JUDGES, PERIOD OF

Outline

1. Sources. Apart from the evidence of archeology, the chief sources of information are the Book of Judges and 1 Samuel 1-8. It is evident that this is not a homogeneous account, although there is a unity of outlook. Four groups of material may be observed: (1) Judges 1:1-2:5, extracts from an ancient account of the Conquest; (2) Judges 2:6-16:31, a series of narratives in an editorial framework concerning the individual judges and the story of Abimelech (9:1-56); (3) Judges 17-21, two narratives unconnected with any of the judges, illustrative of the general conditions of the period; (4) 1 Samuel 1-8, which center upon the person of Samuel.

2. Chronological limits. There is considerable agreement among scholars that the Israelites entered the Promised Land c. 1230 b.c., although a date in the 15th cent. b.c. has not been completely abandoned. This conclusion has been reached as a result of a careful integration of the Biblical data with archeological evidence from Egypt, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Canaan. Making allowance for the latter years of Joshua and the elders who outlived him (Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7), an approximate date for the commencement of the period of the Judges may be set at 1200 b.c. There is considerable uncertainty concerning the length of Saul’s reign, but a tentative date of 1020 b.c. may be nominated for his accession. The period of the Judges, therefore, was c. 1200 b.c.—1020 b.c., i.e. approximately 180 years.

3. Internal chronology. The conclusion reached in the previous paragraph raises the problem of relating the chronological data supplied in Judges to a period of under two centuries. The following table provides the relevant facts:

To this total of 410 years there must also be added approximately twenty years for Samuel, making a total of 430 years. This figure could be reduced, since Samson’s judgeship was prob. within the period of Philistine oppression, and the Ammonite and Philistine oppressions were, in part, contemporaneous (Judg 10:7). No separate allowance has been made for the forty years of Eli’s judgeship (1 Sam 4:18). Among attempts to reduce the overall total are the exclusion of the years of foreign domination, or the exclusion of the minor judges and Abimelech, the usurper. All such attempts are conjectural, and a simpler explanation is that the chronology is relative rather than absolute. An examination of the territory affected in each invasion shows that only a small area was affected. Sometimes the struggle against an aggressor was confined to one or two tribes, and only in the case of the Canaanite attack (Judg 4:5) and the later phase of the Philistine aggression (1 Sam 4:7) was a majority of the tribes involved. It is likely, therefore, that the periods of foreign oppression and of the individual judges, overlapped. This allows serious consideration of the chronological data within the Book of Judges, but care is required in interpreting the figures. The recurrence of the figure forty and its multiples suggests that it may be a round figure to indicate a generation.

4. The structure of Israel. It is widely recognized that the structure of Israel during the period was an amphictyony, a form that had its parallels in Greece and elsewhere in the Mediterranean region. The number of the tribes, the religious nature of the bond that united them, and the centralization of their religious and administrative organization at a sanctuary are features of this pattern and are consistent with Israel’s traditions. The amphictyonic structure originated with the Covenant event at Sinai and is witnessed to in the wilderness period by the centrality in the twelve-tribe structure of the Tent of Meeting and the Tabernacle; by the fact that the region where the Israelites spent the greater part of the period was named Kadesh (i.e. “sanctuary”)—barnea; and by the fact that after the settlement the central sanctuary was to continue as the focal place of the national worship (Deut 12:5ff.; 16:1ff.), where difficult cases were to be tried (17:8-13).

The events of Joshua 22:9-34, which occurred soon after the Conquest, are a proof of the existence of the amphictyony, for it shows the nine and one half tribes W of the Jordan acting decisively against what was believed to be the setting up by the E-Jordan tribes, of a rival altar and sanctuary. This was construed as an act of rebellion against Yahweh (Josh 22:12, 16ff.). Following the settlement, the amphictyonic shrine was located successively at Shechem near Mt. Ebal (Josh 8:30-35); Shiloh (Josh 18:1; 22:12); Bethel (Judg 20:18, 26ff.; 21:2ff.); and again at Shiloh (Judg 18:31; 1 Sam 1:3, 9; etc.). Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines, almost certainly after the events of 1 Samuel 4. During the period of Philistine supremacy, it was not possible to rebuild the central sanctuary, and some of the functions of the amphictyony in this turbulent period appear to have attached themselves to Samuel (cf. 1 Sam 7:15-17; 9:13; 13:8ff.; 16:1ff.). Later on Nob (1 Sam 21:1; 22:11, 19) and Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4; cf. 1 Chron 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chron 1:3, 6, 13) appear prominently.

5. Historical background. Toward the end of the 13th cent. b.c., Egyp. influence in Canaan, apart from a brief foray by Merneptah (c. 1220 b.c.), was nominal. It continued so for the major part of the Judges’ period, except during the reign of the vigorous Ramesses III (c. 1176-1144 b.c.). This allowed Israel a considerable degree of freedom to consolidate her position. The kingdoms of Edom and Moab were established c. fifty years before the entry of Israel into Canaan, this latter event coinciding roughly with the settlement of Ammon. Moab, and Ammon in particular, with the predatory nomads from the desert (the people of the E, Judg 6:3, etc.), frequently sought to increase their territory at the expense of Israel. The Israelite failure to complete the Conquest, particularly in Esdraelon, led to a resurgence of Canaanite power that temporarily threatened Israel’s independence (chs. 4; 5). The major threat came from the Philistines, a people of Aegean stock who settled in large numbers on the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean during the first decades of the 12th cent. b.c., leaving a wake of destruction from Ugarit in the N to the Egyp. border. The Egyptians, hard pressed to keep them at bay, allowed them to settle in their pentapolis (Gaza, Gath, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Ekron). The decline of Egyp. power encouraged them to extend their territory at the expense of Israel; initially this was confined to the tribes of Dan and Judah (chs. 13-16), the former being completely displaced (ch. 18). By the time of Eli, the Philistine threat had assumed the proportions of a major national crisis.

6. Israel’s judges. The main feature of this period was the emergence of individuals who delivered their fellow countrymen from these oppressors. The word “judge,” which suggests a preoccupation with legal affairs, is misleading, for besides judicial functions they exercized a saving, liberating activity that was conceived to be the result of a direct endowment from Yahweh. This has led to this company being described as “charismatic” individuals, i.e. they were the recipients of the divine grace. Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson are rightly accounted judges because of their spectacular exploits against Israel’s oppressors. Some of these appear to have ruled subsequently over the people almost like local kings. The anointing of the Spirit was also revealed in the display of exceptional wisdom (as in the case of Solomon, 1 Kings 3:3ff.). This may have been the reason why the so-called minor, or pacific, judges—Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon—were accounted judges, although the brevity of the records may account for the absence of any warlike exploits. Indeed there is a hint of unrecorded exploits in the case of Tola, who “arose to deliver Israel” (Judg 10:1). Deborah herself judged Israel before leading Israel against the Canaanites (4:4). The high priest would also be regarded as a judge (cf. 1 Sam 4:18) as the central sanctuary was, traditionally, the place of arbitration. High priest, wise man, and warrior—from these three classes came Israel’s judges. Their conduct frequently fell far below that of the great characters of the OT period, but they were men of faith (cf. Heb 11:32, 33) who fulfilled a vital role in a time of crisis.

7. The importance of the period

a. Division and disunity in Israel. The ideal picture of the twelve tribes of Israel, each settled in its own tribal portion, with an amphictyonic shrine that acted as the focal point of all aspects of the national life was hardly ever realized. Political and geographic conditions combined to destroy effective unity. This was due largely to the failure to complete the Conquest, particularly in such strategic areas as the Esdraelon valley (Judg 1:27, 28), Gezer, the Aijalon valley, Jerusalem (1:21, 29, 35), and the northern coastal plain (1:31). Israelite control was limited to three separate areas—Judah, the central highlands, and a portion of Galilee. Only Ephraim appears to have completed the occupation of its designated area, which accounts for its preeminence during the period (8:1-3; 12:1). The remainder of the tribes were hard pressed to maintain their positions and often were involved in conflict with neighboring countries. In the case of Dan, the pressure was so great that the survivors had to migrate northward to win new territory (1:34; 18). The tribe of Judah, effectively isolated for the major part of the period, never again achieved a full unity with the northern tribes. Even during the reigns of David and Solomon, the division between N and S was pronounced (e.g. 2 Sam 19:11, 41-20:2, etc.).

b. The rise of the monarchy. The breakdown in the amphictyonic structure is evident from the small number of tribes involved in each of the successive crises. Frequently a tribe was cast back on its own resources, and the maximum number of the tribes found cooperating at any one point, is six (Judg 5:14, 15, 18). Leadership became an acute problem, i.e. the desperate expedient of the elders of Gilead in electing the brigand Jephthah to be their ruler (11:4ff.). This situation led to the rise of the monarchy. Inevitably, the Israelites compared their own organization with those of the surrounding nations, whose kings appeared to organize their subjects into effective military units. This led to a desire for an Israelite king, and Gideon, following his success against the Midianites, was offered the kingly office (8:22). The events of Judges 9 also show the inclination toward the monarchy. However, it was not until the Philistine crisis threatened the very existence of Israel, and the renewed Ammonite threat (1 Sam 11; 12:12), that the traditional reluctance to replace amphictyonic government by a monarchy was overcome (8:4-22; 12:13).

APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES’ PERIOD

(Where relevant, Scripture references and the area of Israel involved in each incident are noted)

c. Religious and moral decline. Canaanite religion was a polytheistic nature cult in which the observable powers of nature were personalized and worshiped. This religion, as revealed in its cultus and mythology, was linked with the recurring seasons and was designed to promote fertility in agriculture, livestock, and human beings. Whereas it was not devoid of praiseworthy features, the moral level was relatively low; cultic prostitution of both sexes was a prominent feature. Human sacrifice was also practiced, but not as frequently as is commonly supposed.

Into this situation came Israel, with a religious faith that was expressed in forms superficially resembling Canaanite customs, but on an entirely different basis. Instead of a gross polytheism, was a belief in Yahweh, whose sovereignty in nature and history was such that other gods paled into insignificance. It was accompanied by a highly moral approach to the whole of life, the result of a unique covenant relationship with Yahweh, following His mighty deeds in delivering them from Egypt. The final victory of Yahwism over the Canaanite religion has transformed history, but in the initial phases of the conflict was a pronounced religious and moral decline in Israel for the following reasons:

1) Because of the failure to complete the Conquest, Israel was surrounded by the Canaanite religion, which, by nature of its appeal to man’s sensual nature, had a fatal fascination. Moreover, there would be a temptation to defer to the nature gods of the land, who were conceived to be responsible for its fertility because they controlled the rain and the springs, The problem of the relationship between Yahweh and the Canaanite gods would become acute as the number of mixed marriages multiplied. Syncretism was inevitable in such a situation, with the gods of one nation being absorbed into the pantheon of the other, a process in which the functions and even the names of the deities became confused. The prophets attacked this Canaanization of Yahweh worship (e.g. Hos 2; Jer 2, etc.), but not until the Exile did the nation, as a whole, break free from this influence.

2) Linked closely with this was the ineffective leadership exercised by the Israelite amphictyony. A strong central authority could have averted major religious deviations; its absence made possible a gradual decline from Mosaic standards. The later editor accounted for this moral decline by the absence of the firm centralized authority exercised by the king (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).

3) There was also a decline in the standard of individual leadership following the death of Joshua (Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7). The stories of Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson make thrilling reading, but their blemishes of character are for the most part sadly apparent. Not until Samuel arose, late in the period, was the leadership comparable to that of Moses and Joshua.

4) Admittedly, the standards of the average Israelite usually fell below that of their leaders. This is hardy surprising when the background of bondage in Egypt and the fact that they were a “mixed multitude” (Exod 12:38) are considered. The frequent murmuring and lapses of faith in the wilderness were ominous portents of future events. Even after two generations had witnessed Yahweh’s power to deliver and provide, polytheism was still widely diffused (Josh 24:15).

The moral and religious decline is carefully noted by the historian. It appears (1) in the editorial comment of Judges 2:12, 17, 19; 3:6, 7; etc.; (2) in the lament of Judges 17:6; 21:25; (3) in the clear evidence of syncretism in the Gideon narratives (Judg 6:25, 32; 8:27); (4) in Jephthah’s tacit recognition of Chemosh as the god of the Ammonites and his sacrifice of his daughter (11:24, 30ff.); (5) in Micah’s construction of a graven image and a molten image, an ephod and teraphim (17:4ff.); (6) in the abysmally low standards shown in Judges 19-21; (7) in Eli’s depraved sons, Hophni and Phinehas (1 Sam 2:12-17, 22), and in the conduct of even Samuel’s sons, Joel and Abijah (8:1-4). It is apparent that the historian regards this period as the “Dark Age” of Israel’s history, but the picture must not be overdrawn. Judges 19-21 also reveals a national conscience; and a sense of intertribal unity and the revival of Yahwism in the time of Samuel and the early monarchy show that there were those loyal to the old traditions. The Book of Ruth provides another counterbalance to the conditions portrayed in Judges.

Bibliography R. K. Harrison, A History of Old Testament Times (1957), 121-140; J. Bright, A History of Israel (1960), 142-166; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 2nd ed. (1960), 141-168; W. F. Albright, Archaeology of Palestine (1960), 87-120. See also bibliography for Book of Judges.