through the hands of RD, it cannot be entirely his work; certain elements may have been added later; others again, especially ii. 23, iii. 2, belong to a circle of ideas which is not that of RD. Similarly in vi. 1—10; here vv. 2-6 a are in substance founded upon the old story which follows; the redundancy of the text, however, proves that the passage does not come from a single hand; it has received additions, but in part belongs to an earlier source than the framework of RD. The phenomena are repeated in x. 6-16; the Dtc. strain is interwoven with elements of a different character and origin. Thus in all three passages we mark the presence of phrases and ideas which are foreign to the Dtc. circle; and though we cannot define the exact limits of this non-Dtc. element, yet it is possible to identify its associations. In all three passages there occur phrases which recall the language of E in the Hexateuch1. We may explain this fact by 1 The following are the most significant :-(1) drive out i.e. the native races, ii. 3, vi. 9; Ex. xxiii. 28-31 E, xxxiii. 2 (Gl), xxxiv. 11 JE, Josh. xxiv. 12, 18 E. (2) their gods...a snare ii. 3; Ex. xxiii. 33, xxxiv. 12 JE, Josh. xxiii. 13 D, Deut. vii. 16. (3) hearkened unto (my) voice ii. 20; Ex. xv. 26 JE, xviii. 24 E. Cf. Deut. xv. 5, xxviii. I etc. (4) to prove ii. 22, iii. 1, 4; Ex. xvi. 4?J, xv. 25, xx. 20 E, Deut. viii. 2, 16, xiii. 3. (5) because of (unusual expression) vi. 7; Gen. xxi. 11, 25, Ex. xviii. 8, Num. xii. 1, xiii. 24 E. (6) the allusion to a prophet vi. 8, cf. iv. 4; Gen. xx. 7, Ex. xv. 20, Num. xi. 25-29, xii. 6 E. (7) Amorites (the original inhabitants of Canaan) vi. 10; 13 times in E, 5 times in D, 4 times in Josh. (RD). See i. 34 n. (8) we have sinned x. 10, 15; Num. xii. 11, xiv. 40 (=Deut. i. 41), xxi. 7 E. (9) strange i.e. foreign gods x. 16; Gen. xxxv. 2, 4, Josh. xxiv. 20, 23 E, Deut. xxxi. 16 JE; in Deut. other gods. (10) soul...grieved x. 16; Num. xxi. 4 E (of the people). (11) misery x. 16; Gen. xli. 51 E ('toil'), Num. xxiii. 21? E ('perverseness'), Deut. xxvi. 7 ('toil'). (12) the opposition to the Baals and Canaanite influences ii. 3, x. 6; Deut. xxxi. 16 f., Josh. xxiv. 20 E. supposing that the phrases in question were deliberately imitated from E by the latest editor, and by him inserted into RD's three introductions; on the other hand it is just as possible, and, from the considerations alleged above, more probable, that the stories of the heroes were collected and provided with brief introductory and connecting passages before RD undertook his systematic work of editing. We seem, then, to be led to the conclusion that there did exist a pre-Dtc. Book of Judges which formed the basis, and to some extent the model, of the Dtc. redaction; perhaps such expressions as cried to Jehovah (iii. 15, iv. 3, vi. 6), marking the prelude to the narrative of deliverance, and subdued (iii. 30, iv. 23, viii. 28, xi. 33), stating the result of the appeal for help, may have belonged to this earlier form of the Book. We have discovered, then, echoes of E in the three summaries, ii. 6—iii. 6, vi. 1—10, x. 6-16. Can we find any traces of the other ancient source known as J in the Hexateuch? With reference to the terms Jehovist and Elohist a caution is needed. We must not think of individual writers, but of a succession of writers, "the historiography of certain period or school" (Moore); and when we use the symbols J and E it must clearly be understood that they are used in this sense. Now in the section i. 1-ii. 5 we have a collection of fragments which occur also in the Book of Joshua, loosely attached to their present context1. These identical, or nearly identical passages, appear to be derived, both in Joshua and in Judges, from an ancient account of the invasion of Canaan, which may have formed part of the Jehovist history. This common source may have existed independently; but for convenience, and on account of its archaic character, it may be designated by the symbol J. Then in xi. 12-28 we find an excerpt, almost word for word, from JE's narrative in Num. xx. and xxi. On general grounds it might be supposed that the wars of Jehovah during the period of the Judges would be a congenial theme to writers of the Jehovist and Elohist schools, and we might expect to find that the ancient stories were in a large measure composed by them; and when we examine the 1 Jud. i. 10-15, 20= =Josh. xv. 13-19; Jud. i. 21 = Josh. xv. 63; Jud. i. 27=Josh. xvii. 11-13; Jud. i. 29=Josh. xvi. 10. narratives of Gideon and Jephthah, and the Appendices, we discover certain expressions and ideas characteristic of J and E in the Hexateuch1. Budde, followed by other scholars, has carried through a skilful analysis of the sources, and he does not hesitate (except in chs. xvii.—xxi.) to assign them to J, E, J2, E2 etc. The analysis is often successful, but in many cases scholars are far from agreed about the details. The present editor, while he is convinced of the composite structure of the ancient stories, does not feel able to give names to the component elements which imply a closer connexion with the Jehovist and Elohist writings than can be regarded as clearly made out. Moreover, the evidence often suggests editorial expansions and additions rather than the combination of parallel sources; on this account, and for want of any decisive indication of origin, it seems better not to speak too confidently; we must content ourselves with observing the facts without venturing to give them definite labels. C. The post-Deuteronomic additions. In a real sense the Deuteronomic Redactor may be termed the author of Judges, but not of the whole Book; certain valuable and important sections were added after he had done his work. As we have seen (p. xiv), 1 The following are to be noted as pointing to J:-find grace or favour vi. 17; Gen. vi. 8 and 20 times in J; forasmuch as vi. 22; Gen. xviii. 5 and 5 times in J; Ishmaelites (instead of Midianites) viii. 24; Gen. xxxvii. 25, 27, 28, xxxix. 1 J; what is this that thou hast done? xv. 11; Gen. iii. 13, xii. 18, xxvi. 10, Ex. xiv. 5, 11 J, Gen. xxix. 25, xlii. 28 E. Among the more distinctive marks of affinity with E are these:-the use of Elohim vi. 36—40, ix. 23, 56 f., xviii. 10; the divine message conveyed at night or in a dream vi. 25, 36—40, vii. 9-15; Gen. xxviii. 11, 12, xxxvii. 5 ff., xl. 5, xli. 1-7 E; the interest shewn in traditional religious customs xi. 40, xvii. 3 ff.; Gen. xxxi. 19, 30 (cf. Jud. xviii. 24), xxxv. 4, Ex. xxiv. 4, Josh. xxiv. 15 etc. E; the trans-Jordanic associations of Israel xi. 12-28; Num. xx. 14-21, xxi. 12-20, 21-24 JE; the armed men vii. 11; Ex. xiii. 18 E, Josh. i. 14, iv. 12 D; citizens (beʻālîm) ix. 2 ff., xx. 5; Num. xxi. 28 JE, Josh. xxiv. 11 E; sin (against man) xi. 27; Gen. xx. 9, xl. 1, xlii. 22, Ex. v. 16 J. It is in the three introductory passages, however, that the influence of the school of E appears most distinctly; see the list given above, p. xix. some scholars regard the brief notices of the Minor Judges as later additions, and there is a good deal to be said in favour of this view; but in the absence of any clear evidence one way or the other, we may consider RD as responsible for introducing them. In the following cases we are on surer ground. (1) Ch. ix., which contains the story of Abimelech, shews no traces of RD's characteristic handling; apparently he omitted it as not contributing anything to the moral which he wished to impress. This chapter, therefore, may be regarded as an addition to the Dtc. Book of Judges. (2) The same may be said of ch. xvi. It is remarkable that we find two notices of the duration of Samson's judgeship, in xv. 20 and xvi. 31. Now the story of Samson formed part of RD's scheme: it begins with his usual fórmula (xiii. 1), and xv. 20 brings it to a conclusion with the remark and he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years. The chapter which follows, giving an account of Samson's fall and tragic end, thus appears to lie outside the plan of the compiler. Perhaps he did not wish to include a narrative which was not wholly creditable to the hero or edifying to the reader; but fortunately the omission has been supplied, and to it was appended a conclusion modelled on the usual form (xvi. 31). So far we have been dealing with the main body of the Book, ii. 6—xvi. 31; there remain the additions at the beginning and the end. (3) The opening chapter i. 1-ii. 5 must have been added later than the Dtc. redaction, for it describes what happened after the death of Joshua (i. 1), while ii. 6-xvi. 31 starts with a reference to Joshua as still alive, and proceeds to take up the thread of history from his life-time. (4) The two Appendices, chs. xvii.-xviii. and chs. xix.—xxi., clearly stand outside the Dtc. book; they record certain tribal traditions, not the exploits of Judges; they do not illustrate the principles which RD wished to enforce, and must have been added after his work was finished. Now these four large additions exhibit much the same features as the ancient narratives which RD incorporated into his book; they reveal the primitive religious ideas and the semibarbarous manners of the time in a way which convinces us of their value as historical documents. Obviously, then, a good deal of material for the history of the age was in existence when RD composed his work; some of it, which he rejected, was secured by a later editor, and used with admirable effect to enrich the Book. Moreover, it is possible to determine approximately when these additions were made. Inserted among the ancient fragments contained in i. 1-ii. 5 are certain expressions which indicate that the editor belonged to the school of writers which drew up the Priestly Code of the Pentateuch; see especially i. 1 a, 4, 8—10a, 18, 23, ii. 1 b-5 a. The connexion with P is more clearly marked in chs. xx. and xxi., e.g. xx. I b, 12, 27 f., xxi. 10 ff. In the case of the additions (1) and (2) we do not find any decisive signs which indicate the school of the editor who placed them where they stand. Thus while we can say with certainty that the Dtc. Book of Judges received important extensions after the early part of the sixth century, that is, in the exilic or post-exilic period, and that in some respects this later editorial work shews affinities with the school of P, we cannot be sure that a single editor was responsible for this enrichment; indeed many minor additions were made in the course of time, as the commentary will shew. (5) One more interesting addition may be noticed, iii. 31. Apparently some reader, on the strength of the allusion to Shamgar in v. 6, inserted the verse under a misconception; for Shamgar is there alluded to as an oppressor, not a deliverer. An enterprise against the Philistines comes too early at this stage of the history; and in fact a group of Greek MSS. repeat the verse after xvi. 31, shewing that some Greek translators felt uncertain about its proper position. It is suggested by Budde that a late reviser, who objected to Abimelech being reckoned as one of the twelve judges, intended to substitute Shamgar. However this may be, the verse is probably the latest addition which the Book received. The following, then, are the stages by which the Book of Judges reached its present form : (a) Stories of the heroes, which had been current on the lips of the people, were committed to writing in more than one version, probably in the early days of the monarchy. Before |