Original Meaning

THE FIRST MINOR JUDGE is introduced with the initial noncyclical/minor judge formula (see the introduction, p. 43).1 This brief account (made up of one verse consisting of three Hebrew sentences) follows the story of Ehud and continues that story’s satirical tone. Ehud delivered Israel through a single-handed act of diplomatic treachery. So too the next judge, Shamgar, delivers Israel through a single-handed act with an agricultural implement. Again the enemy is not only defeated but made to look utterly ridiculous as the reader’s attention is drawn to the improvised weapon. This also is anticipatory of the improvised weapon of Jael in Judges 4–5.

Webb takes the oxgoad to be a makeshift weapon, which in turn indicates that Shamgar is not a professional warrior.2 But if other commentators are correct that “son of Anath” (ben ʿ ^anāt) is an indication of association with a professional army group known as ben ʿAnat in ancient Near Eastern sources,3 then Shamgar is a professional soldier, perhaps a mercenary4 (see below).

While Ehud employed great planning and deception, Shamgar seems to act almost impulsively (a prepared warrior would not normally use an oxgoad). While both required dexterity, Ehud relied on stealth to murder Eglon, Shamgar on brute strength to impale six hundred Philistines (cf. Samson in 15:15). Six hundred warriors was a common troop configuration (cf. the six hundred warriors sent by the tribe of Dan to conquer Laish [18:11]; see also 1 Sam. 13:15; 14:2; 27:2; 2 Sam. 15:18).

Interestingly, the term “oxgoad” (malmad) is formed on the causative stem of lmd (“learn”)—literally, an “instrument of instruction or learning.”5 Thus there may be a play on words involved in the choice of the oxgoad. Shamgar “teaches” the Philistines a thing or two. They, like Eglon, got the point of the lesson!

The final sentence (“he too saved Israel”) emphasizes Shamgar’s link to Ehud as another savior of Israel. The same verbal construction also occurs in the parenthetical statement of 3:9, where “he [Othniel/Yahweh] saved them” (see discussion on 3:9).6

The identity of Shamgar is obscure. The only scholarly agreement is that Shamgar son of Anath was not an Israelite. But on the other problems surrounding his identity, there is no consensus. There are two issues involved: the derivation and meaning of the name Shamgar, and the significance of the epithet ben ʿ ^anāt. (1) According to some scholars “Shamgar” is Hurrian.7 Others have argued for a Canaanite derivation8 or a Mesopotamian derivation.9

(2) The epithet ben ʿ ^anāt is clearly Semitic. There are two different ways of explaining it. Some interpreters understand this to be a description of Shamgar’s place of origin, that is, Beth Anath (Josh. 19:32–39; Judg. 1:33).10 Other commentators see this as an appellation referring to the Canaanite goddess of war, Anat. In general, her cult was widespread among professional soldiers in the ancient Near East in the early twelfth century B.C.

But worship of Anat was particularly widespread in Egypt, where the pharaohs had adopted it. Such worship was introduced as early as the Fifteenth Dynasty (c. 1634–1610 B.C.), but the adoption of military-type Asiatic deities was especially pronounced among the militant pharaohs (Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Ramesses II).11 An inscription from Wadi Hammâmât, dated in the third year of Ramesses IV (1166–1190 B.C.), reads: “ʿprw of the troop of ʿAn[ath] eight hundred men.” Working on the assumption that the same troop had fought against the Sea Peoples during the reign of Ramesses III (1198–1166 B.C.), Shupak suggests that Shamgar may have been one of these ʿprw, some of whom have Hurrian names.

In addition to the Egyptian evidence, there is other evidence that the epithet ben ʿ ^anāt is a military designation. An inscription arrowhead from El-Khadr (dated to c. 1100 B.C.) reads: ʿbdlbʾt bn ʿnt (ʿAbd-Labīʾt Bin-ʿAnat).12 As Hamilton notes, the term “Bin-ʿAnat” can either be the name of the father of ʿAbd-Labīʾt or may indicate that the latter is a member of an archers’ guild.13 From this evidence, it is possible to posit a West Semitic origin for the phrase.14 Whatever the case, the evidence demonstrates that ben ʿ ^anāt may designate some type of military unit. Shupak concludes that the evidence points to the figure of Shamgar son of Anath as having a real basis in the historical setting of the beginning of the Iron Age.15

The fact that Shamgar is paired in the Song of Deborah with Jael, a Kenite, seems to confirm his non-Israelite origins. Like Othniel, the first cyclical/major judge, Shamgar, the first noncyclical/minor judge, is a non-Israelite. He is the only noncyclical judge to save Israel from a specific oppressor (Tola will “save Israel,” but from whom is left blank). He is the only noncyclical judge for which there is any information concerning how he does it (though admittedly scanty). If the role of judge as described in the introduction is applied to the minor judges, Shamgar seems to be the most successful in fulfilling the role. If the parallel to Othniel (first major judge, first minor judge) is considered, then it is possible to see Shamgar as a type of ideal noncyclical judge.

It is clear from the text of Judges so far that Yahweh will deliver the Israel from their oppressors. However, it is also clear that his methods may not be so easy to predict or explain. The fact that the initial and ideal major judge was a non-Israelite should raise our eyebrows; the fact that Shamgar as the initial minor judge is also a non-Israelite should raise them that much the more. And the account of Deborah and Barak (plus the non-Israelite Jael) is just on the narrative horizon.

Shamgar’s mighty exploit is similar to that of two other individuals: Samson and Shammah. Samson slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (15:14–17); Shammah is one of David’s heroes listed in 2 Samuel 23:8–23; note verses 11–12:

Next to him was Shammah son of Agee the Hararite. When the Philistines banded together at a place where there was a field full of lentils, Israel’s troops fled from them. But Shammah took his stand in the middle of the field. He defended it and struck the Philistines down, and the LORD brought about a great victory.

Certainly, such exploits were important for the ancient Israelites to remember because in each instance the credit for the victory is Yahweh’s, at least in the cases of Shamgar and Shammah (for Samson, see the discussion below).

Bridging Contexts

SEE THE COMMENTS at the end of the last three minor judges (12:8–15) (pp. 278–79 below).

Contemporary Significance

SEE THE COMMENTS at the end of the last three minor judges (12:8–15) (p. 280 below).