Deterioration and Delusion in Judges 20:18-28

Exegetical Paper

Old Testament History and Theology II

Spring 2012

William A. Ross

I understand and have not violated the seminarys position on plagiarism.

William A. Ross - 2

Table of Contents

Translation: Judges 20:18-28 ........................................................................................................... 3

Boundaries and Translation: ......................................................................................................... 4

OT Canonical Reading: . ................................................................................................................ 5

Exegesis:........................................................................................................................................ 6

Tota Scriptura:. ............................................................................................................................. 13

Application and Conclusion: ........................................................................................................ 16

Appendix A Passage Translation & Defense .......................................................................... 17

Appendix B.................................................................................................................................. 21

Cycles in 20:18-28 ...................................................................................................................... 21

Contrasting Judges 20:18 and 1:1 .............................................................................................. 21

Contrasting YHWHs Answers in 20:18b and 1:2 ...................................................................... 21

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 22

William A. Ross - 3

Translation: Judges 20:18-28

20:18

Now the sons of Israel arose and ascended to Bethel, and they inquired of God, Who

will go up for us first, for battle with the sons of Benjamin? And YHWH said Judah will fight

first. 19

So the sons of Israel arose in the morning and they encamped near Gibeah. 20

And eve-

ry man of Israel went forth for battle with Benjamin; each man of Israel drew up in battle for-

mation against them at Gibeah. 21

So the sons of Benjamin went out from Gibeah and they struck

down Israel, on that day twenty two thousand men, to the ground. 22

And so the people, every

man of Israel, took courage and again drew up in battle formation in the place where they had

drawn up there in the first day. 23

Then the sons of Israel went up and wept before YHWH until evening, and they inquired

of YHWH, saying Should we again approach for battle with the sons of Benjamin, our broth-

ers? And YHWH said Go up to fight against them. 24

Then the sons of Israel approached the sons of Benjamin on the second day. 25

And

Benjamin went out from Gibeah to meet them on the second day and they struck down the sons

of Israel again, eighteen thousand men, to the ground, all of these men were swordsmen.

26 So all the sons of Israel and all the people went up and came to Bethel, and they wept,

sat there before YHWH, and they fasted that day until evening. Then they offered whole burnt

offerings and peace offerings before YHWH. 27

And the sons of Israel inquired of YHWH (now,

the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, 28

and Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of

Aaron, was standing before it in those days) saying Shall we yet again go out for battle with the

sons of Benjamin, our brothers? Or should we cease? And YWHH said, Go up, for tomorrow I

will deliver them into your hand.

William A. Ross - 4

Introduction: The book of Judges provides a prime example of the high rhetorical and

literary quality in the canon of the Old Testament. Although the textual history of the book is

somewhat convoluted,1 scholars generally agree that the Masoretic text is reliable and pure.

2

With the rise of literary criticism in the late 20th

century attempts at historical and text-historical

reconstruction3 have somewhat subsided and attention has turned more to the finished form of

the book, with fruitful results. Many scholars now read Judges as composed by a single editorial

hand that has shaped the material into a coherent theological and literary work.4 In Judges 20:18-

28 the book is being brought to a literary close, yet a thematically forward-looking climax by

emphasizing the continued dissolution and zealous delusion of the Israelites covenantal relation-

ship with YHWH. In so doing, the narrator thereby points to the need in Israel for a renewed cul-

tic posture before their God through the mediation of a proper leader.

Boundaries and Translation: Judges 20:18-285 forms a unit valid for in-depth study;

both grammatical and literary features of the text point towards coherence. Although the initial

WCS+impf. in v.18 continues the overall narrative in ch.20, the textual echo of from

1 For example, most editions of the Septuagint print both the Alexandrinus and Vaticanus texts of Judges side by side due to the

frequent variants. Even so, most scholars conclude that LXXA is more reliable and older (Emmanuel Tov, The Textual History

of the Song of Deborah in the A Text of the LXX, VT 28 [1979], 224, cited in Trent C. Butler, Judges, Word Biblical Commen-

tary, vol. 8 [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2009]). See Butler, xxxix-xliii for a summary of and conclusion for textual evi-

dence. 2 Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture,

vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1999), 72. He concludes rightly that the instances in which the MT can be im-

proved upon by appealing to the LXX are relatively few. 3 Typified by the work of M. Noth more broadly, and W. Richter, U. Becker, and R. Boling specifically in Judges. For a survey

of criticism, see Robert H. OConnell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum v. 63 (Leiden;

New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 217-23. 4 Early amongst these scholars were Robert Polzin (Moses and the Deuteronomist: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Indiana Stud-

ies in Biblical Literature [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993]), Lillian R. Klein (The Triumph of Irony in the Book

of Judges, Bible and literature Series 14 [Sheffield, Engld: Almond Press, 1988]), and Robert OConnell (Rhetoric). A synchron-

ic reading is not to the denial of diachronic issues, but may prevent, as Adele Berlin states, mistaking as proof of earlier

sources features which can be better explained as compositional or rhetorical features of the present text (Adele Berlin, Poet-

ics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Bible and Literature 9 (Sheffield, UK: Almond Press, 1983], 112 cited in Barbara E.

Organ, Pursuing Phinehas: A Synchronic Reading, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 203). Block summarily states

that While signs of disjunction among the respective parts of the book are obvious, it is apparent to me that a single mind has

deliberately selected, arranged, linked, and shaped the sources available to him to achieve a specific ideological agenda (49). 5 Henceforward the passage or the pericope.

William A. Ross - 5

Jdg. 1:1 marks off the passage, as does the repetition of certain formulaic expressions.6 These

grammatical signals are embedded literarily in a larger narrative in chs.19-21, in which the pas-

sage functions as the central, tension-building section.7 The translation of the passage presents

few difficulties; even most text-critical issues in the MT make little interpretive difference.8

OT Canonical Reading: Although in the OTs presentation of the history of Israel fits

the Judges era between Conquest and Monarchy, more specificity is difficult to produce.9 Com-

plicating the problem is the likelihood that individual judgeships were more localized and thus

overlapped, although this very fact may provide possible explanations.10

Despite these difficul-

ties, on this reading the rhetorical aims of Judges take precedence; Israelite historiography is

self-consciously theologically motivated, hence modern expectations of unbiased authorship and

chronological precision are misplaced.11

With this in mind, the chronological information in

verses 27-28 serves rhetorical purposes. The narrator reports disjunctively that Phinehas, son of

Eleazar, son of Aaron, was standing before [the Ark] in those days. Many commentators take

this genealogy as non-telescopic,12

placing this narrative within a century of Joshuas death, the

6 Namely 1) vv.23, 26); and 2) the verb of ,) repeated in vv.18, 23, 28, between which the defeated Israel weeps , inquiry (vv.18, 23, 27). 7 This pericope is highly contextualized by its setting in the book of Judges, the import of which will be addressed throughout this

essay. Although the first part of ch.20 is connected intimately with the passage, the change of location mentioned in v.18 (from

amongst the tribe of Benjamin [vv.12, 14ff] to Bethel [v.18]) separates the passage as a distinct episode. Likewise, the passage

is also distinguished from v.29ff in that the rhetorical focus shifts from the Israel/YHWH interaction in vv.18-28 to the detailed

battle narrative that follows. 8 See Appendix A for interaction with the Hebrew. N.B. Due to Kleins presentation (180-81), I have modified my reading of

vv.22-23, which at first I took in reverse order along with the Masoretic suggestion. 9 Externally, dating the period of the judges depends on the dates of the Exodus and Conquest. With a 13th century date for the

Exodus, Israels a-cephalic period would span most of the 11th and 12th centuries BC (Iron Age I). However, a 15th century Exo-

dus date makes the judges period twice as long (14th c. 11th c.; including Iron Age I and the Late Bronze Age II) (Andrew E.

Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991], 173-74.) 10 As a result, the judges period cannot be dated very precisely, but the longer period seems to correlate more easily with 1 Kg.

6:1 (Hill and Walton, 174.). Also see Block pp. 59-63 where he reaches different totals, but speculates certain chronological

overlapping to arrive at the same figure as 1 Kgs. 6:1. 11 See V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, vol.5 (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan: 1994), 58-87, esp.70-73. 12 See Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 562; Organ, 214;

Butler, 447; Block, 561; Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John

Knox Press, 2008), 204.

William A. Ross - 6

first quarter of Israels a-cephalic period.13

Although the passage must sit chronologically early

in Judges, its textual and literary position inclines the reader to its nature as a thematic climax.14

The structure of Judges corroborates the preceding point and its interpretive import. The

text of 20:18-28 is embedded in a larger and more complex narrative culminating out of domes-

tic, military, and cultic contexts in chs.19-21, which itself is one of two episodes in what is usu-

ally called the Appendix to Judges, namely chs.17-21.15

By means of text-linguistic features,

discussed in more detail below, the Appendix highlights the disastrous spiritual and social condi-

tions of Israel and is thus viewed as the thematic culmination of the book.16

Attending to the rhe-

torical structure of the whole of Judges thus influences interpretation of its parts. In short, the

intention of the narrator of Judges is to put the chronological in service of the theological.

Exegesis: Given the genre of Judges, it is unsurprising to find this passage carried along

by the WCS+Impf. structure germane to Hebrew narrative.17

It is worth recalling that narrative

indeed involves a narrator who has shaped the text rhetorically and whose voice also occurs di-

rectly in the passages disjunctive clauses in vv.27-28.18

Klein, aware of the obtuse context of

spiritual degradation in Judges overall, notes that the narrator is practically the only reliable

13 Block, 562. 14 Ibid, 474; Klein, 191; W.J. Dumbrell, In Those Days There Was No King in Israel; Every Man Did What Was Right in His

Own Eyes. The Purpose of the Book of Judges Reconsidered, JSOT, 25 (1983), 24. By textual and literary position I mean

that the passage sits at the end of the book of Judges. 15 Childs notes that scholars are generally agreed on the tripartite structure of Judges, identifying an Introduction (1:1-2:5 [or

through 3:6]), main Body of stories or Book of Deliverers (2:6 [or 3:6]-16:31), and two appendices (in chs.17-21) (258; Also

see Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination, [Louisville, KY: West-

minster John Knox Press, 2003], 121). 16 Brueggemann, 128; Exum, The Center Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges, in Reconsidering Israel

and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, vol. 8, Gary N. Knoppers

and J. Gordon McConville, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 594; Block, 474, draws attention to the focus of the

themes on the level of ordinary Israelites. Notably, Marvin Sweeney argues that the so-called appendix ought not to be so

structurally cut off from the rest of Judges, citing several thematic and theological continuities between especially the Samson

narrative and the two narrative episodes within the so-called appendix (Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges, VT 47, fasc.

4 [Oct. 1997]: 518.). 17 Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1999) 21.2/2i. 18 In this essay I use narrator interchangeably with redactor or editor. Although the concepts are distinct, I am presuming

for the sake of argument a single or at least dominant hands influence on Judges final form.

William A. Ross - 7

voice in Judges.19

In addition to disjunctive information, then, to apprehend the point of the pas-

sage the rhetorical strategy of the narrator is of chief interest.

In doing so, a look at the verbs employed in this episode is revealing. The passage has a

tremendous sense of decisiveness and haste to it, as the main action is carried out almost exclu-

sively by verbs of movement; specifically, with the many prepositions of disadvantage in this

context, military movement. 20

Significantly, Israel is the subject of most verbs.21

Yet Jdg.20:18-

28 does not focus primarily on battle per se. While the passage, like the Appendix as a whole,

has more narrative detail than the otherwise terse material in Judges, the textual commitment to

battle sequences is minimal compared to the following narration of one battle (20:19-48).22

The

textual structure of the pericope has three distinct cycles; Israel ascends to Bethel and inquires of

God (vv.18, 23, 26-27), encamps for battle (vv.19-20, 24), and is defeated (vv.21, 25) before re-

turning to inquire again.23

Despite the verbal tonality of the two battle sequences (vv. 20-21, 25-

25), the focus instead falls upon the cultic interaction between YHWH and Israel.

But by virtue of the passages focus on interaction between YHWH and Israel, it indirect-

ly draws attention to Israels decisive military movement. On the textual level, the narrative por-

trays Israel as rushing, perhaps even ignoring, cultic duties in favor of military exploits. The

broader context of ch.20 lends support; in response to the wickedness in Gibeah Israel declares

war against Benjamin and makes ready as a unified force (vv.11-17). Only after Israel has gath-

1912. In this sense, disjunctive clauses diverge from the typical narrative feature of enacting, and are instead telling rather outright

(Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III, eds., A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993],

15-19.) 20 E.g. , , , , , , , ,. The frequency is almost comical. Out of forty-three verbs in the passage, twenty-

five are verbs of movement or battle, occurring in nearly every clause. See Appendix A for discussion of the prepositional func-

tions in this passage. 21 Out of the twenty-five verbs of movement, Benjamin is the subject of only five. 22 There are 6 out of 11 verses for two battles in 20:18-28, and 29 out of 29 verses for one battle in (20:29ff). Notably, although

more verses in 20:18-28 pertain to the battles, more words are spent describing the inquiry cycles: 70 words to describe the battle

scenarios, and 92 to describe the divine inquiry scenarios in the Hebrew. 23 See Appendix B for a visual presentation of these cycles. Niditch points out that some scholars see the repetition of certain

verbs as evidence of separate sources all recounting versions of the same event, yet in her view the narrator more likely is provid-

ing thematically important information by using this rhetorical device (203).

William A. Ross - 8

ered for military action do they make divine inquiry.24

Moreover, Israels post hoc inquiry stands

in sharp contrast with Judges 1:1, where a similar question is directed towards Canaanite ene-

mies, after receiving instruction from YHWH to make war.25

But in 20:18 Israels mind is made

up, the matter having already been settled at Mizpah (20:1ff), not Bethel (20:18).26

The question

posed in v.18 is not if but rather how battle was to be undertaken, namely battle with fellow Isra-

elites.27

Israel is zealous for battle with Benjamin, but clearly cultically misguided.

Israels inquiries employ the verb (vv. 18, 23, 27), which in combination with , is

a formula for inquiring of deity, ordinarily to secure battle strategy, reassurance, and sanction

through a priest and/or at a cultic location.28

Here one might, however, ask which deity? In v.18

at least, Israel inquires which, given the prominent echo from 1:1 where the same inquiry

is distinctly , stands out prominently.29

Still, it is YHWH who answers them (v.18b), alt-

hough serious doubt has been cast upon Israel, who appears ironically unaware of their cultic

blunders, and who ignores the response to their how inquiry besides.30

This cultically deluded portrait of Israel develops as the narrative continues, shown by the

broader structure of the passage since with the cyclical form of the presentation of Israels inter-

24 Exum, 598; Block, 559. 25 See Appendix B. One scholar suggests that this type of inquiry may have been meant only for external enemies (Gregory

T.K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

111 [Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2006], 34). Here one discerns clearly the deterioration of Israel from its high point in ch.1. 26 Klein, 182. 27 Wong, 34; Block, 559; Jack M. Sasson, Oracle Inquiries in Judges, in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near

Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 159; Exum, 598. 28 Rannfrid I. Thelles Ch. 2, Divine Consultation Designated by in Ask God: Divine Consultation in the Literature of the

Hebrew Bible (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2002), 70. See pp.41-72 (esp. 43-44) for a comprehensive survey of the word . 29 Caution is warranted here against over-reading the text. We might say, with Klein, that the use of the generic term for deity is

at least intentionally ironic given 1:1. Still, W. Randall Garr suggests that this passage, in compliment with 1 Sam.19:22, employs

a compound frame of divine inquiry that has a specific deuteronomistic function, namely do identify whether or not the inquir-

er is speaking to YHWH specifically, and even suggests that Israel may have been practicing some form of extispicy (Necro-

mancy and 1 Samuel 19:22, in Sacred History Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of

R.E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday, Shawna Dolansky, ed. [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008], 25-26). In response to

this, Thelle points out certain methodological flaws in Garrs analysis of the oracular formula (37-38). 30 Israel attacks en masse rather than Judah-first, as YHWH instructed (Klein, 180).

William A. Ross - 9

action with YHWH there is also variation.31

First, Israels question in v.18 contrasts with 1:1 fur-

ther in that YHWHs response differs, pointedly leaving out the promise of victory in v.18b.32

Yet Israel takes no notice, and indeed are soundly defeated (vv.19-21).33

Upon commencing the

second inquiry cycle, prior to going up () to Bethel again, Israel first took courage (,

v.22, or strengthened themselves, NASB).34

The battle ethos is, in view of their ready-made

preparations, still one of great confidence. Back in 20:9-17, Israel for the first time in many

chapters is united as one man in their cause against Benjamin (vv.8, 11); this zealous rally spir-

it continues even after the first loss.35

Although apparently Israel is aware that the battles out-

come did not match their expectations, their renewed anticipation of victory remains stronger

than concern for cultic propriety. Israel has merely modified familiar cultic technique, rephrasing

the question and adding ceremonial weeping ().36

Still, some hesitancy appears; the verb ,

draw near is exchanged for , go up, and an added appositional , our brothers, to the

sons of Benjamin connotes kinship with Israels combatants.

Nonetheless, zealous Israel again fails to notice the promise of victory is not implicit in

YHWHs response, and they are again defeated (vv.24-25).37

The rest of the passage comprises

the third and final inquiry episode, which is notably more detailed and also mediated by

31 Both between the cycles in our passage, and with the question posed in 1:1. Klein states, the variations convey as much mean-

ing as the [textual] allusions (179). 32 See Appendix B. Kline, 179; Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 2009), 598; Richard Bowman, Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence in Judges &

Method: New Approahces in Biblical Studies, ed. Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 44. 33 It is on account of Israels failure to notice the missing promise of victory that pushes the reader toward viewing Israel as una-

ware of their mistakes, rather than in a state full and intentional apostasy. 34 Sasson, 159. 35 Klein, 181. Israels zeal for battle derives from national horror over a quasi-cultic matter: the dismemberment of the concubine

(19:30; Lev.21:11). Thus Israel appears to be presuming they already has the cultic and moral high ground over Benjamin. 36 The interrogative pronoun is replaced with the interrogative particle, changing the how to and if. Also, Organ states that

When the act of weeping is associated with the consultation of the oracle of YHWH, it is a cultic act a ritual lament part

and parcel of the action of inquiring of YHWH (207). In this sense, the Israelites are clearly familiar with what the form of cultic

inquiry should look like in part, but it is increasingly clear that their understanding is markedly and tragically incomplete. 37 Klein notes that YHWHs first two answers are consistent but incomplete. The first response (v.18b) lacks a verb; the second

includes a verb (, impv.) but nothing else (Ibid, 181-82).

William A. Ross - 10

Phinehas.38

Cultic activity increases again; in addition to weeping () there is also sitting ()

before YHWH, fasting (), and offering (, hif.) burnt and peace offerings (v.26). After-

wards, Israel inquires of YHWH, but the formula is disrupted. Given the rushed tenor of the nar-

rative, the disjunctive clauses in vv.27-28 are jolting, and ought to be considered carefully.

In the first disjunctive clause (v.27b) the narrator reports that the Ark was in Bethel,

where the main thrust of the passage occurs.39

Some scholars identify Bethel with the site of an-

other episode in Judges: Bochim.40

There, the angel of YHWH informed Israel that YHWH

would no longer drive out their enemies since they had broken covenant (2:1-23). That episode

sets the tone for the cultic and social deterioration of the entire book of Judges, which contains a

discernible anti-Bethel polemic that portrays that location as a continual source of misfortune for

Israel.41

The present passage then, set in the context of broken covenant and, importantly,

YHWHs testing of Israel (Jdg.2:21-22), pointedly notes the presence of the Ark itself at this dis-

astrous cultic site.42

The narrator thus ironically sets this emphatically cultic scenario at the nadir

of covenantal dysfunctionality, a reality slowly dawning upon Israel with each defeat.

The narrator uses the phrase Ark of the Covenant of God ( ), a title used

only four times in the OT.43

This second use of the generic name for deity may indicate the nar-

38 No mediator is mentioned in the first two cycles. Given the rhetorical tone of the passage regarding Israels cultic arrogance, it

would be unsurprising were there no priestly intercessor, although the in those days comment in v.27b seems to indicates some

kind of established cultic center at Bethel where priests would be present. Still, to argue such would be mostly from silence. ,can also be taken generically, i.e. house of God. Block notes that since El is never used as a name for God in Judges 39

and since the same form refers to the town of Bethel (cf. 1:23), the proper name is preferable (558). So also J.A. Soggin (Judges:

A Commentary, trans. J.S. Bowden, OTL [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1981], 292) and J. Joshua Gray (Judges and

Ruth, NCB [London, UK: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 384), contra Boling (Judges, 1st ed. [Doubleday & Co., 1974], 285). 40 So Sweeney, Davidic Polemics, 522, who calls this scholarly association common. No mention of Sweeneys sources,

although the reference to weeping in this passage suggests a connection, and the overall namelessness of the Appendix may indi-

cate that in this narrative Bethel has become a Bochim of its own (Cf. 2:4 and 21:2. Credit for this thought goes to C. Fantuzzo).

It is worth noting the ironic contrast between the cause of weeping in these two narratives. In ch.2 Israel weeps over their disobe-

dience and transgression of the covenant as testified by YHWHs messenger, while in ch.20 and 21 they weep over military loss

and their own foolish vow, all instigated by the testimony of a nameless Levite (K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges/Ruth, The NIV

Application Commentary Series [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002], 375-76). 41 Sweeney, 526-27. He states that the episode in chapter 2 culminates in chs.17-21 where Bethel is one of the primary culprits in

the Canaanization of Israel; idolatry and tribal division. 42 Ibid, 522. 43 All in the Deuteronomic History: Jdg. 20:27; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 15:24; 1 Chron. 16:6.

William A. Ross - 11

rators disapproval of this quasi-magical use of the Ark, since the Israelites had had received no

instruction from YHWH to move it as he had in other times of war (Josh. 3, 6). 44

Instead, the

Ark is apparently being used as a palladium, a symbol of gods presence and good luck charm

in the battle against the Benjaminites.45

Again, Israel proves its partial awareness of proper cult,

but a profound unawareness of their own waywardness from it. After all, the Ark is always a

clear sign of YHWHs presence with Israel,46

and indeed this is the case in ch.20 also, given his

responses to Israel and their eventual victory (Jdg. 20:29-48). The tension in the passage, then, is

between Israel making ill-formed, cultic claims on the grounds of a covenant it appears they have

forgotten is broken, and yet YHWH responding to them nonetheless.

The second disjunctive clause (v.28a) departs from the nameless of Judges Appendix,

naming a character outright: Phinehas.47

Prior to this verse, the two prominent characters are Is-

rael and YHWH, the former of which is cast in two lights. At times the narrator employs sons of

Israel (vv. 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27), and others men of Israel (vv.20 [x2], 22). Klein proposes

that sons emphasizes the covenant relationship, however questionable in ch.20, between

YHWH and Israel, while men implies independence.48

But in the last inquiry cycle Israel is

represented cultically by a named individual.49

The identity of that individual is none other than

Phinehas from the pre-Conquest era, whose exploits there prove him to be an ardent defender of

44 Block, 561, n. 331. The Ark was supposed to be located in the inner sanctum of the Tabernacle, likely located in Shiloh. 45 Ibid, 561. 46 Butler, 447. 47 Block comments that the general namelessness of chs.17-21 draws to attention the fact that while everyone made himself the

standard of his own actions (everyone did what was right in his own eyes, 17:6; 21:25), the narrator ironically shows that in

such a society individuality counts for nothing (518). 48 Klein, 201. Klein observes that in each inquiry Israel is called sons, but the defeated Israel are men. Likewise, the deci-

sions to attack made apart from YHWHs counsel are done as men, cast grammatically in third person singular terms, recalling

every man did what was right in his own eyes (cf. 17:6; 21:25). Thus Man of Israel conveys the individual actions of the

men, even though they all may be doing the same thing there are separate men, separate actions. The relationship to YHWH is

gone, and the relationship to one another is minimized [cf. 20:11, 20, 22, 39, 41 vv. 11 and 22 are reflexive, to boot] (202-05). 49 Discernible by the representative first-person singular language employed, translated pointedly in the NASB, "Shall I yet again

go out to battle against the sons of my brother Benjamin, or shall I cease? (v.28, emphasis added)

William A. Ross - 12

proper worship (Num. 25, 31; Josh. 22).50

Given Phinehas cultic track-record, his participation

in Judges 20 may vindicate Israels last inquiry in v.27-28.51

That Phinehas was presumably ab-

sent in the prior inquiries may show that he was a conscientious objector to Israels actions.

In the inquiry administrated by Phinehas in v.28 further notable verbal changes occur.

First, the question pertains to going out (), drawing more attention to Israels military uncer-

tainty.52

Further, Phinehas brings the narratives forward movement to a full stop with the ques-

tion should we cease? (v. 28, ), introducing the idea that Israel is actually questioning its

own actions for the first time. Moreover, a more genuine sense of unity in this realization is indi-

cated with the redundancy in v.26: all the sons of Israel and all the people went up and came to

Bethel to inquire of YHWH.53

After the second military defeat, a genuine realization has appar-

ently occurred; Israel recognizes their error and need of mediation through a proper cultic leader.

In the context of their own military haste and defeat (with YHWHs permission) and under

Phinehas guidance Israel sees its cultic wrongdoing, and that the covenant is in question.54

The

reference to the burnt and peace offerings, activities which have covenant-making precedence,

conveys the idea of repentance (cf. Exod.24:5), however brief or incomplete (cf. Jdg.21).55

In view of the variation between cycles, then, the narrators rhetorical and theological

crafting of the passage is distinctly relational; Israels broken covenant relationship with YHWH 50 Butler, 447; Block, 561; The genealogy in 20:28 agrees with Exod.6:25; Nubm.25:7-11; 1 Chr.6:4, 50; Ezra 7:5 (562, n.336). 51 Organ, 208, 216. Phinehas is mentioned three times in the Pentateuch: the incidents at Peor in Num.25, the war against the

Midianites in Num.31, and the threatened split over the altar of the Trans-Jordanian tribes in Joshua 22. In each episode there are

text-linguistic and thematic similarities to Jdg. 20:18-28, showing Phinehas as a paragon of correct behavior, cultically speak-

ing every time he shows up there is a question of purity of worship, and even national survival. Phinehas thus stands for,

even identifies, the validity of a particular action in the context of the proper worship of YHWH (204-210, 216-17). If this is

true, then there is a good guy in the Appendix to Judges after all (contra many commentators, for instance Younger, 376). 52 Klein, 182. 53 Block, 561. 54 Block, 560-61. 55 It is worth noting that this is not a covenant renewal, although this episode may point to the need for one. Immediately follow-

ing, in ch.21, the reader learns of a Jephthah-like rash vow made by the whole nation (21:1), proving doubly that at Mizpah,

when Israel should have inquired of YHWH, Israel totally failed to judge, firstly, itself regarding battle (Klein, 177), and second-

ly, regarding the fate of Benjamin. Further, in 21:3, after Benjamin is nearly wiped out, Israel, stunningly, asks God how such a

thing has happened! The nation is still profoundly deluded, even after realizing their cultic and covenantal errors and need for

renewal under Phinehas. Israel nonetheless has no awareness of their fault, and attempt to find a loophole by means of cheap

cultus and self-help solutions (21:10ff). It is no surprise that unlike in 20:18-28 there is no response to their inquiries (ibid, 187).

William A. Ross - 13

has brought about deterioration in the nations cultic life and national relations, to the point that

Israel wages civil war without recognizing their own covenantal, national, and cultic delusion.56

Only after Israel recognizes this deterioration and delusion and takes measures to restore them-

selves through proper cult and under proper cultic-relational leadership does YHWHs answer

confirm outright that at last they will be victorious over Benjamin (v.28b).57

Tota Scriptura: This passages cultic-relational emphasis connects it with the whole

canon of Scripture in a many ways. Its location in Judges Appendixs is significant given the

pregnant leitmotif: In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in

his own eyes (17:6; 21:25), which frames the Appendix and hints at an interpretive stance for

the reader.58

Scholars have noted text-linguistic similarities of the Appendix to Judges Introduc-

tion (1:1-3:6); each takes a broader, situational stance that has a more pan-Israel focus rather than

local/tribal like the Body (2:6-16:31).59

This perspective creates a fixed theological milieu char-

acterized especially, as mentioned above, by the cultic events at Bochim/Bethel.60

The Israelites

break covenant with YHWH (2:1-23), setting the tone of deterioration for the entire book and

identifying the basis of Israels cultic (2:11-13), military (2:14-15), social (3:5-6), and ultimately

Deuteronomic failure.61

Indeed Deuteronomy looms large behind Judges; it is a book heavy on keeping YHWHs

laws and teaching the next generation to do the same.62

But in Jdg.20:18-28 Israel has shown in-

credible deftness at forgetting YHWH, failing to judge itself or its situation, and zealously mis-

applying cultic procedure for its own ends. In unison with the tone of the Introduction, Judges 56 Sweeney notes the Canaanization of Israel recounted in Judges that causes the nations relationships to fray and to depart

from the Deuteronomic ideal primarily via intermarriage (social deterioration) and idolatry (covenantal/cultic deterioration; 527). 57 Butler, 446; Thelle, 46. 58 Childs, 258; Block, 475. 59 Boda, 141. 60 See n.38, 39, 40 above. 61 Butler, lxii; Brueggemann, 123; Sweeney, 522. 62 One of the primary reasons for Israels spiraling failure in Judges is thus the lack of proper deuteronomic catechesis (2:10; 3:7).

Dennis T. Olsen, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1994], 10-11).

William A. Ross - 14

Appendix-leitmotif demonstrates that Israels lack of king is part of the systematic and ingrained

cultic-relational problems in 20:18-28; Israels kinglessness is a symptom, not a disease.63

Phinehas presence reminds the reader that this symptom has been with Israel at least

since Moses time, and that worship is at its heart; Israel both follows after other gods and treats

YHWH like them rather than obeying his commands for proper, centralized worship. The only

other place the phrase whatever is right in his own eyes occurs is Deut.12:8, where Moses is

commanding the Israelites to destroy foreign altars and worship only as YHWH commands.64

Judges proves true the deuteronomic expectations of how this symptom will play out; covenantal

deterioration followed by social and moral delusion (cf. Deut.4:25-28; 31:16-18; 21:15-35).65

Israels real problem, then, is uncircumcised hearts that do not follow YHWH or remember his

ways (Deut.4:9, 29, 39; 6:5-12; Jdg.2:10; 3:7), like the wilderness generation (Deut. 8:2).66

But just as Deuteronomy anticipates the failure of Israel to circumcise their own hearts,

so pointedly demonstrated in Judges and coexisting with the (partial) success portrayed in Joshua

(cf. Josh.7:1; 11:16-23),67

it also anticipates YHWHs response. Israel will repent, and turn to

YHWH in obedience (Deut.30:1ff), but it will take YHWH to circumcise their hearts (30:6) since

Israel itself is clearly incapable (Deut.10:6).68

Yet Israels persistent disease of uncircumcised

and wandering hearts must be punished hence YHWH permits Israels deluded internecine war

63

Especially in view of Gideons statement, however ironic or insincere it may be, that YHWH is king (8:23). 64 Boda 143. 65 Allusions to the Pentateuchal are also part of the broader narrative in which 20:18-28 is embedded. First, the episode of the

rape of the Levites concubine bears striking resemblance to the story in Genesis 19. The distinct lack of divine intervention at

the last minute in Judges, however, keys into the same broken covenant relationship theme, especially since wrong relationships

(intermarriage) have precipitated this societal degradation and delusion at its worse (cf. Susan Niditch, The Sodomite Theme

in Judges 19-209: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 [1982]: 365-378). Sec-

ondly, Boda points out that the right in his own eyes motif also alludes to Deut. 12:19, where Israel is commanded to watch

over the Levites, who of course are the two primary instigators of social and moral dissolution throughout the whole Appendix

The deterioration of this social-cultic relationship in Israel, then, has had far-reaching effects in Judges (Boda, 144). 66 J. G. McConville points out the dilemma of Israel: Deuteronomy points out that Israel is constitutionally incapable of keeping

covenant, yet have the express command to do so to keep their land (Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology, Stud-

ies in Old Testament Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993], 134). 67 Ryken and Longman point out that both Joshua and Judges may need to be read in light of Israels failure at Jericho, and the

following episode at Ai where there is, like Judges ch.20, no indication that anyone consulted YHWH (141). 68 McConville, 136.

William A. Ross - 15

in Jdg.20 and although it takes the majority of redemptive history to enact, YHWH will gra-

ciously restore his people, with patience and steadfast love extended towards them in the mean-

time. Nothing but this could explain why Israel, so arrogant in Jdg.20:18-28, receives an answer

to their inquiries, albeit disciplinary in nature as from loving father (Deut.8:5), rather than

promptly being wiped out due to their disobedience (cf. Deut.4:31; 6:14-15).

The tension between Israels wayward hearts that lead them into cultic and social sin, at

times zealously so as we see in Judges 20, and YHWHs gracious promises to his chosen people

will carry redemptive history forward into the era of Israels kings. Moreover, the kings are not

spared from the same symptom, so clear even with paradigm leaders like David whose sins are

writ large in 2 Sam. 11-20. Yet unlike Israel in the era of the judges, indeed unlike Saul, David

repents, particularly when he is confronted by prophetic figures and his heart is troubled by his

sin (2 Sam. 12:13; 24:10, 14, 17; Ps. 51).69

The problem of Israels uncircumcised heart persists into the era of the Prophets, where

the nation has not learned to hearken to YHWHs word as David did, but rejects his prophets in

favor of abominable practices that lead to the seemingly irremediable punishment of exile

(Is.6:10; 29:10; 65:12; Jer.6:10; 7:24; 11:8; 32:32; Zech.1:4). Ultimately a new covenant rela-

tionship comes into view recalling the promise of Deut.30:6 YHWH himself will give his peo-

69 Saul has a similar pragmatic approach to cult and forgiveness as Israel in Jdg.20, proved by his rejection by YHWH in 1

Sam.15. There Samuels poem in vv.22-23 places a premium on obedience from the heart over ritual fulfillment, although the

tone is firmly set for the remainder of Israels monarchy (Boda, 155-56). Yet David is quick to confess sin after prophetic con-

frontation and displays full obedience by bearing its consequences (2 Sam.24; ibid, 161-62). Davids quality of wholehearted,

listening repentance and obedience, then, is the theological reason for his kingship over Sauls, and serves as both historiograph-

ical explanation and theological object lesson for the referential-historical audience of the book of Judges, which I place, with

Block, during the reign of Manasseh (64-67; 512-14). The Davidic polemic in Judges, then, is not strictly politi-

cal/propagandistic (so Sweeney, 517-29; M. Brettler, The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics, JBL 108 [1989]: 416; R.K.

Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament: With a Comprehensive Review of Old Testament Studies and a Special Supplement

on the Apocrypha [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], 692), but historiographical/theological, explaining why David was chosen

over Saul, and yet looking to a king like David, who listens, repents, obeys, and leads his people in continuously renewed torah-

keeping, yet who even surpasses him (especially given Judahs situation in Manassehs day) (cf. Yairah Amit, Literature in the

Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19-21 in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, Journal for the

Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 171, Henning G. Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenhimer, eds.

[Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 28-29).

William A. Ross - 16

ple new hearts on which torah is written, and they will return to him (Ezk.11:19; 36:26-27;

Jer.24:7).

Application and Conclusion: By participating in the stream of events in redemptive his-

tory that prove the inadequacy and inability of Israel in cultic devotion, torah obedience, and at-

tentive repentance, Judges 20:18-28 points to Christ as the mediatory leader whose zeal is not

deluded, and whose work moves Gods relationship with his people towards renewal rather than

deterioration. In the New Testament, the ministry of the Apostles points back to Christ, to whom

the prophets pointed forward (Acts 3:18; Lk.24:26-27). Peter explains Christs role as the Suffer-

ing Servant, the second Moses, to whom Gods people will finally listen in order that he may

bless them by turning their hearts in repentance from wickedness (Acts 3:18-26). Thus Christ

reveals Gods consistent character throughout the OT, both gracious and just, punishing iniquity

yet patient with those who fear him (Exod. 34:6-7); it is his justice that explains his regular dis-

cipline of sin but his grace that offers hope to a disciplined people.70

In Christ, God has by the exercise of his mysterious will (Exod.33:19; Eph.1:5; 2

Tim.1:9) finally given new hearts to his people by the working of the Holy Spirit (Rom.2:29;

Col.2:11; Phil.3:3). Yet like David our repentance in the face of indwelling sin comes fully and

effectively in response to the person and work of God (Acts 2:38; Lk.24:46-47), not by means of

empty and deluded ritual. It is instead through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) in the one whose life and death,

whose leadership and servanthood, was the final sacrifice unto restored relationship with the Fa-

ther (Eph.2:14-16; 5:2; Heb.9:26); it is Christs exalted Kingship that grants repentance to his

people (Deut.17: 14-20; Eph.1:7-10; Acts 5:29-32; Heb.1:3-4; 1 Pet.3:22).

Deo Gratias

70 Boda, 522-23.

William A. Ross - 17

Appendix A Passage Translation & Defense

20:18

Now71

the sons of Israel arose / and ascended to Bethel72

, / and they inquired of73

God, /

Who74

will go up for us first, for battle with the sons of Benjamin? / And YHWH said / Judah

will fight first75

. /

20:19

So76

the sons of Israel arose in the morning77

/ and they encamped near Gibeah78

. /

20:20

And every man of Israel79

went forth for80

battle with Benjamin,81

/ so each man of Israel

drew up in battle formation82

against83

them at84

Gibeah. /

71 Now (v.18): The WCJ+Impf. signals a new narrative section of the text (Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud and Jan

H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999] 21.2/2i.). 72 to Bethel (v.18): the preposition is absent in the text after , however here Bethel takes the accusative of place (, BDB,

748.) and thus to is implied. 73 of God (v.18): The preposition is occasionally used with in the hexateuch when inquiring of a deity (, BDB, 982). 74 who (v.18): the interrogative particle is in the preverbal position (Biblical Hebrew 46.1/2iia). 75 will fight first (v.18):The preposition can be used with in battle scenarios (, BDB, 748.). Although there is no verb for

to fight in the text, the preposition, as well as the adverbial noun , appearing two times here and signifying first in order

BDB, 321), give an implied sense of battle or fighting. This is so especially given the textual echo of Judges 1:1, where ,)

does appear. In YHWHs response, the verb is elided. Although the LXX adds , this could have been an editorial

clarification (lectio brevior lectio potior), since the main point is not the going up (a means to an end), but the fighting. 76 So (v.19): WCS showing logical sequence (Biblical Hebrew 21.2/2i). 77 in the morning (v.19): Temporal (Williams 241). 78 near Gibeah (v.19): The preposition with the verb implies nearness to a locale with hostile purpose (, BDB 333). 79 every man (v.20): Often is employed distributively, with the appropriately conjugated finite verb (, BDB, 36). 80 for battle (v.20): The preposition expresses purpose here, as in v.18 (Williams 277). 81 with Benjamin (v.20): Some mss from the Syriac add , and the Targum adds house of (dbjt), but neither would make

significant interpretive difference. 82 drew up in battle formation (v.20): can convey a military organizational sense when used with ) , BDB, 789).

Here I have I have rendered the word together with the verb as draw up in battle formation, conveying the of purpose from

the first occurrence of Williams 277). The phrase) -is absent from this clause in the LXX, but the repeti

tion of the distributive subject in the MT seems rhetorically tied to the authors emphasis in this pericope on the long-overdue,

here ironic, unity of Israel. Also, the presence of helps convey the military sense of the verb more strongly, thus it seems

sensible to leave the phrase as is. 83 against (v.20): of disadvantage (Williams 342). 84 at Gibeah (v.20): With verbs of motion, can express presence at a spot, especially with military connotation (, BDB

40).

William A. Ross - 18

20:21

So the sons of Benjamin went out from Gibeah / and they struck down85

Israel86

, on87

that

day twenty two thousand88

men, to the ground. /

20:23

Then the sons of Israel went up89

/ and wept before90

YHWH until evening, / and they in-

quired of YHWH91

, / saying / Should we92

again93

approach for battle with the sons of94

Benja-

min, our brothers95

? / And YHWH said / Go up to fight against them96

. /

20:22

And so the people,97

every man of Israel, took courage98

/ and again99

drew up in battle for-

mation in the place where they had drawn up there in the first day.100

/

20:24

Then the sons of Israel approached101

the sons of102

Benjamin on103

the second day. /

85 they struck down (v.21): In the hifil, can denote the destruction in battle of what is in the accusative position, here desig-

nated by the (see fn.15) (, BDB, 1008; HALOT, 1471). 86 Israel (v.21): The preposition is transitive here, marking the direct object (Williams 244). 87 that day (v.21): Temporal , here best left untranslated (Williams 241). 88 twenty two thousand (v.21): cf. J.C.L. Gibson, Davidsons Introductory Hebrew Grammar Syntax, 4th ed. [Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1994], 49). 89 went up (v.23): that is, to Bethel, as the Masoretes suggest (cf. 18:26). 90 before (v.23): cf. .BDB, 816 ,91 inquired of YHWH (v.23): See fn.3. Also, note that Israel is no longer inquiring merely , but . 92 we (v.23): The verb is 1CS, but has a distributive notion, and again conveys the unity of Israel, as one man (20:1, 8, 11). 93 again approach (v.23): The verb in Hifil + + inf. yeilds to do again/more in the hexateuch, according to BDB (,

415). 94 the sons of Benjamin (v.23): the LXX omits sons of, but it makes little interpretive difference. 95 our brothers (v.23): Again, the Hebrew is singular (See fn.22). 96 to fight against them (v.23): as in v.18, YHWHs response is elided, but implicit is the purpose of their ascent, namely to fight

(although interestingly Israel asks whether they are to approach this time, not fight; See fn.5). 97 the people (v.22): The Masoretes propose that this is a gloss, as it is not present in the LXX or Syriac. While this is possible,

the tone of this passage leads me to believe that the people is original, employed ironically, since the usual referent of the

people, the nation of Israel, is tragically incomplete here given Benjamins enemy status towards the people, every man of

Israel. 98 took courage (v.22): The Hithpael usage of is rare, but can have this figurative meaning, in the sense of strengthening

oneself (, BDB, 305). 99 again drew up (v.22): See fn.22. Here although the purposive preposition is not on -as in v.20, its use on the infini ,

tive construct may convey the same sense (see fn.12). 100 Verse 22: The Masoretes suggest moving this verse into position after verse 23. Some English translations slightly curve this

verse towards a picture of the Israelites returning to their encampment near Gibeah that they set up the first morning (e.g. NIV.

See my v.19 and fn.8), thus avoiding a dischronology. But although the language employed in the MT is identical to that of v.20

(a combination of + + the overall theological-rhetorical tone of the passage lends credence to leaving the text in ,(

order, adding a sense of irony to the fact that the Israelites took courage and prepared for battle before they went up to YHWH

(Klein, Triumph of Irony, 180-81). 101 approached (v.24): that is, for the purpose of battle (, BDB, 897). I have left out the , as approached unto would be

redundant. 102 the sons of Benjamin (v.24): the LXX omits sons of, but it makes little interpretive difference. 103 on the second day (v.24): Temporal (Williams 241).

William A. Ross - 19

20:25

And Benjamin went out from Gibeah to meet them on the second day / and they struck

down104

the sons of Israel again, eighteen thousand105

men, to the ground106

, / all of these men107

were swordsmen108

. /

20:26

So all the sons of Israel and all the people109

went up / and came to Bethel, / and they wept, /

sat there before YHWH, / and they fasted that day until evening. / Then they offered110

whole

burnt offerings and peace offerings before111

YHWH.112

/

20:27

And the sons of Israel inquired of113

YHWH114

/ (now115

, the ark of the covenant of God116

was there117

in those days, /

104 they struck down (v.25): see fn.15 for a discussion of the same construction in v.21. 105 eighteen thousand (v.25): cf. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 97e; also see Joon-Muraoka 100e on the rare reduced numeral

form, as noted in the masora parva. 106 Struck down to the ground (v.25): this phrase (+) is repeated almost exactly from v.21. 107 men (v.25): the antecedent is implied. 108 Swordsmen (v.25): the prepositional phrase in this nominal clause (Biblical Hebrew 34.2i) is literally those who ,

draw out the sword. 109 all the people (v.26): the inclusion of here, at the defeat scene, supports the reading including in v.22 at the prepara-

tion scene (see fn. 27). 110 they offered (v.26): in the hifil, with as its object conveys the sense of causing an offering to go up in flame for

sacrifice (, BDB, 749). 111 before (v.26): see fn.20. 112 Verse 26: the verb , is repeated seven times in our passage (vv.18 [2x], 23 [2x], 26 [2x], 28), and alternate rhetorically

between going up to Bethel to consult YHWH, and going up to battle. Here, in the former sense, it is most elaborated. That is,

verse 26a elaborates most about what the Israelites did after they went up (entered, wept, sat, fasted, and [26b] offered sacrifices). 113 inquired of (v.27): the third time that has occurred (vv.18, 23, 27) with Israel as the subject (see fn.3). 114 Verse 27a: the Masoretes suggest relocating v.27a to after the disjunctive clauses (see fn.45) pertaining to Phinehas (inserting

it prior to .in v.28), but the result is the same, and seems unnecessary 115 (the ark in those days) (vv.27-28): this disjunctive clause is introduced by a waw copulative, providing background infor-

mation (Biblical Hebrew 48.8/2v). 116 the ark of the covenant of God (v. 27): this Hebrew phrase occurs only four times, all within the Deuteronomistic History

(Jdg. 20:27; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 15:24; 1 Chr. 16:6). Some LXX editions and the Syriac version include or , but this

seems likely to be emendation, given Dtrs unique use of this phrase. 117 was there (v.27): that is, in Bethel. is the first word in this nominal clause (noun phrase + adj.), drawing attention to locale

(Biblical Hebrew 34.2/1i).

William A. Ross - 20

20:28

and Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron118

, was standing119

before it120

in those days) /

saying / Shall we yet again121

go out for battle with the sons of122

Benjamin, our brothers123

? /

Or should124

we cease? / And YWHH said, / Go up, / for tomorrow I will deliver125

them126

into your hand127

.

Grammars

20:20 Wms 277

20:21 Gib 49

20:24 Gib 117

20:25 GKC 97e; J-M 100e

20:28 Gib 184

118 son of Aaron (v.28): some mss and the Syriac version add .but this makes little difference, and may be an emendation ,119 standing (v.28): although the clause order of this verse is SVO, in a clause where the verb is a participle the subject normally

precedes the verb (Biblical Hebrew 46.1/2i5). 120 standing before it (v.28): while some translations render as ministering (e.g. NIV), standing is a better gloss, espe-

cially for the participial form, which in Qal + + ordinarily has YHWH as the prepositional object and is in a cultic context

for intercession (, BDB, 763). 121 yet again (v.28): the emphasis here is repetitive in text order and in meaning, given the use of + , showing the increas-

ing reluctance of Israel (see fn.26, 29). 122 sons of (v.28): again, as in v.23b and v.24a, some mss do not have , but nothing significant is at stake. 123 Shall we go out our brothers (v.28): again a distributive function of the 1CS is employed representatively (see fn.22). 124 Shall we or should we (v.28): this construction beginning with the interrogative , and completed with is a disjunctive

or alternative question, where the second half of the alternative is often merely the first in a varied form (Gibson, 184). 125 deliver (v.28): cf. , BDB, 679. 126 them (v.28): that is, the Benjaminites, referred to distributively by a 3MS energic nun suffix. 127 your hand (v.28): barely worth mentioning, some mss substitute the plural , but this is insignificant.

William A. Ross - 21

Appendix B

Cycles in 20:18-28

Bold shows aspects of the cycle that are either additions, or that do not again occur in the corre-

sponding cycle:

[Israel unites as one man (20:8, 11)]

Israel goes up () for inquiry () of God () at Bethel

YHWHs answer () Encampment ( and ) for battle

Benjamin goes out () to meet Israel

Benjamin fells Israel () to the ground ()

Israel encourages himself ()

Israel goes up () to Bethel, weeps () before YHWH, inquires ( + ) again

YHWHs answer ( + impv.) Encampment ( and ) for battle (implied)

Benjamin goes out () to meet Israel

Benjamin fells Israel () to the ground () [ ----------------- ]

Israel goes up () to Bethel, weeps () before YHWH, sat there (), fasted (), and sacrificed (), then inquires ()

[Disjunctive information about the Ark of the Covenant of God ()]

Phinehas speaks () to the LORD (), asking ( () if Israel should cease ( YHWHs answer ( + impv. + impf.)

Contrasting Judges 20:18 and 1:1

1:1 -

20:18 -

Contrasting YHWHs Answers in 20:18b and 1:2

1:2 -

20:18 -

v. 18

v. 18

vv. 19-20

v. 20

v. 21

v. 22

v. 23

v.23

(v. 22), v. 24

v. 25

v. 25

-x-

vv. 26, 27

v. 27

v. 28

v. 28

William A. Ross - 22

Bibliography

Amit, Yairah. Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19-21. In Politics and

Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature. Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament Supplement Series 171. Edited by Henning G. Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and

Benjamin Uffenhimer, 28-40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature 9. Sheffield,

UK: Almond Press, 1983.

Butler, Trent C. Judges. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 8. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,

Inc., 2009.

Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological

Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 6. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1999.

Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Boling, Robert G. Judges. 1st ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1974.

Bowman, Richard. Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence. In

Judges & Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Gale A. Yee, ed., 17-43. Minne-

apolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007.

Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics. Journal of Biblical Literature

108, no. 3 (Fall 1989): 395418.

Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagina-

tion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Exum, Cheryl. The Center Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges. In Re-

considering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Sources

for Biblical and Theological Study, vol. 8, edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon

McConville, 578-600. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Garr, W. Randall. Necromancy and 1 Samuel 19:22. In Sacred History Sacred Literature: Es-

says on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R.E. Friedman on His Sixtieth

Birthday, edited by Shawna Dolansky. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Gray, J. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. New Century Bible. London, UK: Thomas Nelson, 1967.

Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament: With a Comprehensive Review of Old Testa-

ment Studies and a Special Supplement on the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1969.

William A. Ross - 23

Klein, Lillian R. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. Bible and Literature Series 14.

Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1988.

McConville, J. G. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Studies in Old Testa-

ment Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.

OConnell, Robert H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum v.

63. New York, NY: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Olsen, Dennis T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. Eugene, OR:

Wipf & Stock, 1994.

Ryken, Leland, Longman III, Tremper, eds. A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Grand Rap-

ids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.

Sasson, Jack M. Oracle Inquiries in Judges, in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient

Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the

Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 149-168. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Soggin, J.A. Judges: A Commentary. Translated by J.S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. Phila-

delphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1981.

Thelle, Rannfrid I. Ask God: Divine Consultation in the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. New

York, NY: Peter Lang, 2002.

Younger, K. Lawson Jr. Judges/Ruth. The NIV Application Commentary Series. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 2002.