 15:13-14, which attributes the capture of Hebron and the defeat of Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai directly to Caleb. Since Josh 15 locates his inheritance lit., “in the midst of the Judahites,” the writer in Judg 1 could link Caleb’s victory explicitly to the Judeans. Caleb was one of only two heroes of the Exodus generation to survive into the conquest generation. Associating his victory with Judah highlights Judah’s faithfulness and success.

1:11 From there they went to fight against the people living in the town of Debir (formerly called Kiriath-sepher). The narrative makes perfect topographic sense. The National Highway or Watershed Ridge route ran past Jerusalem at about 2,400 feet elevation, then climbed about 600 feet in 20 miles to Hebron before descending 840 feet over 7 miles to the “huge, impressive Bronze and Iron Age site” (Stern 1993–2008.4:1252) of Khirbet Rabud, the likely site of Debir (ABD 2:112), and then on to Beer Sheba, the southwestern gateway to Judah. Often this route runs on the narrow spine of the ridge between deep ravines, following the watershed. Clearly the Israelites understood the importance of controlling this vital thoroughfare. Still quoting Josh 15, the Judges author changes the geographically logical verb in Josh 15:15, “and he went up” (‘alah [TH5927, ZH6590]) to the more generic “and he went.” This preserves the “downward” movement of the Judeans started in 1:9, maintaining the analogy with Joshua’s geographical movement in Josh 6–11. Additionally, the antecedent of the pronoun subject “he went” was “Caleb” in the Joshua passage, but with “Judah” as the named subject in 1:10, the reader must see Judah as the agent in 1:11 as well. What Caleb accomplished as an individual is assimilated into Judah’s achievement.

The former name of Debir, Kiriath-sepher, is traditionally taken as “town of (the) book” or, with a repointing of the text, “Scribe Town.” While the Targum envisions a city functioning as an archive, Boling (1975:56) rightly suggests reference to a monumental inscription or stele. A victory stele inscribed with the name of a conquering king and his god would constitute a religious challenge to the Israelites, as well as an appealing military objective. The obliteration of previous conqueror’s names from monuments and the inscription of the new conqueror’s name figure prominently in ancient Near Eastern monumental tradition (Richter 2002:153-184).

1:13 Othniel, the son of Caleb’s younger brother, Kenaz. The story in 1:11-15 reproduces the account from Josh 15:15-19, but with strategic changes to highlight the writer’s point. Most important is the simple addition of the phrase haqqaton [TH6996A, ZH7785] mimmennu (lit., “the one smaller than him”). Why would Judges add this phrase? Grammatically, the “younger brother of Caleb” could be either Othniel or Kenaz. The most common interpretation sees Othniel as Caleb’s brother, with the author of Judges adding “the one younger than him” adjusting his age to allow marriage to Caleb’s daughter. The NLT rightly parts company with this view, regarding Kenaz as the younger brother, making Othniel Caleb’s nephew. This position was most cogently argued by Bachmann (1868:114-116) and is argued in detail by Stone (1988:202-207).

The book of Judges extends the generational structure of the Pentateuch in which one generation, the Exodus generation, failed and experienced divine judgment. Within that generation, though, were two faithful men, Joshua and Caleb, who alone survived to serve as a witness to the next generation. That next generation was the faithful conquest generation, for whom Joshua and Caleb provided leadership. The third generation, according to 2:10, apostatized. To interpret Othniel as Caleb’s brother violates the claim that only Joshua and Caleb survived from the conquest generation (Num 14:26-38; 32:10-12; Deut 1:34-40). However, to see Othniel as Caleb’s nephew (i.e., seeing Kenaz as Caleb’s younger brother) construes Othniel as a member of the faithful conquest generation. Since the third generation will be apostate, seeing Othniel as a member of the conquest generation aligns his function with that of Caleb. Each man was a faithful survivor of the preceding generation whose function was to bear witness and provide leadership for his contemporaries, the “next” generation. Since the writer of Judges works so carefully with this generational pattern, it seems likely that the addition of “the one younger than him” to the Joshua story serves this theme. The full importance of this addition only emerges in connection with the story found in 3:7-11.

1:16 Jericho—the city of palms. Here the NLT makes explicit what is not explicit in the original: the identity of the “city of palms” as Jericho. The writer anticipates the reoccupation of Jericho by Eglon in 3:13, where the same title appears; and by alluding to Jericho, the writer also evokes a connection with the conquest. To settle in the south locates the Kenites with the Judeans, reinforcing the impression of Judah as a tribe that brings the Israelites, including client groups such as the Kenites, together, in contrast to the isolation of the northern tribes seen in 1:22-36. The decision by these descendants of Moses’s father-in-law to affiliate with the southern tribes contrasts directly with the choice of another Kenite named “Partner” (NLT, “Heber”) to move north and ally (lit., to have shalom [TH7965, ZH8934]) with Israel’s enemy Jabin of Hazor (4:11-12, 17).

1:17 they completely destroyed the town. So the town was named Hormah. Ironically, despite the war and destruction in Judges, the preeminent Hebrew root denoting holy war, kharam [TH2763, ZH3049] (to devote to destruction), appears only twice in the book (1:17; 21:11), and the derived noun kherem [TH2764, ZH3051] (that which is devoted) does not appear at all, probably because the enemies against which Israel typically fights in Judges are outside intruders, not the original inhabitants of the land. In contrast, the two terms occur some 27 times in Joshua and 11 times in Deuteronomy. Either the wars in Judges were not construed as classic “Yahweh war” or the writer was not influenced by the Deuteronomistic terminology. Since Judges makes direct use of the Joshua material, the latter seems more likely, especially since Judges repeatedly describes the kind of behavior that, according to Joshua, should have made Israel subject to kherem.

1:18 In addition, Judah captured the towns of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, along with their surrounding territories. The towns of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron fell in the territory allotted to Judah (Josh 15:45-47, no mention of Ashkelon though), but they remained unpossessed in Joshua’s lifetime. Gaza remained one of the last refuges of the Anakim, archetypical foes of the Israelites (Josh 11:22), and Ekron is explicitly reckoned Canaanite in Josh 13:3. It is noteworthy that Judah is not here said to destroy these towns, only to have seized them. These towns did not become Philistine territory until Ramses III settled them there around 1175 BC. Israel likely had been in Canaan since the 1240s BC, so the towns would not have been in Philistine hands when Judah seized them. In fact, Ashkelon had been conquered by Merneptah at the close of the thirteenth century BC (ABD 1:488-490) making it possible that the Israelites’ capture of the sites would not entail a massive operation. By taking these strongholds, the Judahites exceeded the achievements of Joshua. The later association of these towns with the Philistines suggests an anticipation of the victories of David.

1:19 The LORD was with the people of Judah, and they took possession of the hill country. But they failed to drive out the people living in the plains, who had iron chariots. This verse poses a conundrum. On one hand, “[Yahweh] was with . . . Judah” expresses full divine support and approval, but on the other hand, the expression “failed to drive out the people” suggests failure. That the affirmation of Yahweh’s favor should be stressed seems clear from the triple reference in 1:2-19. Yahweh’s own promise “I have given . . .” in 1:2 flows into “[Yahweh] gave” in 1:4, culminating in the summary “[Yahweh] was with the people of Judah” in 1:19. This theme of uniform approval hardly leaves room for a failure report, necessitating a closer look at the problematic final clause. Literally translated, 1:19b reads “because (ki [TH3588, ZH3954]) not to drive out the people living in the valley.” The term translated “plains” in NLT is actually the term ‘emeq [TH6010, ZH6677], typically indicating a flat-bottomed valley, such as the Soreq or Elah valleys or, more directly, the Jezreel valley. The associated reference to iron chariotry is one of only four in the OT. The other three are all situated in the Galilee, and Josh 17:16-18, the closest parallel to the Judges text, refers explicitly to Beth-shan and “the valley of Jezreel.” The negation and the infinitive are an open-ended construction permitting the translation “[it was/they were] not to drive out the people” and taking the ki adversatively would reasonably allow “The Lord was with Judah . . . but it was not (for them) to drive out the people of the valley.” If the writer in ch 1 is alluding to Josh 17, and if “the valley” refers to the Jezreel valley, then the Judean failure is mitigated by placing the locale of their failure far beyond their own allotted responsibility. Indeed, for Judah to have reached so far attests a zeal and determination not seen among the northern tribes.

1:20 The town of Hebron was given to Caleb as Moses had promised. And Caleb drove out the people living there, who were descendants of the three sons of Anak. The NLT’s passive “was given” represents the Hebrew “they gave.” But is this impersonal passive the best rendering? Since this section subordinates Caleb’s deeds to the larger Judean campaign, the text likely wants to suggest “they [the Judeans] gave Hebron to Caleb.”

1:21 The tribe of Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem. So to this day the Jebusites live in Jerusalem among the people of ­Benjamin. A clear failure notice, this verse reports that despite the capture of Jerusalem by the Judeans reported in 1:8, the Benjaminites failed to retain it. The verse quotes directly from Josh 15:63, except that in Joshua the Judeans, not the Benjaminites, fail to expel the Jebusites from Jerusalem. The tension between the two passages is resolved if we grant that the writer of Judges recognized that Jerusalem, though on the border between Judah and Benjamin, was included within the Benjaminite inheritance and was thus Benjamin’s responsibility. By the author’s time, Jerusalem was a Judean city. Thus, consistent with the positive portrayal of Judah in ch 1, the author clarifies that Jerusalem’s persistence as a Jebusite stronghold was not the fault of Judah during the premonarchic period, but ­Benjamin (the tribe of Saul).

1:22 The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. “Descendants of Joseph” translates the literal “house of Joseph,” a curious reference that appears as a descriptor of Israel only 10 times. In Josh 17:17 it clearly denotes Ephraim and Manasseh, but then in Josh 18:5 the “house of Joseph” is admonished to stay in its portion in the north, just as Judah should stay in its portion in the south. Thus, “house of Joseph” identifies the north programmatically contrasted with the south, a usage compatible with 1:22-36, where the phrase brackets the whole account of all the northern tribes (cf. 1:35). Subsequently, the expression continues to define the northern tribes as a whole and could allude to the later northern kingdom (2 Sam 19:20; 1 Kgs 11:28). Amos also addressed the northern state as “house of Joseph” (Amos 5:6). While Obad 1:18 seems not to draw the contrast as sharply, as late as Zech 10:6, the “house of Judah” is the natural counterpoint to the “house of Joseph.” The expression, used of the premonarchic community, already addresses the nation as two separate communities.

the LORD was with them. This is the last statement of divine approval in 1:1–2:5. Yahweh was “with” the house of Joseph as they attacked Bethel, but the condemnation issued in 2:1-5 suggests that somewhere between 1:22 and 1:36, the divine favor was lost.

1:23 They sent men to scout out Bethel. The Hebrew term tur [TH8446, ZH9365], translated “scout out,” finds its most frequent usage (11 occurrences out of 24) in characterizing the mission of the spies in Num 13–14, infamous for having miscarried and become a para­digmatic rebellion. Here it appears rather than the equally common ragal [TH7270, ZH8078] (e.g., 18:2, 14, 17; Gen 42:9, 11, 14; Num 21:32; Deut 1:24; Josh 6:22-23, 25). Perhaps in using tur the writer wanted to associate the “scouting” of the house of Joseph with the abortive mission of the spies. That the word cannot be entirely or inherently pejorative appears from its use to describe Yahweh’s seeking of a place for his people (cf. Deut 1:33; Num 10:33; Ezek 20:6), but the simple literary association still might suggest that the house of Joseph was duplicating an unhappy precedent.

1:23-26 (formerly known as Luz). . . . Later the man moved to the land of the ­Hittites, where he built a town. He named it Luz, which is its name to this day. The notation about Bethel being formerly Luz seems odd, since the name change would have been centuries old, being noted in Gen 28:19. Yet the OT notes the continued use of the older name (cf. Gen 35:6; 48:3; Josh 16:2; 18:13). Perhaps 1:23-26 provides an answer. Rather than exterminate the occupants of Canaanite Bethel, as the conquest mandate required, the house of Joseph allowed the betrayer of Luz/Bethel to escape, and he ultimately founded another city by the same name, which the writer notes existed “to this day.” Here is the first departure from Israel’s mandate in Canaan. Rather than destroy the Canaanite culture, the house of Joseph allowed it to exist, though at a distance—and perhaps not a great distance, since “the land of the Hittites” could refer to close-by Syria, or even the hill country near Bethel (ABD 4.420). Perhaps also the writer hoped to contrast the bold assault of the Judeans (1:1-21) with the conniving of the northerners. This possibility is suggested by the similarity of language between 1:8 and 1:25, both of which speak of striking the city with “the mouth of the sword” and of “dismissing/consigning.” In 1:8, Judah is said to consign Jerusalem to the fire; in 1:25, the house of Joseph “consigns” the betrayer to banishment.

1:27 Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and all their surrounding settlements. The cities mentioned here constitute a strategic chain of centers defining the Carmel ridge and the barrier it casts across the land, forcing north–south traffic through a limited number of routes. A high, imposing mound at the intersection of the Jordan and Jezreel valleys, Beth-shan served as an Egyptian garrison and home to some high officials, though the principle city in the vicinity during Iron Age I stood a few miles south, on Tel Rehov. An Egyptian inscription of Seti I and a set of anthropoid coffins confirm the Egyptian-Philistine identity of the town. From Beth-shan, the narrow Harod valley moves northwest bounded by Mount Gilboa on the left and Moreh on the right, like the shaft of an arrowhead whose tip rests on the narrow pass above Yokneam. At Jezreel, the valley suddenly broadens out joining the Carmel ridge on the south at Ibleam and the Nazareth ridge to the north at Mount Tabor. These two edges of the arrowhead converge as the valley moves. Ibleam, Taanach, and Megiddo define this left “edge,” and all guard strategic entries from the hills to the southwest into the valley proper. From the time of Thutmose III, Taanach and Megiddo controlled the vast bottomlands of the valley as Pharaonic estates, and they remained in non-Israelite hands until Iron Age II. Roads crossing southwest over the ­Carmel ridge wound their way to the major coastal highway first at the town of Dor. Thus, vital, strategic sites controlling the flow of all traffic through the Jezreel valley and, therefore, all north–south traffic, lay firmly in non-Israelite hands, separating the Israelite tribes south of the valley from those in the Galilee.

because the Canaanites were determined to stay in that region. The will of the Canaanites stressed here transcended mere stubbornness. Egypt, having momentarily been distracted by the Sea Peoples around 1200 BC, renewed its interest in controlling Canaan in the early twelfth century. In keeping with New Kingdom policy, Egypt controlled Canaan via local rulers whom Egypt either dominated or bought. The Canaanites sought to hold these cities to ensure Egypt an uninterrupted flow of trade and luxury goods through the Jezreel valley and out to the International Coastal Highway, thus also ensuring their own wealth and power under Egyptian sponsorship.

1:28 When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them completely out of the land. In ironic contrast to the dismal failure recorded in 1:27, this verse reports the Israelites reducing some Canaanites to forced labor. Here Israel actually participates in the very social evils from which they themselves were delivered by Yahweh. Moreover, as the Amarna correspondence graphically documents, forced labor characterized the Egyptian-Canaanite management style. It directly contradicted the central ethos of the covenant; the Israelites had begun to operate like their former oppressors and their current enemies.

1:29-30 The tribe of Ephraim failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. Gezer occupied a strategic position on the main road running from Jerusalem and towns in the Benjaminite area westward through Upper and Lower Beth Horon, through Gezer, and out toward the coastal highway. This axial crossroad in southern Canaan is mentioned in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian documents. Destroyed, or at least damaged, by Thutmose III, Gezer revived somewhat later and served Egyptian administrative purposes, attested by the Amarna letters. In the same inscription where he claims to have annihilated Israel, Pharaoh Merneptah also boasts of capturing Gezer, which indeed remained non-Israelite until Solomon received it as a wedding present from his Egyptian father-in-law (1 Kgs 9:15-17). So not only was Gezer a point of Israelite failure, it potentially served Egyptian imperial interests through most of the period of the Judges.

1:30 The tribe of Zebulun failed to drive out the residents of Kitron and Nahalol. These two sites have not been located for certain. Nahalol is likely the same as Nahalal in Josh 19:15, thus equating Kitron with Kattath in that passage. Rainey and Notley (2006:135), following a rabbinic association of Nahalol with later Mahalul, plausibly suggest Nahalal/Nahalol should be equated with modern Tell el-Beida, which, unlike other candidates, is located in the northwest portion of the Jezreel valley where Zebulun’s assigned territory lay.

1:31-32 The tribe of Asher failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. Instead, the people of Asher moved in among the Canaanites, who controlled the land, for they failed to drive them out. The cities noted here lie on the plain of Acco, which extends northwest of the valley of Jezreel, opening up toward the sea from the narrow, pinched pass above Yokneam. The tribe of Asher’s assigned location here along the sea likely contributed to their failure to fulfill their commission. The urban rulers of Canaan, some of whom were involved in seafaring, fretted over their sagging agricultural production due to the heavy demands of pharaoh for tribute and gifts (Na’aman 2005:216-241). Possibly the Asherites found a niche as farmers. Moreover, Stager (1988:233-234) has argued that the Asherites entered into client relationships with Canaanites and their shipping interests (cf. 5:17b). Having become economically enmeshed, even dependent, on the Canaanites, the Asherites were hardly in a position to expel them since in doing so they would be burning their meal ticket! The subordination of Asher emerges from a startling change in phrasing: Rather than the Canaanites remaining as enclaves among the Israelites (cf. 1:21, 29), both Asher and Naphtali moved in among the Canaanites as minority enclaves.

1:33 Likewise, the tribe of Naphtali failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Each of these towns commemorates a Canaanite deity. Beth-shemesh honors the sun-god; Beth-anath extols the Canaanite goddess of war and the hunt, who was also Baal’s paramour. The Beth-shemesh noted here is not the town in the southern Shephelah overlooking the Wadi Sorek, but rather sits, with Beth-anath, high up in the remote hills of the upper Galilee, which apparently began to be settled at the onset of Iron Age I. A steep ridge running west from near the northern tip of the Sea of Galilee almost to the coast rises abruptly over 3,000 feet and defines the starting point of these rugged, but beautiful, “heights of Naphtali.” For Naphtali to “live among” Canaanites implies cultural submission. That the Canaanites periodically managed to enslave the locals only reinforces the loss of their distinct Israelite ethos. Despite this discouraging report, the city of Kadesh in Naphtali, located northwest of Hazor, became the home of an Israelite hero, Barak, who figures in chs 4–5.

1:34 As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them back into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. Dan’s inheritance fell in the Shephelah, in the vicinity of the Sorek valley. Vigorous resistance forced them to stay in the hills in Zorah and Eshtaol overlooking the rich, red agricultural soil of the valley with its vineyards, famed for their dark red grapes. The Philistines made the Sorek valley an early staging ground for attempting to move into the hill country in their quest to control trade over both the coastal highway and the watershed ridge highway, a quest ultimately bringing them directly into conflict with Israel. Their presence and the contrast between them and the Danites is a theme in the Samson story in chs 13–16. Even (especially?) with a hero like Samson, the Danites ultimately abandoned their divinely appointed territory and moved far north in search of an easier inheritance. Once again, the “house of Joseph” being able to subject the locals to forced labor hardly counts as success by the standards of the conquest.

1:36 The boundary of the Amorites ran from Scorpion Pass to Sela and continued upward from there. Sadly, this notes the boundary of the Amorites, not the Danites! Moreover, the traditional locations of the places mentioned are southwest of the Dead Sea (cf. Num 34:4; Josh 15:3) and do not fit the locale of 1:34-35 and the vicinity of the Sorek valley. However, the reference to “rock” (sela‘ [TH5554, ZH6153]) in connection with the Danites echoes with the Samson narrative (15:8, 11) in which Samson hides out in “the cleft of the rock (sela‘) of Etam,” in Judean territory. One wonders if “Ascent of Akrabbim” is not a textual corruption for some other expression, now lost to us.

2:1 The angel of the LORD. This first appearance of the “angel of Yahweh” (2:1, 4) foreshadows his appearance commissioning Gideon (6:11, 12, 21, 22) and announcing Samson’s birth (13:3, 13, 15-18, 20-21). His role cursing those who declined to report for battle (5:23) suggests a role leading the armies of Yahweh.

went up. Heb., ‘alah [TH5927, ZH6590]; it appears in the preceding material solely in the sense of “move out against” militarily. If the sense holds, there is a hostile intent implicit as the angel of Yahweh figuratively “moves out against” the Israelites!

from Gilgal. Gilgal, just a mile northeast of Jericho, served as the base camp of the conquest and the first sanctuary of the Ark in Joshua, marked by a cairn of 12 stones commemorating the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4). Here Joshua encountered the angel of Yahweh and received assurance of victory after he had circumcised the new, wilderness-bred conquest generation on the eve of the attack on Jericho (Josh 5). The victorious Israelites returned to Gilgal after the southern campaign (Josh 10:43) and from here Joshua began the apportionment of the land to the tribes (Josh 14–20) until the sanctuary moved to Shiloh (Josh 21:1-4). Gilgal remained an important religious center on Samuel’s “circuit” (1 Sam 7:16), and Saul was named king there (1 Sam 11:14-15). Saul’s impatient and presumptuous offering occurred at Gilgal (cf. 1 Sam 10:8; 13:8-15). Gilgal also provided the scene for Saul’s rejection as king. A later religious pilgrimage to Gilgal was censured by Amos and Hosea (Hos 4:15; 12:11; Amos 5:5). In Israelite memory, Gilgal remained part of the conquest, summarized by Micah as (lit.) “what happened between Shittim and Gilgal” (Mic 6:5). The name (normally with the definite article) the Gilgal, likely refers to a circle of stones and likely designates a fortified camp. Thus, it would be fitting for Yahweh’s angel to launch a sort of military attack for religious failure against the Israelites from this location.

Bokim. See note on 2:5.

said to the Israelites. This is one of three speeches in Judges in which Yahweh or a mediator, as opposed to the narrator, indicts Israel for apostasy.

my covenant with you. Explicit reference to Yahweh’s covenant (berith [TH1285, ZH1382]) with Israel is rare in Judges, as is much of the semantic field associated with it.

2:2 you were not to make any covenants with the people living in this land. Covenant-making produced a bond or union between the covenanters. This charge calls for no bonds of cooperation or union of any kind with the inhabitants of the land.

But you disobeyed my command. Why did you do this? The narrative in 1:1-36 makes no reference to any command, nor does it ever censure the tribes who failed to drive out the inhabitants of the land as having done evil, just as the material in Josh 13–22 (from which much of ch 1 derives) refrains from criticism for this lack. But 2:1-5 looks over this process and renders a judgment: The failure of ch 1 is now to be seen as the sin of making a covenant, a bond, with the Canaanites.

2:5 So they called the place Bokim (which means “weeping”), and they offered sacrifices there to the LORD. Bokim simply means “weepers” and reflects 2:4. The location remains unknown, but the mention of sacrifices implies some connection with the sanctuary, implying the passage notes the transfer of the sanctuary from Gilgal to Bokim. Scholars typically assume this is a site near Bethel, but a transfer of the sanctuary in this context would more likely have been to Shiloh or Shechem. Ironically, the OT speaks of another “Gilgal,” a site known in Arabic as El ‘Unuq near Shechem, Ebal, and Gerizim (Deut 11:26-30). Archaeological survey reveals a hilltop stone circle, a “gilgal,” in the vicinity with pottery dating from the 1200s BC and a peculiar cairn of stones at one end, on the long axis (Zertal 1991). Perhaps Bokim refers to this “second” Gilgal. The implications of this identification are noted in the commentary.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Judges 1:1–3:6 forms a long, internally diverse introduction that provides both a summary and an analysis of the dynamics at work overall during the period covered by the book. Marshaling divergent materials, the prologue asserts twice unequivocally that after Joshua and the conquest generation died, Israel steadily deteriorated. The introduction tracks the decline in two roughly parallel sections, each devoted to a distinct perspective. First, 1:1–2:5 traces the stalling of the military conquest of the land from south to north, saving any theological critique for the very end. Then 2:6–3:3 returns to the death of Joshua and retraces the same period emphasizing spiritual deterioration. Instead of proceeding geographically, as 1:1–2:5 does, 2:6–3:3 proceeds genealogically, from one generation to the next. Judges 3:5-6 then integrates the two perspectives in a terse summary.

Parallel Structure of Judges 1:1–3:6

	Military and Geographical	Theological and Generational
Joshua’s Death	Noted in 1:1a	Narrated in 2:6-9
Early Successes	Southern Tribes Canaan Occupied 1:1b-21	Generation I: Covenant Honored 2:7, 10a
Steady Decline	Northern Tribes Canaan Increasingly Resistant 1:22-36	Generation II Covenant Broken 2:10-19
Yahweh’s Denunciation	For Compromising the Conquest 2:1-5	For Compromising the Covenant 2:20–3:4
Summary of Consequences	An Unfulfilled Destiny 3:5-6

This unit also acts as an “overture” to the whole book, articulating emphases that are spelled out in detail in the rest of the book. This prologue or overture also removes any suspense about the book’s main point: With Israel militarily impotent and spiritually bankrupt, the story is virtually finished before it begins.

Theologically, 1:1–2:5 explores an explosive and vital question. How could the nation squander its inheritance? How could it be that, having received from Joshua the possession of the Promised Land as the historical realization of the promise and oath of God, Israel would allow that gift to slip through its fingers? How could the successors of Joshua, the heirs of the divine promise, lose their grip on that gift that stood as the goal and apex of the entire work of God narrated from the Creation through the Exodus experience to the conquest? The answer given in this carefully constructed and complex chapter is chilling: Israel frittered away its inheritance a little bit at a time. Before any claims of overt apostasy appear, the text impresses on the reader a process in which the nation simply compromised the divine purpose. Before settling for something other than Yahweh’s covenant promises, Israel settled for something less than Yahweh’s covenant promises.

In certain ways 1:1-36 sets up a series of expectations fulfilled in the following stories:

1. Judges 1 asserts Judean/Southern superiority, illustrated preeminently by Othniel. Othniel is the first judge, and fully exemplifies the ideal of the judge.
2. Judges 1:3, 16-20 underscores cooperation, while from 3:12 through the rest of the book, the vision of cooperation will collapse.
3. Judges 1:16 identifies the Kenites as being in league with the Israelites. The note prepares the reader to understand the later actions of Jael, the wife of a Kenite, who killed Sisera (4:21), even though her husband had established a formal relationship with Israel’s enemies (cf. 4:11,17b). She thus exemplified the former Kenite loyalty to Israel.
4. The reference to the “city of palms” in 1:16 possibly resonates with the reference to Eglon’s oppressing Israel from the “city of palms” in 3:13.
5. The slur on Benjamin (1:21) possibly sets up a return to the questionable status of Benjamin in chapters 19–21.
6. The south-north movement in 1:1-36 generally corresponds to the course of the narrative in 3:7–16:31.
7. The pattern of deterioration set out in 1:1-36 is duplicated in 3:7–16:31.
8. Both 1:1-36 and 3:7–16:31 conclude with the tribe of Dan as the topic.
9. The narrative about Dan in chapter 18 appears to resume about where 1:34-35 leaves off: Dan is expelled from its inheritance in 1:34-35. In 18:1-2, Dan is in search of an inheritance.
10. The description of the “weepers” in 2:1-5 possibly matches the repeated weeping at Bethel in chapters 19–21 (especially 20:18-26). Proposals to relate 2:1-5 to Bethel would, if correct, strengthen this linkage. Judges 2:1-5 concludes a unit beginning with an inquiry (1:1-2) that is distinctively matched in 20:18-26.

Prologue (1:1-3). In addition to introducing the book as a whole, this section serves as the prologue to 1:4-21. The temporal formula after the death of also appears in Joshua 1:1 and 2 Samuel 1:1, which begin their narratives with reference to the death of Moses and Saul, respectively. The formulas demarcate a period from the death of Joshua to the death of Saul, consigning Saul to the premonarchic era. These references likely identify the eras of the premonarchic period for one of the earlier strata of the Deuteronomistic History since the formula is not similarly used again to begin a narrative block in the Deuteronomistic History. The only other similar usage is Genesis 25:11, in which the notation of Abraham’s death provides a comparable transition to the next block of that book. The campaign divinely initiated in 1:1-3 unfolds in 1:4-8.

Judges 1:1-3 strikes three keynotes that resonate through the entire book of Judges. First, it dates the narrative “after the death of Joshua.” More than a mere chronological notice, this reference establishes an intertextuality with the book of Joshua that pervasively shapes 1:1–2:5. Placing the events of chapter 1 after Joshua’s death generates strong tensions because much of the material in chapter 1 derives directly from Joshua 13–24 and actually occurred during Joshua’s lifetime. However the historical issue is resolved, this tension establishes a canonical linkage to Joshua and reveals the writer’s main theological evaluation of the era from Joshua’s death to that of Saul. By making this explicit tie back to Joshua’s lifetime, the writer holds up a standard. Joshua affirms the complete victory of Israel (e.g., Josh 11:23; 13:1, 14; 21:43-45), in which context Joshua 13–21 summarizes Israel’s successful taking of the land, despite some territories identified as not fully under Israelite control. Other than the Othniel passage, chapter 1 excerpts only the incomplete possession reports and sets Israel’s actions after the fulfillment of that promise. This shift in the context of the material generates the question of how faithfully Israel built on that sound beginning. The failure passages in Joshua 13–21 constitute a portrayal of the remaining task: “Yet more land” remained to be taken. In Joshua, these passages are marginalia to the overarching fact of Israel’s triumph in Canaan. But in chapter 1, the accumulation of all the failure reports dramatically shifts the perception of their importance. Thus chapter 1, for the reader familiar with Joshua, has framed the time after Joshua’s death as probationary, and sets out the failure reports as a scorecard.

Another function served by the death formula is to define an era from the death of Moses to the death of Joshua. That era was characterized by faithful fulfillment of the covenant requirements and promises. The death of Joshua now inaugurates another period that will run to the death of Saul. That era’s crises of character and leadership contrast sharply with the time of Joshua. Already, the writer sets the stage for a clue to his assessment of the period covered by Judges: The oracular inquiry of 1:1, “which tribe should go first to attack the Canaanites?” resonates with the inquiry near the end of the book when, once again, the Israelites inquire who should go up against the enemy (20:18), where once again, the answer is “Judah is to go first.” The measure of the historical process between the two passages may be seen by the enemies named: In 1:1, the enemy is the Canaanite, but in 20:18, the enemy is a fellow Israelite tribe. Again, the inquiry in 1:1 leads to success, but in 20:18 the victory over Benjamin only produces a more painful and complex circumstance.

The second note struck by 1:1-3 is the primacy of Judah, enunciated by none other than Yahweh himself, who declares Judah the custodian of the promise and offers victory as confirmation. The book’s paucity of references to Judah throws this surprising claim into sharp relief. The writer will go on to expose the failures and sins of the northern tribes as a prelude to advocating monarchy, with strong hints at a Judean center of gravity for that institution. Emphasis on Judean primacy includes the third note, the stress on intertribal cooperation. Judah asks Simeon’s assistance, offering to reciprocate. The rest of 1:1–2:5 unfolds these two themes in two contrasting sections. Judges 1:4-21 narrates a victorious Judean campaign and emphasizes tribal cooperation, but in 1:22-36 the separate northern tribes encounter only increasing failure and frustration as they lose their grip on the Promised Land.

Victory for Judah (1:4-21). This section glorifies Judah by relating an attack climaxing in the burning of Jerusalem. The defeated enemy, Adoni-bezek (1:7), identifies Judah as the arm of divine justice and characterizes his own defeat and dismemberment as just retribution for his own cruelty. The burning of Jerusalem (1:8) confirms Yahweh’s promise of Judean victory, but contrasts with Joshua 15:63 where Judah fails to control Jerusalem. Judges 1:21 quotes Joshua 15:63 but substitutes Benjamin for Judah, suggesting a Judean capture of the city (1:8) followed by Benjaminite forfeiture (1:21). David later recaptured the city as his capital (2 Sam 6). (See notes on 1:8 and 1:21.)

Verses 9-15 follow the victorious Judeans down to the foothills and Negev. ­Othniel personifies victorious Judah. His genealogy (1:13) epitomizes his exemplary role. A three-generation pattern spans the period from the Exodus to the judges. The exodus generation rebelled and died in the wilderness, leaving only Caleb and Joshua to see the Promised Land. The second generation, bred in the wilderness, was faithful and inherited the land. Judges 2:10 brands the third apostate. Othniel, as Caleb’s young nephew, represents the faithful conquest generation in the unfaithful postconquest period (see note on 1:13). Rising to Caleb’s challenge, he shows he has the “righteous stuff.” The story about Acsah (1:14-15) further stresses the role of Othniel, linking him with the courage and determination of Caleb.

Verses 16-21 list further triumphs bracketed by references to cooperation among the tribes—the realization of the theme announced in 1:3. Cooperation entailed no loss of independence, and Judah kept faith with those who assisted: The Kenites (1:16) cooperate with Judah, yet retain their autonomy; Judah keeps its promise and assists Simeon in conquering its own inheritance (1:17; cf. 1:3) and keeps faith with Moses’s command, awarding Hebron to Caleb (1:20). Judean victories (1:18-19) extend even to Philistine cities. This success is remarkable, since the rest of the Old Testament shows a Philistine monopoly on power broken only by David. Judah’s activity thus foreshadows David’s triumphs.

Only two failures appear. First, failure to capture the plains (1:19) possibly involves an area beyond Judah’s allotment, since the only “valley” mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament in connection with “iron chariots” is Jezreel in the north. Joshua 17:16-18 treats “iron chariots” as a licit explanation for failing to defeat the Canaanites. The Hebrew text of 1:19 is better translated “they were not to drive the people from the plains” (see note). Where the Judeans were not successful, they were exonerated. The second failure involves Jerusalem, which was captured by Judah in 1:8, but forfeited by Benjamin in 1:21.

Four literary features embody the section’s emphasis. (1) Judah’s victories evoke comparison with Joshua’s exploits, and follow a geographical pattern comparable to Joshua’s: Victories in central Canaan lead to a southern campaign and possibly to northern efforts. Judah is Joshua redivivus! (2) Two references to Moses (1:16, 20) assert Judah’s continuity with the founder of the Hebrew faith. (3) The focus on Hebron (1:9-10, 20) and Jerusalem (1:7-8, 21), key cities in David’s reign, and the Judean foreshadowing of David’s achievements, link a pro-Davidic orientation to the pro-Judean tone noted above. (4) Benjamin’s forfeiture of Jerusalem (1:21) could censure Saul’s tribe, also a pro-Davidic sentiment. Thus, 1:1-21 identifies Judah with Joshua, Moses, and David. Judah and David’s line are the true heirs of the Promised Land.

Achievements of the House of Joseph (1:22-36). The next section narrates the achievements of the “descendants [lit., house] of Joseph” (1:22, 35), a general expression here embracing the non-Judean tribes. The section begins with Bethel (1:22-26) and ends with Dan (1:34), the two sacred cities of the northern kingdom (cf. 1 Kgs 12:25-33), in contrast to the focus on Hebron and Jerusalem in 1:1-21. Verses 22-36 display progressive military failure. Victory at Bethel (1:22-26) gives way to a victory qualified by the continuing presence of Canaanites (1:27-28). Quoting Joshua 17:11-13, Judges 1:27-28 emphasizes Manasseh’s failure by rearranging the Joshua passages to place failure notices at the beginning and end of the report, and suggest the blameworthiness of that failure by removing the “could not” of Joshua 17:12. With Ephraim and Zebulun (1:29-30, with 1:29 quoting Josh 16:10), the Canaanites remain in enclaves among the Hebrews. Asher and Naphtali, however, live in enclaves surrounded by the Canaanites (1:31-33). The tide had clearly turned against the northern tribes. Finally, the Danites (1:34-35) are forced out of most of the land assigned to them, their destiny left hanging until chapter 18. This progressive failure corresponds to a geographical movement; the gradually deepening failure plots a steady northern movement, associating northern tribes with failure. Additionally, in contrast to the cooperation evident in 1:1b-21, the staccato catalogue of isolated northern tribes gives no hint of cooperation. Judges 1:22-36, therefore, contrasts starkly with 1:4-21, reinforcing the claim that Judah was the rightful bearer of the divine promise.

It should be noted that 1:27-36 continues the pattern of quoting from Joshua, with less restructuring. In Joshua, these cities constitute a residuum, a margin that establishes the task and challenge of the next generation (cf. Josh 23:5-13). Judges 1, by identifying the events as “after the death of Joshua” and by citing these passages, serves as a report card, documenting the degree to which the post-Joshua generation fulfilled its mission. Thus Judges 1:27-28 cites Joshua 17:11-13, and Judges 1:29 adapts Joshua 16:10. Judges 1:30-35 does not directly quote Joshua, but the order of the tribes—Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan—is found in no list of the tribes except that found in Joshua 19:10-51. Even there, Issachar intervenes between the first two tribes. Judges 1:34-36 also bears close comparison with Joshua 19:40-48. The second half of chapter 1 thus extends in detail the chapter’s geographical orientation, moving steadily north. Intentional geographical ordering of material is well known from Assyrian display inscriptions.[4]

This northward movement embraces the entire chapter. It begins with Judah and Simeon. Simeon, according to Joshua 19:9, had its territory within Judah. Judges 1:21 then moves to Benjamin, who occupied the diamond-shaped plateau immediately north of Judah. Next the writer speaks in 1:22-26 of the “descendants of Joseph,” which traditionally refers to Ephraim and Manasseh. He appears here, however, to consider all the northern tribes as the “descendants of Joseph,” judging from the framing reference in 1:35b. Manasseh’s mention before Ephraim in 1:27-29 is the only point in the sequence that does not strictly move northward, since Ephraim was south of Manasseh. Although Dan had been assigned land in the south, they migrated to the far north (ch 18), thus appearing last in the list. In a skilled literary move, 1:34-35a leaves Dan’s fate uncertain as the tribe is still without an inheritance, creating an arc of tension resolved only by the resumption of this issue in chapter 18. Throughout, the passages cited from Joshua are altered, sometimes slightly, other times significantly, to focus the success or failure of the tribes, stressing the specifics of the failure of the tribe noted, followed by a statement of the results.

The Lord’s Messenger Comes to Bokim (2:1-5). This section brings the first part of the prologue to a conclusion by depicting the angel of the Lord moving against Israel. The term “went up” (Heb., ‘alah [TH5927, ZH6590]) appears repeatedly in 1:1-36 denoting military assault; here, it also implies hostile intent. The angel’s speech in 2:1b-3 bristles with hostility, branding the failures of 1:1-36 as breaches of the covenant. This condemnation comes as a surprise, since neither idolatry nor any clear charge of sin appear in 1:1-36. Judges 2:1-5 unmasks the “failure” of chapter 1 as sin by omission. If the identification of Bokim with the “other” Gilgal near Shechem is correct (see note on 2:1), then the angel’s path from Gilgal to Bokim embraces the full movement of the sanctuary in Joshua from Gilgal (Josh 4:18-19) to Shechem (Josh 24), adding to the poignancy of this unit’s main point: The era of Joshua is long gone. The despair and weeping with which the first section of the prologue concludes augurs ill for the story to come. The sacrifices closing the paragraph are thus vacant gestures.

This chapter provides a paradigm of compromise and failure. It explores the degrees by which Israel’s mission was eroded and the inexorable process inaugurated by compromise. Most chilling is the fact that, though no explicit intention to compromise the covenant is ever expressed by Israel in chapter 1, the angelic indictment of 2:1-5 clearly brands their failure as grievous sin. Compromise, by its very nature, never announces itself as sin; but in its subtle degrees and shades, it undercuts the entire mission and life of the community of faith.