1. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 23.

2. Some scholars have argued on source-critical and form-critical grounds that the term môšîaʿ is the older title used for these charismatic savior figures and that šōpēṭ is a secondary term used later when a redactor assumed a link between the “major” and “minor” judges. See, e.g., W. Beyerlin, “Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richtersbuch,” in Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, Festschrift A. Weiser, ed. by E. Würthwein and O. Kaiser (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 6–7. But such an approach blurs the literary function of the noncyclical judges (see more on this below).

3. T. L. J. Mafico, “Judge, Judging,” ABD, 3:1104–5. While the root špṭ occurs in a number of cognate languages, the use of the nominal form in Phoenician and Punic may come closest to the biblical usage, where the term is used to designate high functionaries or rulers. See J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/21; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1182–83.

4. Block, Judges, Ruth, 23–24.

5. Ibid., 25.

6. It is interesting that the noun šōpēṭ is never used of any named individual in the book, except for Yahweh. The verbal form is used, but only with the following individuals: Othniel (3:10), Deborah (4:4), Tola (10:2), Jair (10:3), Jephthah (12:7), Ibzan (12:8, 9), Elon (12:11), Abdon (12:13, 14) and Samson (15:20; 16:31).

7. See A. Hauser, “Unity and Diversity in Early Israel Before Samuel,” JETS 22 (1979): 289–303.

8. Block, Judges, Ruth, 54–55.

9. A. Malamat, “The Period of the Judges,” in Judges, ed. B. Mazar (WHJP 3; Tel Aviv: Jewish History Publications, 1971), 131. He argues that the differences in the accounts derive primarily from the sources used by the narrator: family chronicles for the minor judges; folk narratives for the deliverer judges.

10. The majority of scholars understand the book as part of the Deuteronomistic History (though, in part, variously defined). For this popular way of viewing the book, see R. Boling, “Judges, Book of,” in ABD, 3:1107–17. For an overview of the theory of the Deuteronomistic History, see S. L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD, 2:160–68. For an evaluation of the scholarly discussion, see M. A. O’Brien, “Judges and the Deuteronomistic History,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth, ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 235–59. See also Block, Judges, Ruth, 44–50.

11. Or perhaps, as an alternative, the statement “until the time of the captivity of the land” should be linked with the next verse, which states that the Danites “continued to use the idols that Micah had made, all the time the house of God was in Shiloh.” Thus “the captivity of the land” referred to in verse 30 is understood in relation to its fall, the historical context of this event being the Philistine ascendancy prior to the time of Saul. See J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (SOTBT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 110. A variant of this view is seen in the attempt to emend 18:30 to read “ark” (ʾ ^arôn) instead of “land” (ʾāreṣ) and to identify this event with the capture of the ark in the days of Eli by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:21). See E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 180.

12. Block, Judges, Ruth, 57–59.

13. J. Marius, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 133–34.

14. Ibid., 134.

15. For many scholars the book of Judges is an apology for the monarchy. More specifically, it is a defense of the Judahite/Davidic monarchy, as opposed to the Saulide monarchy. See R. H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996); M. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature As Politics,” JBL 108 (1989): 395–418; and M. A. Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges,” VT 47 (1997): 517–29. There are a number of good reasons why scholars have perceived this purpose for the book. However, while the book of Judges is concerned with and presents the general flow of the premonarchic political history of Israel, it is also clear that it is concerned with presenting Israel’s spiritual state during this period with all of its ramifications, and that this is the primary purpose of the book. See the discussion of Block, Judges, Ruth, 66–67, and our discussion of the double conclusion’s refrain below, pp. 30–33.

16. For some suggested chronological arrangements, see A. Hill and J. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 173–74; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 178–81; and Block, Judges, Ruth, 59–63.

17. Note that the first four major/cyclical judges are credited with forty years of rest for the land (in the case of Ehud, double forty, i.e., eighty). The Philistine oppression (13:1) is forty years. Samson’s judgeship is twenty years (half forty), as is the Canaanite oppression (4:3).

18. Perhaps their inclusion would have obscured his message. Also note that no precise information is given about the length of their judgeships.

19. Cf. the situation in the account of Abimelech and the bêt ʾāb of Gideon in the discussion of ch. 9 below.

20. F. Lambert, “Tribal Influences in Old Testament Tradition,” SEÅ 59 (1994): 33–58.

21. For further discussion, see S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ʾAb) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996).

22. D. I. Block, The Foundations of National Identity: A Study in Ancient Northwest Semitic Perspectives (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1983), 1–83.

23. Concerning the twelve-tribe systems of Israel, see Z. Kallai, “The Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel,” VT 47 (1997): 53–90.

24. Lambert, “Tribal Influences,” 46.

25. Cf. Deut. 13, which deals with a city involved in idolatry. In this case, the property is not forfeited to the priests but is to be destroyed along with the people (cf. also Ezra 10:8).

26. See Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Bedeutung und Funktion von ḥerem in biblisch-hebräischen Texten,” BZ 38 (1994): 270–75.

27. J. P. U. Lilley, “Understanding the ḥerem,” TynBul 44 (1993): 169–77, esp. 174.

28. K. L. Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 235–36.

29. Cf. Lilley’s conclusions, “Understanding the ḥerem,” 176–77.

30. P. C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).

31. An inclusio is a literary unit that begins and ends with the same or similar word, phrase, clause, or subject matter. For the double introduction and double conclusion as an inclusio, see C. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges,” CBQ 52 (1990): 410–31, esp. 413 and 429; and R. G. Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 29–38; K. L. Younger Jr., “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” in Faith, Tradition, History: Essays on Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 223–27.

32. The two repetitions at the center of the double conclusion (i.e., 18:1a and 19:1a) are intrinsically bound together by a chiasm, melek ʾên versus ʾên melek respectively.

33. Many biblical interpreters assume the reference in the formula is only to a human king and is the product of a promonarchical redaction. If one merely sees this as a promonarchical redaction, then one might miss the spiritual component that seems to be functioning to reinforce the proper theological understanding of the double conclusion. An example of this is found in the perspective asserted by J. A. Soggin, who writes, “It [the refrain] seems to be particularly ill-chosen for chs. 19–21: here the existence of an inter-tribal assembly is actually affirmed, an assembly which judges the controversies that have broken out among the various members and whose decisions appear to be binding on all. Thus the phrase ‘in those days . . . everyone did what seemed to him to be right’ seems somewhat inappropriate to indicate what happened in that era, at least according to the opinion of the pro-monarchical redaction” (Soggin, Judges: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981], 280).

Some interpreters assume the first line of the refrain refers to an idealized monarchy that redactionally supported the Davidic, as opposed to the Saulide, monarchy. See e.g., O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 268–69; Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics,” 517–29. But the first line of the refrain need not imply a promonarchic, let alone pro-Davidic, polemic. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 475–76, 484. Contra Soggin, the first line is intimately tied to the second, which has obvious moral and spiritual overtones that even the presence of a Davidic king could not necessarily deter. See also note 13 above.

34. R. M. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 200–202.

35. Ibid., 200, 202.

36. See D. W. Gooding, “The Composition of the Book of Judges,” in H. M. Orlinsky Memorial Volume (Eretz Israel 16; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 70–79, esp. 76–78.

37. P. Satterthwaite, “ ‘No King in Israel’: Narrative Criticism and Judges 17–21,” TynBul 44 (1993): 75–88.

38. For further discussion of this abuse of the book, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 71–72.

39. Interestingly, the order of four judges mentioned in 1 Sam. 12:9–11 is Jerub-Baal, Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel. Thus, since there is no clear indication in the book of Judges for chronological aspects beyond the number of years for certain items, the ordering principle may be governed by different criteria than simple chronology.

40. There is some disagreement among scholars concerning the number of framework components. Some count only five or six; others include as many as ten.

41. Block, Judges, Ruth, 149.

42. B. G. Webb, The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 175–76.

43. The Jephthah cycle is a blip in the pattern, for it includes many of the components.

44. D. N. Fewell, “Judges,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 67.

45. Concerning this, see the excellent discussion of F. E. Greenspahn: “The Theology of the Framework of Judges,” VT 36 (1986): 385–96. Greenspahn concludes that there is really no firm basis for describing the framework as Deuteronomistic (389–91, 395). Also, each judge may be seen as a microcosm of the nation. See A. Hauser, “Unity and Diversity in Early Israel,” 289–303.

46. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 412.

47. Again, the Jephthah cycle is a blip in the pattern (cf. note 43, above).

48. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 31; K. R. R. Gros Louis, “The Book of Judges,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1974, 1982), 1:144–45; M. O’Connor, “The Women in the Book of Judges,” HAR 10 (1986): 277–93.

49. J. P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 38, n. 11.

50. See, e.g., the popular NIV Study Bible notes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 327.

51. For the In-group/Out-group distinction, see D. J. Chalcraft, “Deviance and Legitimate Action in the Book of Judges,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter (JSOTSup 87; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 177–207.

52. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 412.

53. B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 141 n. 9.

54. The Abimelech account, the sequel to Gideon and conclusion to the fourth cycle, introduces for the first time in the book an oppressor who is internal rather than external. The work of the cyclical/major judge, Gideon, is undone by the antijudge, “king” Abimelech, Gideon’s son.

55. This “propensity for pairs” may help explain the preponderance of what have been dubbed “doublets” in the Gideon cycle.

56. See the discussion of G. E. Gebrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 123–29.

57. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews pairs these judges, with one pair being Gideon and Barak, the other pair being Samson and Jephthah; it leaves out the pair Othniel and Ehud. On the book of Hebrews usage, see the discussion of Samson below, pp. 325–28.

58. See further the discussion of Block (Judges, Ruth, 342–43).

59. For a discussion of many of these, see L. R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (BLS 14; Sheffield: Almond, 1988), 83–84.

60. Usually this is based on the observation that none of the five short notices in 10:1–5 and 12:8–15 refer to any external threat or military activity on the part of the judge, and thus these notices must represent generally peaceful interludes. See, for example, Webb, The Book of the Judges, 176.

61. By the way, it is worth noting that Samson fails in saving Israel too. In fact, he doesn’t really even attempt to “save” Israel.

62. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 3. Cf. also A. J. Hauser, “The ‘Minor Judges’—A Re-evaluation,” JBL 94 (1975): 190–200, esp. 200; and E. T. Mullen Jr., “The ‘Minor Judge’: Some Literary and Historical Considerations,” CBQ 44 (1982): 185–201, esp. 201.

63. This formula may be simply a device for signalling the next item for narration and is not indicative of chronology. See also the comment of Block, Judges, Ruth, 338 n. 871.

64. I recognize that the precise wording here is unique to the entire Hebrew Bible. But the use of “after” (ʾaḥ^arê) as an introductory phrase of the minor judge still argues for Shamgar’s inclusion in the minor judge list. In fact, the pattern revealed in the chart above showing the one-two-three pattern of the minor judges argues conclusively in favor of inclusion.

65. Following the warning given by J. H. Walton, L. D. Bailey, and C. Williford, “Bible Based Curricula and the Crisis of Scriptural Authority,” Christian Education Journal 13 (1993): 83–94.

66. See T. Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 70.

67. I. Provan, “To Highlight All Our Idols: Worshipping God in Nietzsche’s World,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 19–42.

68. Esarhaddon’s “Renewal of the Gods,” a text that describes at great length the renewal (or better, the “remaking”) of the cult images. See R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (AfO 9; Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1956), §53, AsBbA Rs. 2–38.

69. C. Walker and M. B. Dick, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. B. Dick (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 55–122.

70. This was “a performative ritual designed to dissociate the statue from its aspects of man-made artifact” (see T. N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context [Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995], 41).

71. A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 2d ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977), 184.

72. Compare the Neo-Assyrian letter that states: “The kizertu is set up in the temple; they say about it: ‘It is Nabû’ ” (LAS 318:6–7). Cf. also the Tanit signs, Baal Hammon signs, etc., in Phoenician contexts.

73. As opposed to the cosmic manifestations of the ancient Near Eastern deities, which are addressed in the first commandment (Ex. 20:3).

74. C. F. H. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988).

75. This underlying unbelief is traceable in Western culture back to the Renaissance.

76. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization, 27.

77. It is hard to preach or teach the double conclusion of the book (chs. 17–21) without feeling some of this depression.

1. On 1:1–2:5, see K. L. Younger Jr., “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1:1–2:5 and its Dependence on the Book of Joshua,” JSOT 68 (1995): 75–92; and “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” 207–27.

2. Josh. 10:1–5 is parallel to Judg. 1:4–7; Josh. 15:63 to Judg. 1:8, 21; Josh. 15:13–19 (cf. 14:6–15) to Judg. 1:10–15, 20; Josh. 13:2–3 to Judg. 1:18–19; Josh. 17:11–13 to Judg. 1:27–28; Josh. 16:10 to Judg. 1:29; Josh. 19:10–16 to Judg. 1:30; Josh. 19:24–31 to Judg. 1:31–32; Josh. 19:32–39 to Judg. 1:33; Josh. 19:41–48 to Judg. 1:34–35.

3. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 103.

4. A codicil is a short writing or addition to a will that modifies it in some way.

5. E. T. Mullen Jr., “Judges 1:1–36: The Deuteronomistic Reintroduction of the Book of Judges,” HTR 77 (1984): 33–54, esp. 43.

6. Concerning the translation “lord of Bezeq,” see S. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Names in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta: Scholars press, 1990), 117; and Younger, “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries,” 78 n. 9. See standard commentaries for discussions of the variant Adoni-Zedek. At the present, it seems impossible to conclude that there is a wordplay in the name, as some commentators have suggested, since the precise meaning of bezeq is uncertain.

7. Also see the close parallels 2 Sam. 1:1 and 2:1. The latter contains the same question-answer sequence found in Judg. 1:1: “In the course of time [lit., afterwards], David inquired of the Lord: ‘Shall I go up [ʿālâ] to one of the towns of Judah?’ he asked. The Lord said: ‘Go up.’ ”

8. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 148.

9. Ibid.

10. The difficulty in the handling of 1:2 is reflected in Webb’s analysis, where he understands verse 2 as part of Section A (Judges, 103) and yet as forming the prologue to the description of Judah’s activities in Section B (ibid., 90). It seems to me that 1:2a goes with A (“Who will . . . go up?” 1:1–2a) as part of the major chiasm of Introduction 1. It is not only the answer to the Israelites’ inquiry of God but serves as a counter to the angel/messenger of the Lord in A′ (2:1–5). Judg. 1:2b goes with the next section (B), “Judah goes up” (1:2b–21), functioning as part of the smaller chiasm. In a sense 1:3–21 is the exposition of the answer in 1:2, and 1:22–36 a further exposition of the question of 1:1. Nonetheless, 1:2b serves as a transitional prologue to 1:3–21, and I have included it in Section B to indicate this.

11. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 23. Note Judah’s subtle disobedience from the start.

12. If “Canaanites” are understood here as “urban dwellers” and “Perizzites” as “rural dwellers,” then the two together may function as a merism and signify the inhabitants of the land in their totality.

13. See Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts; also “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries,” 86, n. 31.

14. For the problem of multiple attributions of victory to different entities, see Younger, “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” 226.

15. For a discussion of the names see R. S. Hess, “Non-Israelite Personal Names in the Narratives of the Book of Joshua,” CBQ 58 (1996): 205–14.

16. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 233, n. 24.

17. Caleb is identified twice as “from the tribe of Judah” (Num. 13:6; 34:19). He is frequently designated as “the son of Jephunneh” (Num. 13:6; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:35; 32:12; 34:19; Deut. 1:36; Josh. 14:6, 13, 14; 15:13; 21:12; 1 Chron. 4:15; 6:56). Three times (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6, 14) he is given the further designation “the Kenizzite” (qnzy). This form is a gentilic (e.g., in the modern context, “the American, the German, the Russian, etc.”; in the Old Testament context, “the Midianite, the Philistine, the Assyrian, etc.”). Thus, it is an ethnic designation. Another way of forming a gentilic in ancient Semitic languages was the combination of the word for “son” (either singular or plural) and the name of an eponymous ancestor (e.g., “sons of Israel” = “Israelites”; “sons of Ammon” = “Ammonites”; etc.). Thus Othniel is designated “son of Kenaz” (bn qnz), hence “Kenizzite” (note that the JPSV translates bn qnz in every instance as “Kenizzite”). He is further designated as “Caleb’s [younger] brother [ʾaḥ]” (e.g., Judg. 1; 13), which probably means that Othniel was a younger relative or kinsman of Caleb (the Heb. word ʾaḥ has this range of meaning; see the discussion of levirate marriage in the introduction to Ruth). This explains why Caleb is called the son of Jephunneh and Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, and yet Othniel is called Caleb’s brother, and Caleb is called “the Kenizzite.” It also explains the apparent discrepancy in the Old Greek, where Othniel is described as Caleb’s younger brother (LXX^A) and yet also designated as Caleb’s nephew (LXX^B). As pointed out in the introduction, the tribe (šēbet) can be bound together by any one of the following: descent, residence, dialect, or religion. While some scholars disagree, the best way of understanding these designations in association with the statements that connect Caleb and Othniel with the tribe of Judah is to see them as proselytes from a different ethnic group who count in the tribe of Judah (i.e., through at least residence and religion, though not descent). For an analogy one can compare the case of Rahab, who is not a Judahite by descent but nonetheless counted as a Judahite after her proselytizing to the faith of Israel.

18. Caleb’s promise to give Acsah to whoever would take Debir (1:12) is pictured here in positive terms (i.e., the capturing of Deber in the conquest of the Promised Land, the inheritance of God). In contrast, Jephthah’s vow is a grotesque and tragic “giving” of one’s daughter (Judg. 11:30–31).

19. It is doubtful that Acsah “beguiled” her father at a moment of weakness, i.e., the capture of Debir (as argued by P. G. Mosca, “Who Seduced Whom? A Note on Joshua 15:18 // Judges 1:14,” CBQ 46 [1984]: 18–22).

20. See R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 152–53.

21. There is no need to emend this (with LXX and most scholars) to “he urged her,” since what immediately follows explains how she rather than Othniel actually does the asking (see Webb, The Book of the Judges, 233 n. 29; Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996], 245 n. 2).

22. Perhaps more than he had intended to give. See Y. Kaufmann, The Book of Judges (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1962; Hebrew), 80. Acsah’s practical shrewdness and resourcefulness in seizing the initiative from both Othniel and Caleb (the two male heroes of the story) is commended (see the introduction, p. 37).

23. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 26.

24. Fewell, “Judges,” 68.

25. D. M. Gunn and D. N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (The Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), 162–63.

26. Contrast the story of the total destruction and renaming of Laish by the Danites in Judg 18:27–30. On Hormah see also Num. 14:45; 21:1–3; Deut. 1:44; and Josh. 12:14; 15:30.

27. See the discussion of iron chariots in Judg. 4, below. These iron chariots (perhaps three or four thin plates hung over the front to protect the charioteer’s legs, which his hauberk did not cover) were obviously heavier. Once they were moving, they would be hard for opponents, especially foot soldiers, to withstand. This was a technology the Israelites did not possess and understandably intimidated them. They are the reason for Judah’s failure to take the plains where their military capability would be at its greatest. See A. R. Millard, “Back to the Iron Bed: Og’s or Procrustes?” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 193–203, esp. 194–95. Also see, Younger, “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries,” 82 n. 21.

28. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 259.

29. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 177–79; Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 423–25.

30. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 203.

31. The introduction of lāḥaṣ is ominous, foreshadowing things to come (cf. 2:18; 4:3; 6:9; 10:12). On the other hand, mas has connections to the past. During the earlier Canaanite period, people were put under forced labor.

32. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 101. While at this point a number of scholars opt for a possible textual variant reading “Edomite,” the reading “Amorite” seems to be preferred because of the literary context. There is a similar enigmatic territorial description at the end of the minor/noncyclical judge notices: “in the hill country of the Amalekites” (12:15).

33. Issachar is lacking in Judges. According to N. Naʾaman, one possible reason is the fact that Issachar’s territory contains only one main site, Tel Rekhesh (Tell el-Mukharkhash), which presumably was destroyed sometime during the thirteenth to twelfth centuries B.C. Thus at the time of the united monarchy no significant towns existed in Issachar to be included as points of reference in a list of unconquered cities (Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography [Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4; Jerusalem: Simor, 1986], 97).

Both the failure “to drive out” (lōʾ hôrîš) the Canaanites and their dwelling (yāšab) among the Israelites are presented in Judges 1 as Cisjordanian problems. In Joshua 13–19 these are portrayed as Transjordanian problems too (13:13). Naʾaman correctly observes that “since the Transjordan was regarded as an area not belonging to Canaan, one would never expect to find the Transjordanian tribes in a list of unconquered Canaanite cities west of the Jordan” (ibid., 97).

34. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 13.

35. “The angel of the Lord” is obviously an interpretive decision (which the NIV translators have made) for the Hebrew malʾak yhwh, “messenger/angel of Yahweh.” Some scholars understand his identity to be that of a prophet (e.g., Kaufmann, The Book of Judges, 92). Webb uses the neutral translation of “messenger of Yahweh” (The Book of the Judges, 239 n. 81). In the end, since it is Yahweh himself who threatens the resultant action for Israel’s failure to obey his words, the preferred understanding may be “the angel of Yahweh,” though this is still not demanded by the text.

36. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 103.

37. See R. H. O’Connell, “Deuteronomy vii 1–26: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Conquest,” VT 42 (1992): 248–65.

38. See Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 142, 144.

39. Lit., “They will be in [your] sides [l^eṣiddîm].” The term l^eṣiddîm is an abbreviated expression, an ellipsis, for liṣnînīm b^eṣiddêkem (“thorns in your backs”) in Num. 33:55 (cf. also Josh. 23:13). See Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes (New York: Ktav, rept. 1970), 266.

40. The term bkh is frequently used in the Old Testament to describe weeping or mourning for the dead. It is used four more times in Judges: 11:37–38 (Jephthah’s daughter bewailing her virginity and impending death); 14:16 (Samson’s wife weeping because he has not told her the answer to his riddle); 20:23 (weeping over the dead as the result of the first battle at Gibeah); 21:2 (weeping over the extinction of Benjamin).

41. This pattern will be mirrored in the book of Judges as a whole. See Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 413.

42. It is indeed ironic that it is this Canaanite monarch who acknowledges God’s retribution on evil, for this theme of retribution turns up again in the book and is not always recognized, even by God’s people.

43. This is also true in the most general sense: Israel did not “deserve” the land—the Israelites had not manifested great faith and obedience after coming out of Egypt and during the desert period!

44. Hess, Joshua, 245.

45. The very fact that there were “Great Awakenings” where people became true believers obviously indicates that in the early history of the United States there were many who were not believers.

46. E.g., the notion conveyed in Gal. 3:28 is a concept not found in the Old Testament.

47. For further discussion of the passage in Ephesians, see K. Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 338–61.

48. Hess, Joshua, 246.

1. Younger, “Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context,” 222–24; Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 12.

2. An ancient example can be observed in Esarhaddon’s Babylon inscriptions (R. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, 12–15). J. A. Brinkman observes the following cyclical pattern in these inscriptions: “divine alienation—devastation: divine reconciliation—reconstruction.” Moreover, this cycle is used in Esarhaddon’s Babylon inscriptions as “a religious explanation (answering the question ‘why’)” for the destruction of Babylon. See J. A. Brinkman, “Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon,” in Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East: By Members of the American Oriental Society Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. J. M. Sasson (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1984; = JAOS 103 [1983]): 35–42. For this cyclical pattern in Judges, see Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 140–50.

3. In the ancient Near Eastern context, a number of nations interpret their national oppression by a foreign power as the work of their god’s angry reprises. For example, the Moabites understood their oppression by the Israelites as the result of Chemosh’s anger with them (Mesha Inscription, line 5). See K. A. D. Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” COS, 2.23.

4. Lit., incontinent means without self-restraint, especially in regard to sexual activity (the Heb. term znh has this nuance). It is used in a figurative description of the Israelites’ religious orientations.

5. See W. Koopmans, Joshua 24 As Poetic Narrative (JSOTSup 93; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 363–69.

6. The matter of the alternate names Timnath-seraḥ (Josh. 19:50; 24:30) and Timnath-ḥeres (Judg. 2:9) is difficult. Timnath-ḥeres means “portion of the sun,” and Timnath-seraḥ means “portion of excess.” Some scholars argue that Timnath-seraḥ is correct as in Joshua 19:50; 24:30; a scribe reversed the consonants (Boling, Judges, 72). Others argure that Timnath-ḥeres is the orginal and that a scribe changed the spelling to Timnath-seraḥ for polemically religious reasons (B. Lindars, Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. A. D. H. Mayes [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995], 96–97). The site is probably modern Khirbet Tibneh, about ten miles northwest of Bethel, sixteen miles southwest of Shechem. See E. Noort, “Joshua 24, 28–31, Richter 2, 6–9 und das Josuagrab. Gedanken zu einem Strassenbild,” in Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Zwickel (OBO 123; Fribourg: Edition universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 109–33.

7. Cf. Block’s discussion (Judges, Ruth, 123).

8. It is, as Block correctly notes (Judges, Ruth, 126), the opposite of what is often thought of today as “worship,” i.e., standing before God with hands raised in praise (which is actually exaltation).

9. The storm deity’s name divine name was “Hadad.”

10. Perhaps under the influence of the vocalizations in 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13.

11. For an example of this, compare the use of Ish-Bosheth in 2 Sam. 2:10 for Esh-Baal (1 Chron. 8:33).

12. J. M. Hadley, “The Fertility of the Flock? The De-personalization of Astarte in the Old Testament,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, ed. B. Becking and M. Dijkstra (Biblical Interpretation Series 18; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 115–33, esp. 132.

13. Cf. the careful discussion of J. A. Dearman, “Baal in Israel: The Contribution of Some Place Names and Personal Names to an Understanding of Early Israelite Religion,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes, ed. M. P. Graham, W. P. Brown, J. K. Kuan (JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 173–91.

14. A bull figurine discovered at the “Bull Site” (a reasonably certain Israelite cult installation of the period of the iudges, dating to the twelfth century B.C.) is thought by most scholars to represent either El, Baal, or Yahweh. For a discussion of the site and the figurine, see A. Mazar, “ ‘The Bull Site’—An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” BASOR 247 (1982): 27–42; idem, “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from the Time of the Judges,” BAR 9 (September/October 1983): 34–40.

15. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 96.

16. Both terms “sell” (mākar) and “hand over, give” (nātan) are economic expressions picturing Yahweh as transferring ownership of the apostasizing Israelites to the foreign oppressors.

17. Lit., “and the nose of Yahweh was kindled.” This is a figurative way of expressing divine wrath and fury.

18. The root of this verb is probably connected to the infamous “Shasu”—Siniatic, nomadic raiders/plunderers mentioned in a number of Egyptian inscriptions.

19. Block, Judges, Ruth, 128.

20. Goodfriend suggests five reasons why Israel’s spiritual infidelity is characterized as prostitution (znh) rather than adultery (nʾp): (1) znh implies iterative or habitual illicit behavior; (2) the motive is personal gain, not casual sex; (3) znh implies a multiplicity of sex partners; (4) the participle zônâ suggests a treacherous and hardened woman; and (5) znh refers only to illicit sex by a female partner. See E. A. Goodfriend, “Prostitution,” ABD, 5:505–10.

21. See the discussion of the šōpēṭ (“judge”) at the beginning of the introduction. This particular sentence in 2:17 is emphatic (lit.): “But to their tribal rulers (judges) they would not listen.”

22. On the new Philistine inscription from Tel Miqnê/Ekron, see K. L. Younger, “The Ekron Inscription of Akhayus,” COS, 2.42.

23. Possibly the same as the Horites (probably of Hurrian or Anatolian origin).

24. See E. C. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine’s Pre-Israelite Peoples (Bibal Dissertation Series 3; North Richland Hills, Tex: Bibal, 1995), 29–31, 41–43.

25. As noted in the Bridging Contexts section of 1:1–2:5, it is important not to misapply this passage on the national level or simply on the cultural level. The prime issue is, once again, spiritual.

26. Joash’s idolatry likely had an impact on his son, Gideon, who, after saving Israel from the Midianite oppression, makes an idol that the nation worships (see Judg. 8).

27. Provan, “To Highlight All Our Idols,” 31.

28. H. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 311.

29. Ibid., 139.

30. P. J. Achtemeier, “Idolatry in the New Testament,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 43–61, esp. 57.

31. Ibid., 57. The fact is there is nothing in creation that cannot be made into a focus of idolatrous worship!

32. This is nothing short of “everyone doing what is right in one’s own eyes” (cf. the refrain of the double conclusion in Judg. 17–21, which begins with the story of Micah’s making an idol).

33. Achtemeier, “Idolatry in the New Testament,” 58.

34. Provan, “To Highlight All Our Idols,” 33.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. For some additional reflections on idolatry, see B. Rosner, “Soul Idolatry: Greed As Idolatry in the Bible,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 73–86.

38. For some uplifting stories about modern prodigals, see Ruth B. Graham, Prodigals [and Those Who Love Them] (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), esp. 105–18. For a discussion of our point here, see J. C. Dobson, Parenting Isn’t for Cowards (Dallas: Word, 1987), 185–88.

1. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 82–83; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 127.

2. Only Othniel and Ehud are designated môšîaʿ (deliverer). Othniel, however, was the only one without fault. See O’Connell’s discussion (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83 n. 34).

3. Block, Judges, Ruth, 149.

4. For a discussion of this framework statement, see the comments on 2:6–3:6 (p. 88).

5. Besides Introduction 2 (2:6–3:6) and the Othniel cycle (3:7–11), these statements are only found in the Jephthah cycle (10:6a, 7a).

6. Block correctly notes that the idea here is not a case of temporary amnesia but a more intentional and active nuance akin to the notion of “abandoning” (ʿzb) (Judges, Ruth, 151).

7. See N. Wyatt, “Asherah,” in DDD, cols. 183–95.

8. R. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Veneration of the Holy Book in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. by K. van der Toorn (Kampen: Kok, 1999), 205–28.

9. For the inscriptions, see P. K. McCarter, “Kuntillet ʿAjrud,” COS, 2.47; and “Khirbet el-Qom,” COS, 2.52. For a discussion of these texts in connection with the worship of Asherah, see R. S. Hess, “Yahweh and His Asherah? Religious Pluralism in the Old Testament World,” in One God, One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. A. D. Clarke and B. W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 13–42; idem, “Asherah or Asherata?” Or 65 (1996): 209–19.

10. See most recently J. A. Emerton, “ ‘Yahweh and his Asherah: The Goddess or Her Symbol?” VT 49 (1999): 315–57. For the opposite view, see P. Xella, “Le dieu et ‘sa’ déesse: l’utilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des théonymes d’Ebla à Ugarit et à Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” UF 27 (1995): 599–610.

11. See the discussion of this framework statement on p. 90, n. 16.

12. On the significance of this framework statement, see the discussion of Block, Judges, Ruth, 148. The Old Testament usage of zʿq (or its alternate spelling ṣʿq) does not of itself imply repentance. See W. Brueggemann, “Social Criticism and Social Vision in the Deuteronomic Formula of Judges,” Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 101–14, esp. 108–9.

13. For the name Othniel, see M. P. Streck and St. Weninger, “Zur Deutung des hebräischen Namens ʿOṯnīʾēl,” BN 96 (1999): 21–29.

14. Boling, Judges, 80–81. See also Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128. Interestingly, Cushan-Rishathaim is mentioned twice as many times as Othniel.

15. This mention of the fact that Cushan-Rishathaim is a “king” on both sides of Othniel’s introduction is understood by a number of interpreters as an indication that Othniel represents the embodiment of an institution, namely, “judgeship.” Thus the clash between Othniel and Cushan-Rishathaim is a clash between two institutions: kingship (represented in Cushan-Rishathaim), which brings punishment, and judgeship (represented in Othniel), which brings deliverance. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83–84; Boling, Judges, 80–81.

16. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 244.

17. Some other examples of pejorative names in the biblical text are: Bera (“in/with evil”) and Birsha (“in/with wickedness”) (Gen. 14:2), and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:8). See also the belittling of the name of the Canaanite king in “lord of Bezeq” above (1:5). Also, compare the name Mahlon and Killion in Ruth 1:2 (see commentary). The case of Birsha is particularly interesting insofar as it comes from the same consonantal root (ršʿ ) and thus echoes Rishathaim (“doubly wicked”).

18. Some scholars feel that the term Naharaim is a later erroneous gloss. They are inclined to this opinion because (1) the term Naharaim only occurs once in the story (in v. 10 the designation is simply Aram without the term Naharaim) and (2) because the word Aram may be an easy corruption for Edom (a possibility since only one letter mistake is necessary). See J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (NCB; London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 260–61; Burney, Judges, 68. For examples of this confusion see 2 Sam. 8:12–13; 1 Chron. 18:11; 2 Chron. 20:2. Nevertheless, the place name is well attested in the MT tradition, and the term Naharin was a designation for the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (e.g., Thutmose III’s inscriptions). The term Naharaim is even found in v. 10 in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The term Aram was only applied to the region after the Aramean incursions during the decline of the Middle Assyrian empire. See W. T. Pitard, “An Historical Overview of Pastoral Nomadism in the Central Euphrates Valley,” in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. Coleson and V. Matthews (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 293–308; and G. M. Schwartz, “The Origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia: Research Problems and Potential Strategies,” in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon, ed. O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers, and P. M. M. G. Akkermans (Rotterdam and Brookfield: A. A. Balkema, 1989), 275–91.

19. It is difficult because of the designation Aram Naharaim and the uncertainty of date to know whether this designation indicates that Cushan-Rishathaim was of Hurrian origin or not (see previous note). For Hurrian movements into Canaan, see N. Naʾaman, “The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine,” Levant 26 (1994): 175–87; R. Hess, “Hurrians and Other Inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine,” Levant 29 (1997): 153–56.

20. Block states: “He was the most powerful of all the enemies of Israel named in the book. For him to have extended his tentacles as far as Judah in southern Canaan meant he was a world-class emperor, who held Canaan in his grip for at least eight years” (Judges, Ruth, 152). It may be a bit too much to characterize Cushan-Rishathaim as “a world-class emperor.”

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 149; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128. The lack of verbiage at this point is a significant indication of his outstanding quality (see the discussion concerning structure in the introduction).

22. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83.

23. See the extended footnote on this issue on p. 66, n. 17.

24. Block notes that the larger context of 1:11–15 is assumed in this story (Judges, Ruth, 150).

25. See also the discussion of Lindars, Judges 1–5, 131–34.

26. A. Malamat, “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East Around 1200 B.C.,” JNES 13 (1954): 231–42. Also see J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 179. Bright states: “But since a district of Qusana-ruma (Kûshân-rōm) is known in northern Syria (Aram) from a list of Ramesses III, the invasion may well have come from that quarter, possibly early in the twelfth century during the confusion attending the fall of the Nineteenth Dynasty. . . . But we cannot be certain.”

27. Boling, Judges, 81–82. See also now B. Oded, “Cushan-Rishathaim (Judges 3:8–10): An Implicit Polemic,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 89*–94* (Heb. with Eng. summary). But see footnote 18 above.

28. H. Hansler, “Die historische Umwelt des Richter 3, 8–10,” Bib 11 (1930): 391–418; 12 (1931) 3–26; 271–96, 395–410.

29. W. H. Shea, “Cushan-Rishathaim,” Catastrophism and Ancient History 14/2 (1992): 126–37.

30. Ibid., 126–37.

31. T. Muck, private communication.

32. For those scholars that perceive any historical core to the story. Many scholars believe the episode to be a contrived fiction. But the repeated traditions concerning Othniel as a Judahite (albeit Kenizzite) hero argue for caution in assuming the entire episode to be a fiction.

33. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 83.

34. Acsah (Othniel’s wife) and Deborah are the only females so positively portrayed.

35. Actually, none of the cyclical judge accounts are biographies.

1. For the satirical aspects of the story, see M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), 79–90, 190–97; L. K. Handy, “Uneasy Laughter: Ehud and Eglon and Ethnic Humor,” SJOT 6 (1992): 233–46; J. A. Soggin, “ʾEhud und ʿEglon: Bemerkingen zu Richter iii 11b–31,” VT 29 (1989): 95–100; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 39–40.

2. See in particular Webb, The Book of the Judges, 128–32; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 84–100; Y. Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30): The Form and the Message,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. C. Exum (Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 97–123.

3. The city itself may not have been occupied at the time in which the story is set. It has been suggested that this was a temporary occupation of the oasis at ʾAin es-Sultan.

4. Gros Louis, “The Book of Judges,” 147.

5. See, e.g., Webb, The Book of the Judges, 131; Soggin, Judges, 50; idem, “ʾEhud und ʿEglon,” 96–97; L. Alonso-Schökel, “Erzählkunst im Buche der Richter,” Bib 42 (1961): 143–72, esp. 148–49. Note also the Targum’s translation “withered” and the Syriac’s “crippled.”

6. B. Halpern, The First Historians, 41.

7. Block, Judges, Ruth, 161. See also H. N. Rösel, “Zur Ehud-Erzählung,” ZAW 89 (1977): 270–72, esp. 270.

8. The word translated “Benjamite” is ben-hay^emînî rather than the more typical ben-y^emînî. This phraseology suggests that the irony of the situation was not missed by the author (Block, Judges, Ruth, 160).

9. Halpern, The First Historians, 40–43.

10. The term ḥereb, translated “sword” by the NIV, can refer to an item as small as a razor-blade knife (Ezek. 5:1) to a long sword. Hence in this context “dagger” is the preferred translation.

11. The term gōmed is used only in Judg. 3:16. If it equaled a “cubit” (ʾammâ), then it would be 44.4 cm or 17.5 inches (based on the Egyptian “royal cubit”). But since ʾammâ is used 245 times in the Hebrew Bible, in addition to many extrabiblical occurrences, this raises significant doubt that a gōmed was roughly synonymous with an ʾammâ. Just as a pym (1 Sam. 13:21) was two-thirds of a shekel, so the gōmed may have been two-thirds of an ʾammâ (hence 29.6 cm. or 11.6 inches). See D. J. Wiseman, “Weights and Measures,” IBD, 3:1636; also G. Cornfeld and G. J. Botterweck, Die Bible und ihre Welt: Eine Enzyklopädie (6 vol.; Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972), 3:564. In the most recent study of the problem, Hartman argues that the blade of the dagger was a gōmed, roughly equivalent to one “fist” (another measure used in the ancient Near East), i.e., 10.95 cm. (4.32 inches) in length. Adding 10 cm. for the hilt, the dagger was 21 cm. (8.27 inches) in length. See T. A. G. Hartman, “ in Richter 3, 16 oder die Pygmäen im Dschungel der Längermasse,” ZAH 13 (2000): 188–93. In any case, it is doubtful that the dagger was a cubit in length.

12. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 39.

13. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 192 n. 27. See also Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30),” 97–123.

14. See Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30),” 102, 112–18; see also the KJV and JPSV translations.

15. Perhaps a type of kudurru (boundary stone); see Burney, Judges, 71. However, note the comments of Block, Judges, Ruth, 163.

16. G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on judges (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 94, 100; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 131.

17. E. G. H. Kraeling, “Difficulties in the Story of Ehud,” JBL 54 (1935): 205–10, esp. 206; Block, Judges, Ruth, 163; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 90. O’Connell points out that “whatever may have been the meaning of in the traditional account of Ehud, its recontextualization, so as to be interpreted in the light of deuteronomic standards, suggests that it should now be taken to refer to idols (cf. Deut. 4:16–18; 23; 7:25; 12:3)” (p. 90 n. 50).

18. The assumption that Eglon knows about Ehud’s movements, although we are not told this, is reasonable in view of the compressed narrative style (Webb, The Book of the Judges, 246 n. 29).

19. M. Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Deriviations and Puns, trans. P. Hackett (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 1991), 215.

20. This is not the more usual and polite use of “my lord” (ʾ ^adōnî) as in 1 Sam. 24:8 [9]; 26:17; 29:8; 2 Sam. 4:8; 13:33; etc.

21. It is interesting that the text dwells on the contrasting physical characteristics of Ehud (“left-handed”) and Eglon (“very fat”).

22. Ehud’s deception would work best if he were a person of nonimposing physical appearance. Hence Eglon had no particular reason to retain the guards in the throne room since there did not appear to be a reason to suspect any danger from this man. While we cannot obviously say anything definitive about Ehud’s physical statue, it is not too much of a stretch to say he must have been rather “ordinary.”

23. The Hebrew word dābār is ambiguous and can mean “word,” “message,” “thing,” or “matter.” The shifting modifiers (“secret”) and (“of God”) deliberately elevate this ambiguity. In fact, Ehud is clever in his use of the divine names. He uses “God” (ʾ ^elōhîm) when he speaks to Eglon, so as to not raise suspicions. He will use the covenantal name the “Lord” (Yahweh) when he calls up the Israelite troops (3:28).

24. The verse contains four clauses. The last and climatic clause is transferred to second place by the NIV and mistranslated.

25. The term happařs^edōnâ is a hapax legomenon. The NIV translates “his back,” but this is unlikely on a number of grounds. Many modern commentators understand this hapax (pařs^edōn) as meaning “excrement.” See M. L. Barré, “The Meaning of pršdn in Judges iii.22,” VT 41 (1991): 1–11. While this is not free from difficulties (in particular, the uses of the initial and final h), it seems to be the best explanation within the context. Some past commentators have emended the text to read pereš (feces) (e.g., Moore, Judges, 97–98; Rösel, “Ehud-Erzählung,” 272). O’Connell has suggested understanding pršdn as “anus” with the final h being a h-locative (i.e., “at the anus”). That the sentence contains a scatological type reference is clear in the context since it enables an explanation of the guards’ hesitation.

26. See Halpern, The First Historians, 40 and 69 n. 3. See the discussion in note 25 above. The loss of excrement on such occasions is not unusual. Note in Sennacherib’s inscriptions the description of the Elamite nobility in the midst of the battle of Halule: “When I saw that they had voided their excrement [in their chariots], I left them alone.” See A. K. Grayson, “The Walters Art Gallery Sennacherib Inscription, Archiv für Orientforschung 20 (1963): 83–96, esp. 94–95, line 100.

27. Halpern gives a detailed description of the palace based on archaeological evidence and proposes a means of escape for Ehud (The First Historians, 43–58). However, see Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 191 n. 11.

28. For toilets in ancient Israel, see J. Cahill et al., “It Had to Happen—Scientists Examine Remains of Ancient Bathroom,” BAR 17 (May/June 1991): 64–69; U. Hübner, “Mord auf dem Abort? Überlegungen zu Humor, Gewaltdarstellung und Realienkunde in Ri 3, 12–30,” BN 40 (1987): 130–40.

29. Halpern, The First Historians, 60.

30. Some scholars see sexual overtones in the scene of the execution of Eglon. See, e.g., Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 38–41; G. P. Miller, “Verbal Feud in the Hebrew Bible: Judges 3:12–30 and 19–21,” JNES 55 (1996): 105–17. However, it seems that most of these so-called sexual innuendos can be easily and more properly explained in the context of the scatological overtones (which are clearly present).

31. The killing of Eglon and the discovery of his corpse is anticipatory of the killing of Sisera by Jael and the discovery of Sisera by Barak in 4:22. The discovery scenes use the same basic structure. In light of this, the irony of Barak’s leadership of Israel is heightened since he is paralleled to the gullible, incompetent Moabite guards.

32. See note 17 above.

33. Webb notes that the use of the perfect tense here, “has given,” is not simply an instance of the customary use of the past tense to assure the troops that the victory is as good as won, but a reference to the tangible grounds for such assurance in this particular case: The Moabite tyrant has already been given into the hand of Ehud and lies dead in his chamber.

34. Alonso-Schökel, “Erzählkunst im Buche der Richter,” 149–50; D. M. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987), 115.

35. Note that it matches the Ammonite oppression in length (Judg. 10:8b).

36. The significance of the usage of the number eighty (obviously twice forty) is difficult to determine.

37. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 100.

38. This is not a tension found in the Othniel cycle, where the human agent and the divine will merge so comprehensively.

39. E.g., Klein, Triumph of Irony, 38.

40. Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30),” 120. O’Connell notes that while the attribution of Ehud’s success is reflected in the cycle framework statements, the inference that God helped Ehud probably existed already in the traditional account (see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 85 n. 41).

41. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 132.

42. Block, Judges, Ruth, 171.

43. In fact, Block questions even this line, stating: “How genuine his declaration was we may only speculate. The role of the cult images at Gilgal in this story raises questions about the singularity of his spiritual devotion” (Judges, Ruth, 170). To me, this is overstating the evidence. Even if the proper understanding of the term happ^esîlîm is “idols/cult images” (see discussion above), the text never states or implies that Ehud worshiped or consulted them for an oracle. The tension in the text is with Ehud’s method—his deception and brutality—not with a supposed idolatrous tendency.

44. The case of Samson is different because he is apathetic to saving Israel and seeks no assurance for this reason. But Barak wants assurance (wants Deborah to come along), Gideon wants lots of assurance through various signs, and Jephthah will attempt to manipulate God’s assurance through his rash, calculating vow.

45. All of these judges will manifest to some degree faith in Yahweh (otherwise there is a problem with the writer of Hebrews’ understanding of them; cf. Heb. 11:32).

1. Note esp. the one-two-three sequence discussed there.

2. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 132.

3. See, e.g., N. Shupak, “New Light on Shamgar ben ʿAnat,” Bib 70 (1989): 517–25.

4. Craigie adduces examples of the phrase ben ʿ ^anāt from Mari, Ugarit, and Egypt, in which it functions as a description of the person as one dedicated to the service of the goddess Anath. Since Anath was a goddess of war, the phrase could denote a mercenary. See P. C. Craigie, “A Reconsideration of Shamgar Ben Anath (Judg 3:31 and 5:6),” JBL 91 (1972): 239–40; see also Boling, Judges, 89.

5. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 39. The word is a biblical hapax but is used in postbiblical Hebrew to describe a pointer or guiding instrument (M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [Brooklyn: Pardes, 1950], 793). Hence in the construction in 3:31 (malmad habbāqār) it means “the guiding instrument/pointer of the cattle.”

6. See also the ambiguous statement concerning Tola in 10:1.

7. B. Maisler, “Shamgar ben ʿAnat,” PEQ 66 (1934): 192–94; Craigie, “A Reconsideration of Shamgar,” 239.

8. Soggin, Judges, 57. He argues that the name could be West Semitic (and therefore possibly Canaanite), if it is a shaphel form of mgr = “submit,” citing a seal inscription that includes the theophoric name mgrʾl. This would make it a reduced theophoric name, i.e., “the god brings into submission.”

9. F. C. Fensham, “Shamgar ben Anath,” JNES 20 (1961): 197–98. Fensham even translates “ben Anath” as “son of a Ḫanaean,” suggesting that Shamgar was related to a seminomadic group of Ḫanaeans (from the Mesopotamian city of Ḫanat), who migrated to Palestine.

10. See Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 216; Bright states: “Presumably he was a city king of Beth-anath in Galilee, perhaps the head of a confederacy, who by throwing back the Philistines saved himself—and Israel” (Bright, A History of Israel, 179).

11. Stadelmann, Syrisch-Palestinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Probleme der Ägyptologie 5; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 20ff.; 135ff.; Jaroslav Černý, Ancient Egyptian Religion (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1979), 126.

12. See G. Hamilton, “The El Khadr Arrowheads,” COS, 2.84.

13. Ibid., n. 6. See also F. M. Cross, “Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,” BASOR 238 (1980): 1–20, esp. 7. For occurrences of the term on another arrowhead and elsewhere, cf. W. W. Hallo and H. Tadmor, “A Lawsuit from Hazor,” IEJ 27 (1977): 1–11, esp. 4–5. See also B. Beem, “The Minor Judges: A Literary Reading of Some Very Short Stories,” in The Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. L. Younger Jr., W. W. Hallo, and B. F. Batto (ANETS 11; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 147–72, esp. 158–62.

14. See note 8 above. Note also a new Philistine inscription that reads: bnʿnt (ben ʿAnat). See S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 47 (1997): 1–16, esp. 13–14.

15. Shupak, “New Light on Shamgar ben ʿAnat,” 523.

* Note that although this Song of Deborah and Barak is set up differently from the NIV, the translation used here is the NIV.

1. D. F. Murray, “Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story, Judges iv 4–22,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 155–89; Y. Amit, “Judges 4: Its Contents and Form,” JSOT 39 (1987): 89–111.

2. The phrase “after Ehud died” is probably better translated as a pluperfect, “after Ehud had died.”

3. Not to be confused with the Jabin, the king of Hazor, in Josh. 11. The name “Jabin” may possibly be a “dynastic name,” similar to “Ramesses” in Egypt, “Henry” in English history, and “Louis” in French history. See K. L. Younger Jr. “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?! Contextual Method and Intertextual Analysis: Judges 4 and 5,” in The Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. L. Younger, W. W. Hallo, and B. F. Batto (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 133 n. 90.

4. The precise location of the town is unknown. The name Harosheth Haggoyim probably means “cultivated field of the Gentiles.” See further A. F. Rainey, “Toponymic Problems,” Tel Aviv 10 (1983): 46–48; idem, “The Military Camp Ground at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo,” ErIsr 15 (1981): 61*–66*. The name may play a literary role as an intimation of the involvement of the nations (gôyīm).

5. Boling suggests that these were esp. sturdy chariots constructed with iron fittings (Boling, “Judges, Book of,” 3:1109). Millard thinks they were chariots with perhaps three or four thin plates hung over the front to protect the charioteer’s legs, which his hauberk did not cover (Millard, “Back to the Iron Bed,” 194–95). Cf. also 1:19 above.

6. For more on the archaeological background to Judges 4–5, see L. E. Stager, “Archaeology, Ecology, and Social History: Background Themes to the Song of Deborah,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1984, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 221–33.

7. Cf. Judg. 1:19.

8. Some have argued that perhaps this explains the origin of iron technology. However, for a more recent critique within the Hittite context, see S. Košak, “The Gospel of Iron,” in Kaniššuwar: A Tribute to Hans G. Güterbock on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. H. A. Hoffner and G. A. Beckman (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1986), 125–35.

9. The same verb (lḥṣ) is used here as in 1:34, where the Amorites confine (lḥṣ) the Danites to the hill country.

10. This location (between Ramah and Bethel) was relatively far away from Hazor. Kedesh Naphtali, Barak’s home, was close to Hazor. This heightens the irony that the one far away is the one who takes the initiative to deliver those whose “general” lives near the palace of the oppressor king and the home of the oppressing general, Sisera. The mention of Ephraim is also significant because it links the Deborah and Barak cycle to Ehud (the hill country of Ephraim was where Ehud sounded his trumpet and led the volunteers to victory at the fords, 3:27).

11. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 107–8.

12. For a discussion of the etymology of the term, see D. E. Fleming, “The Etymological Origins of the Hebrew nābîʾ: The One Who Invokes God,” CBQ 55 (1993): 217–24.

13. E.g., A. E. Cundall states: “Deborah was the savior of her people and the only woman in the distinguished company of the Judges” (Judges: An Introduction and Commentary [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968], 82 [see also p. 95]).

14. E.g., Soggin, Judges, 72.

15. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 107–8. See also Block, who gives twelve arguments against Deborah being understood as a “judge” in the delivering sense of the word.

16. Block, Judges, Ruth, 197.

17. Ibid.

18. Is there some irony in Yahweh’s command to take ten thousand men in light of the use of this figure in earlier contexts? To the original reader this must have raised an eyebrow since the figure was used to describe the number of Canaanite and Moabite dead. Is God assuring Barak (that much the more that), in spite of the figure, that he is to be trusted? With God’s involvement, the figure is not a symbol of defeat, but victory.

19. B. Lindars, “Deborah’s Song: Women in the Old Testament,” BJRL 65 (1982–83): 158–75, esp. 161, 164.

20. Note Boling’s discussion (Judges, 96).

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 199.

22. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 108.

23. Perhaps Sisera learns of Barak’s movements through Heber. This would only enrich the irony of what is to transpire.

24. These two instances of assurance foreshadow the two assurances through the fleece incidents of Gideon (see below). O’Connell notes also the use of the term qûm (arise) twice in the narrative (4:9, 14). It is used in 4:9b to describe the action of only Deborah when she arises (qûm) to go with Barak after rebuking him for his reluctance to follow Yahweh’s instructions. Later, it is used again by Deborah, who prompts Barak to arise (qûm) and follow Yahweh into battle (4:14a), so that Barak comes to be seen as a deliverer who will not “be raised up to save” apart from the initiatives and actions of a woman (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 108).

25. The Song of Deborah below will detail Yahweh’s intervention in poetic terms.

26. The situation appears to be one in which there is no treaty, but good relations prevailing between the urban center of Hazor and tent-dwelling people of Heber. Hence, Sisera flees to the tent of Jael the Kenite. The text explicitly states that there was šālôm between the two parties. Even if no formal treaty existed, the state of šālôm probably means that a fugitive could find asylum with the other party (see D. J. Wiseman, “ ‘Is It Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy,” VT 32 [1982]: 314).

27. Perhaps Jael (“mountain goat”) gave him goat’s milk.

28. Murray, “Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story,” 180.

29. Though undoubtedly not like Sisera, who entered expecting refuge, Barak is unsure of possible danger and expects the worst.

30. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 163.

31. For more explication of this, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 201.

32. Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative, 41) points out that the words “drive” (tqʿ ) and “peg” (yātēd) will recur in the Samson story, where Delilah will fasten (tqʿ ) Samson’s hair with a pin (yātēd) (16:14). Hence, Samson appears in the same position as Sisera!

33. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 137.

34. Ibid.

35. I am using the traditional heading as a descriptive for the song (as in The NIV Study Bible). The statement in 5:1, “On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song,” provides the narrative setting for the song and does not speak directly to the issues of authorship. There are a number of reasons according to the traditional view why Deborah is seen as responsible for the song’s composition (see Block, Judges, Ruth, 214–15), not least of which is the significant use of the first-person singular pronouns. But because of the poetic nature of the song, one must be cautious of attributing authorship on such grounds. See footnote 42.

36. One of the most recent analyses argues that the distribution of stylistic characteristics throughout the entire song indicate that it was composed at one time, as a unit. See H.-D. Neef, “Der Stil des Deboraliedes (Ri 5),” ZAH 8 (1995): 275–93. Neef dates the song’s composition around 1025 B.C. See now also Block, Judges, Ruth, 211–18.

37. Two important analyses that underlie the exposition here are J. P. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak: Its Prosodic Levels and Structure,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 595–628; and M. D. Coogan, “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,” CBQ 40 (1978): 143–66. For bibliography on the song, which is massive, see Younger, “Heads, Tails or the Whole Coin?!” 136–37, 143–46.

38. Fokkelman’s analysis (“The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 626–28) yields twenty strophes and seven stanzas. On a higher level, he sees the poem having three sections (vv. 2–8, 9–23, 24–31). But it seems clear to me that there are five acts on a level between the stanzas and Fokkelman’s sections.

39. Kempinski points out the important fact that “the references to Israel are numerous especially in vv. 1–11. Such an archaic song, even if put into written form in the early monarchic period, could not be altered so greatly as to add the name ‘Israel’ to almost ever line in these verses” (“Review of Gösta Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites?” IEJ 41 [1991]: 297–99). In fact, the name Israel occurs eight times in the poem, all in verses 1–11. See D. Block, “ ‘Israel’—‘Sons of Israel’: A Study in Hebrew Eponymic Usage,” SR 13 (1984): 301–26.

40. The word brk is often translated “bless.” It means “to fortunately empower.” When used to describe what a human being does to God, it has the meaning “to declare or acknowledge the origin or source of fortunate empowerment,” hence, “to praise.”

41. The difficulty lies in the term p^erāʿôt, which has a clear Akkadian cognate (pirtu, hair) and occurs in a similar context. See W. W. Hallo, “The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry,” RAI 17 (1969): 132.

42. Fokkelman points out the use of the “lyrical I” (“The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 601). In the context, according to 5:1, this “I” would be Deborah (note that the verb watāšar in this verse is feminine singular, referring to Deborah; cf. also 5:7). See footnote 35.

43. An epiphany is a revelatory manifestation esp. of a divine being.

44. Seir is used as a synonym for Edom.

45. The last line of each strophe in Stanza I (vv. 3c and 5b) ends with the phrase “the Lord, the God of Israel.” Note the great similarity of the epiphany in this strophe and epiphanies in Ps. 68:7–8[8–9] and Hab. 3:3.

46. The former seems preferred since it is reused with this meaning in v. 6d.

47. “Warriors” seems preferred in the context with the word’s reuse in verse 11c. Note the NRSV, which translates the last two lines: “The peasantry prospered in Israel, they grew fat on plunder.” Thus, these two lines would allude to a time of victory, not oppression. This translation is based on understanding ḥādal as being from a second root ḥdl meaning “to grow fat.” However, this does not seem to fit the context as well.

48. The line is difficult syntactically. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 226–27, although his solution is somewhat forced.

49. See O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 113–14.

50. This may have subtle royal overtones since rulers often rode on donkeys. The NIV’s “white” donkeys is doubtful; “tawny” is a better translation of the term.

51. The exact meaning of m^eḥaṣṣîm is uncertain.

52. The phrase “whose roots were in Amalek” might better be “thither into the valley.”

53. For the best detailed explanation of Dan and the phrase “why did he linger by the ships?” see A. F. Rainey, “Who Is a Canaanite?” BASOR 304 (1996): 1–15.

54. This same picture is observable in the famous Merneptah Stela, which contains the earliest extrabiblical reference to Israel. See J. K. Hoffmeier, “The (Israel) Stela of Merneptah,” COS, 2.6; idem, Egypt in Israel: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 27–31.

55. The noninvolvement of certain tribes may allude to some type of military confederation within early Israel. That is, there must be a basis on which tribes can be chastened for their noninvolvement, which seems to imply a tribal, military-type confederation.

56. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 614.

57. Ibid., 615.

58. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 234–36. For a different interpretation, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 237–38.

59. This malʾak yhwh seems to refer to the angelic figure who appears to perform both a leadership and protective function in leading Israel through the desert and into the land of Canaan (Ex. 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2; Judg. 2:1–5). See H.-D. Neef, “Meroz: Jdc 5, 23a,” ZAW 107 (1995): 118–22.

60. Ibid.

61. Following this logic, Neef’s argument seems correct, namely that Meroz lay in immediate proximity to the territory where the battle of Deborah and Barak transpired (i.e., in the region between Mount Tabor and the Kishon River, the south Jezreel Plain). See ibid.

62. Block, Judges, Ruth, 239.

63. Her act is praiseworthy and unique because she is not an Israelite (5:24b reminds the reader); her act, however, makes her an Israelite, poetically speaking. In this respect, she is parallel to another non-Israelite woman, Ruth.

64. Poetically specified as “curdled milk” (ḥemʾâ), a type of curds/yogurt. See C. Grottanelli, “Aspetti simbolici del latte nella bibbia,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17–19, 1990, ed. L. Milano (Padova: Sargon, 1994), 381–97, esp. 391–96; idem, “The Story of Deborah and Barak: A Comparative Approach,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni N.S. 11 (1987): 311–16.

65. Strophe 16 is the only syndetic one of the stanza (i.e., the only one that uses the waw conjunction) to emphasize the narrative, sequential flow of Jael’s action.

66. J. K. Hoffmeier, “Some Egyptian Motifs Related to Warfare and Enemies and Their Old Testament Counterparts,” in Egyptological Miscellanies: A Tribute to Professor Ronald J. Williams, ed. J. K. Hoffmeier & E. S. Meltzer (Ancient World 6; Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1983), 156–74.

67. K. L. Younger Jr., “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?!” 131.

68. A. J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. Follis (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 265–84, esp. 278–79.

69. Cf. the description of the death of Eglon. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 135–37.

70. Block, Judges, Ruth, 242.

71. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 623.

72. See D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “Controlling Perspectives: Women, Men and the Authority of Violence in Judges 4 and 5,” JAAR 58 (1990) 389–411.

73. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 624. He further notes “Whether reḥem with its pataḥ vowels means “womb” (elsewhere raḥam) or “darling” does not matter very much; what counts is the humiliating, reducing point of view” (624 n. 68).

74. Block, Judges, Ruth, 243.

75. Ibid.

76. Fokkelman, “The Song of Deborah and Barak,” 625. For a similar use of the root gbr, see 2 Sam. 1.

77. See K. L. Younger Jr., “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?!” 109–45.

78. See also the mention of this event in 1 Sam. 12:9–11.

79. Block, Judges, Ruth, 209.

80. Ibid., 209–10. This comment seems to be based on the narrative alone (i.e., ch. 4) without integrating the statements concerning Jael in the song of ch. 5. However, note that later in his commentary Block argues that the author’s intention in the Jael/Sisera scene is to “glorify God whose mysterious but providential hand produces the victory” (p. 241 n. 446).

81. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 110.

82. Ibid., 112–13.

83. This motif can already be observed in the book of Joshua in the dealing with the various Canaanite kings/leaders (Josh. 8:29; 10:16–27, 28, 30, 37, 38–39; 11:10, 12, 17).

84. Some interpreters argue that Jael was an Israelite. But it seems on the parallel with Shamgar in the Song of Deborah and the association with the Kenite clan that it is more likely that she was a non-Israelite. The name (yʿl) does not contain the Yahwistic theophoric element.

85. Cf. Ex. 20:5–6.

86. Neither Deborah nor Jael are involved in the actual combat in the battle between Sisera and Barak. Their roles are on either end of the battle (Deborah before the actual fighting takes place, Jael after the major part of the battle is over). Thus, neither one is a warrior figure (contra G. Yee, “By the Hand of a Woman: The Metaphor of the Woman Warrior in Judges 4,” Semeia 61 [1993]: 99–132).

87. With the fall of Berlin in 1945 to the Soviet army, an estimated 100,000 rapes of women occurred by Russian troops in the conquered city. There is no way of knowing the astounding number of Russian women raped by German troops during the Nazi occupation of Russian territory.

1. See J. P. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges,” BSac 149 (1992): 146–61; idem, “Textual Patterning in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Case Study in Judges 6–8” (Ph.D. diss.; Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1990).

2. The narrative development seems to be clearly based on Lev. 26 and Deut. 28.

3. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 145.

4. This becomes clear from the fact that while they are crying out to Yahweh, they are continuing to worship Baal at cult sites like the one in Ophrah that belonged to Gideon’s father, Joash (Judg. 6:25–32).

5. Obscured by the NIV translation is the sevenfold usage of first-person singular pronouns in a framing construction that emphasizes Yahweh’s integrity. See M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (AUUSSU 12; Uppsala: Uppsala Univ. Press, 1990), 78 n. 54.

6. Again it should be emphasized that the clause “Israel cried out to Yahweh” does not mean a repentance on the Israelites’ part.

7. Gideon’s fear of the Midianites (6:11) will be paralleled by his fear of the people of his village (6:27).

8. Adapted from Klein, Triumph of Irony, 51.

9. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 149, n. 184.

10. This interpretation is reinforced in the context by the preceding indictment of the Israelites by the prophet. These preceding verses enhance the negative tone of Gideon’s response.

11. In spite of Gideon’s argument here, it is clear that from the standpoint of his father, Joash, who appears to have been a man of considerable wealth and standing in the community, this is not entirely accurate—at least in the impression that it attempts to convey.

12. Klein develops the comparisons in her analysis of the passage (Triumph of Irony, 51).

13. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 149 n. 184.

14. These requests all occur before the first battle. In keeping with the narrative’s tendency toward pairs, there will be a pair of requests for signs by Gideon. The first request is narrated here, and the second request for a sign occurs in the pair of fleece incidents below.

15. For some similarities between the sacrifice of Gideon and the sacrifice of Manoah, see Y. Zakovitch, “The Sacrifice of Gideon (Jud 6, 11–24) and the Sacrifice of Manoaḥ (Jud 13),” Shnaton 1 (1975): 151–54, xxv (Hebrew; English summary); A. G. Auld, “Gideon: Hacking at the Heart of the Old Testament,” VT 39 (1989): 257–67, esp. 257–58.

16. Block, Judges, Ruth, 263.

17. The miraculous fire introduces a motif that will recur throughout the Gideon/Abimelech cycle (6:26; 7:16, 20; 9:15, 20, 49).

18. In this phrase there is an echo of the Jacob story at the Jabbok (Gen. 32:23–32), but there are also major differences between the stories overall.

19. For the socioreligious practice of building altars in open contexts, cf. the “Bull site” in Manasseh, an open cult place of Iron Age I (Mazar, “The Bull Site,” 27–42).

20. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 148–49.

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 265.

22. This pair of deities was mentioned earlier in the first of the in-group judges, Othniel (Judg. 3:7). Here they are mentioned in connection with the very household of the first of the out-group judges.

23. The syntax of the first clause in v. 25 is not entirely clear, and the mention of a “second” bull seems problematic (why mention the “second” when only one bull is offered?). Some scholars have resolved this by understanding the phrase “the second bull” as a later scribal insertion. Others have attempted to explain the phrase as meaning “bull of high rank” (see Block’s discussion, Judges, Ruth, 266). However, the reference to “the second bull” may well serve a literary function in the narrative through the binary force of the passage: second altar to Yahweh, second bull (i.e., the number two bull that is seven years old—the perfect sacrifice in this instance).

24. Block, Judges, Ruth, 267.

25. It is ironic that the sentence which should have been imposed on the idolaters (Deut. 13:1–18 [Heb. 13:2–19]) is pronounced on the one who destroyed the idol. The irony in Israel’s response to Gideon’s actions will be heightened in the later narrative where the Israelites demand the Benjamites to hand over the men who had done the crime in Gibeah (20:12–13)

26. Note the interchange of subject for these two clauses: “the Lord” and “I.”

27. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative As the Focal Point of Judges,” 158.

28. The choice of the term in 6:34 builds a contrastive wordplay between the Spirit’s “clothing” Gideon and the article of “clothing” (i.e., the ephod) that Gideon later produces (8:27). See also next note.

29. Waldman has demonstrated that the Spirit’s clothing of Gideon reflects a wellknown ancient Near Eastern idiom that describes an individual as clothed/covered/overwhelmed by a divine or demonic force. See N. M. Waldman, “The Imagery of Clothing, Covering, and Overpowering,” JANES 19 (1989): 161–70. See also previous note.

30. D. I. Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration under Tribal Rule,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 52.

31. In-Group judges: Othniel (3:10): “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him” (hyh ʿl, lit., “was upon”). Out Group judges: Gideon (6:34): “The Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon” (lbš ʾt, lit., “clothed”); Jephthah (11:29): “Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah” (hyh ʿl, lit., “was upon”); Samson (14:6): “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power” (ṣlḥ ʿl, lit., “rushed upon); (14:19), “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power” (ṣlḥ ʿl, lit., “rushed upon); (15:14), “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power” (ṣlḥ ʿl, lit., “rushed upon). JPSV translates ṣlḥ as “gripped.” See also 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 18:10. Perhaps in a contrastive context, note Abimelech (9:23): “God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem” (ṣlḥ byn). I treat 13:25 as a different and special case. The vocabulary and syntax are uniquely different from the other instances in the book of Judges and hence the meaning is altogether different in this context.

32. In this light, it is informative to compare Gideon’s fleecings with Jephthah’s vow. Both are manipulative; both are utterly unnecessary.

33. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 416.

34. Block, Judges, Ruth, 273.

35. Ibid.

36. For a brief but helpful discussion of divination, especially in the Mesopotamian context, see A. K. Guinan, “Divination,” in COS, 1:421–26. For a discussion of the proof by token type of divination, see M. Dijkstra, “KTU 1.6 (= CTA).III.1FF. and the So-called Zeichenbeweiss,” VT 35 (1985): 105–9.

37. John Walton, personal communication.

38. Block, Judges, Ruth, 273. In addition, Gideon admits that he is testing God, and this reminds the reader of Israel’s testing of God in the desert (Ex. 17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Ps. 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14).

39. Deut. 20:8 states: “Then the officers shall add, ‘Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too.” It is ironic in this context that one of the tests for eliminating unnecessary Israelite warriors (viz., “fear”) is the very problem that affects the leader, Gideon, himself.

40. For the complex textual difficulties in 7:6, see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 467–69.

41. Boling, Judges, 145. Of course, wild animals drink from springs this way all the time with alertness to what is around them.

42. The construction w^ehinnēh + subj. + ptc. = “just then.”

43. Note the use of another “pair.”

44. The dream is absurd: A round loaf of barley bread tumbles into the Midianite camp, smashing into the tent with such force that it overturns and collapses. The divinatory type interpretation (remember, this is a Midianite doing the interpreting) happens to match perfectly Yahweh’s earlier words.

45. In light of this, Barak’s lack of faith seems like nothing compared to Gideon’s.

46. This phrase lyhwh wlgdʿwn (“for Yahweh and for Gideon”) is no doubt literarily anticipatory of things to come. It is paralleled syntactically to a new inscription discovered at Ekron that reads: lbʿl wlpdy (“for Baʿal and for Padi”). Interestingly, the editors of this inscription discuss the syntax of “for ‘Divine Name’ and for ‘Royal Name.’ ” In light of this new inscription one must wonder if the narrator is using a stock phrase to make a subtle royal illusion in the text. See S. Gitin and M. Cogan, “A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 49 (1999): 193–202. See also C. R. Krahmalkov, “The Foundation of Carthage, 814 B.C.: The Douïmès Pendant Inscription,” JSS 26 (1981): 85–86. He interprets this form as the soldier’s oath of allegiance to God and ruler.

47. Surprise night attacks do not always succeed. Much depends on the vigilance and disposition of the enemy.

48. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative As the Focal Point of Judges,” 159.

49. Some interpreters understand Gideon’s mobilization of the Israelites in both stages of the pursuit to be indications of his reliance on human strength and strategy rather than his reliance on God’s guidance. For example, see Klein, Triumph of Irony, 57–58; Block, Judges, Ruth, 283–84. However, on the basis of analogy with the story of the pursuit in the Ehud cycle, this may not be correct.

50. Gideon’s generous and timely compliment to the Ephraimites (8:2) that “the gleaning of Ephraim’s grapes [is] better than the full grape harvest of Abiezer” is not just a clever allusion to their slaughter of Zeeb at a winepress (7:25), but also recalls the beginning of the story, where Gideon himself is skulking in another winepress (6:11).

51. Block, Judges, Ruth, 286. Block also notes that Gideon refers to God as Elohim rather than Yahweh and is silent on Yahweh’s call of him as the leader to deliver Israel.

52. No doubt this is where certain preachers and teachers stop in their reading of the Gideon account!

53. The names Zebah and Zalmunna appear to be pejoratives or distortions, like Cushan-Rishathaim in 3:8. Zebah means “sacrifice,” and Zalmunna means “shelter/protection refused.” The names obviously apply to the kings’ outcomes. Zebah and Zalmunna are designated “kings” (m^elākîm), while Oreb and Zeeb are designated “leaders” (śārîm.) This creates a link with the previous Deborah/Barak cycle, where Jabin is designated as “king” (melek) and Sisera as “commander” (śar).

54. The question that the leaders (śārîm) of Succoth ask is literally: “Is the palm [kap] of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand [yād]?” This refers to the ancient Near Eastern military practice of counting the dead on the battlefield by the number of hands (cut off). Thus they are asking: “Have you already defeated Zebah and Zalmunna so that they are no longer a threat (with the implication that he may not succeed in this)?” This reaction of the Transjordanians contrasts sharply with their Cisjordanian countrymen, who responded immediately to Gideon’s summons in 7:23.

55. In the case of Succoth, Gideon glibly invokes the name of Yahweh and threatens to take the law into his own hands by beating (rather than NIV, “tear”) their bodies with switches of desert thorns (qôṣîm) and briars (barqānîm), like a man beats grain on the threshing floor. In the case of Penuel, he declares his intention to tear down their defensive tower. For these plants, see K. L. Younger Jr., “,” NIDOTTE, 1:770–71; idem, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:907.

56. Boling, Judges, 158.

57. Webb states: “Gideon is the first judge to turn the sword against his compatriots” (The Book of the Judges, 158). The domestic clashes continue with Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson. Along with Gideon’s ephod and the theme of monarchy, they set the stage, so to speak, for the double conclusion with its domestic wars and atrocities (Judg. 17–21).

58. Although there has been no mention of a battle at Tabor in the Gideon cycle, the seven years of hostilities alluded to in 6:1–5 may provide a possible context. Boling argues that the question in 8:18 “is intended to be as startling as it sounds” (Judges, 157). The explanation for Gideon’s behavior is held back until the climax so that it might strike the reader with greatest force.

59. The two Midianite kings are defiant to the very end, unlike the lord of Bezeq in 1:5–7, who recognized Yahweh’s justice being applied in his case. However, these executions are the work of Gideon’s private vengeance.

60. Block calls Gideon’s use of the oath “as the Lord lives,” “a glib reference to Yahweh to sanctify his personal vendetta” (Judges, Ruth, 295).

61. There is also a contrast in the dialogue of Gideon with the Ephraimites after the first battle, which results in no further action (8:1–3), and his dialogue with the leaders of the two Israelite cities (8:4–9), which results in vengeful overreaction (8:13–17).

62. The term ʿābar can be used to designate a violation or transgression of God’s law or covenant.

63. This does not excuse the people of Succoth and Penuel from helping Gideon and his men; they should have helped. But Gideon’s response is one of vengeance, and it is disgusting in light of where he had come from.

64. Nevertheless, Gideon’s answer is the interpretive key for the double conclusion’s refrain “in those days there was no king. . . .” It demonstrates that the term melek (“king”) has a double entrende: not only is there a lack of a human monarch, but more importantly in the context of the covenant theocracy, there is no spiritual king (which, of course, should be Yahweh!). This heightens the second part of the refrain “and every man did what was right in his own eyes,” which is far more comprehensible when one understands melek to refer to the Lord. Simply having a human king does not deter people from “doing what is right in their own eyes.”

65. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” 114.

66. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 152.

67. The parenthetical statement at the end of verse 24 notes that it was “the custom of the Ishmaelites to wear gold earrings.” The term “Ishmaelites” is probably used as a parallel designation or a metonymy in general for “the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples” (6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; cf. Gen. 37:25–36; 39:1). In fact, the designation “the eastern peoples” (b^ebê qedem) is used as a summarizing appositive: “Midian and Amalek, the easterners”; see Boling, Judges, 124–25.

68. For the shekel weight (11.4 grams or .4 ounces), see R. Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (JSOTSup 276; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

69. See Gunn’s discussion and note the prohibition of Deut. 17:17 against a king amassing for himself silver and gold (“Joshua and Judges,” 114).

70. CAD, E, 183. Interestingly, the Old Assyrian epattu is equivalent to Hittite ipantu. One Hittite text refers to an ipantu of silver (i.e., “a garment of silver”). This could indicate that silver was used for the garment’s ornamentation or that the garment itself was made out of silver fibers. See H. A. Hoffner Jr., “Hittite Equivalents of Old Assyrian kumrum and epattum,” WZKM 86 (1996): 154–56.

71. As suggested by A. E. Cundall, Judges: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968), 123. Compare the Hittite garment (ipantu) described in the previous note.

72. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 64; Block, Judges, Ruth, 300.

73. Block, Judges, Ruth, 300. For similar interpretations, see Klein, Triumph of Irony, 64–65; Boling, Judges, 158; Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 299.

74. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 152–53.

75. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 64–65.

76. Block, Judges, Ruth, 300.

77. Perhaps the image is supposed to represent Gideon himself, clothed with the Spirit of Yahweh.

78. As a replacement for the Baal altar and Asherah pole? In effect, the altar of Yahweh and Gideon’s ephod served this purpose.

79. The motif of ignorance of God’s law and its devastating results will recur in the Jephthah and Samson cycles. The Out-group judges show ignorance of the law (Torah) again and again. In the cases of Gideon and Jephthah, there may have been some right motivations (though tainted here and there with improper ones). In the case of Samson, he is ignorant and doesn’t seem to care.

80. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 65.

81. Gideon’s production, from plundered gold, of an illegitmate cult object that later becomes an object of Israel’s (Manasseh’s) cultic deviation foreshadows the scenario involving Micah’s making from stolen silver the private cult objects that the Danites come to worship in Judg. 17–18. See O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 153.

82. Block understands this as a subtle indication of Gideon’s rule as king (Judges, Ruth, 300–301).

83. Cf. the seventy vassal kings of the lord of Bezeq in 1:7 and the seventy sons/grandsons of Abdon in 12:14. The number “seventy” may have been used in the ancient Near East as symbolic of an ideal or perfect royal household. For example, the Samalian Aramaic inscription of Panamuwa refers to the killing of the “seventy brothers of his father” (see K. L. Younger Jr., “The Panamuwa Inscription,” COS, 2.37). Cf. also 2 Kings 10:1–11, which mentions the execution of the seventy sons of Ahab. In this case, the number plays an “actual” role in the story since in Judg. 9:5, Abimelech will murder his “seventy brothers” with the help of “seventy empty and reckless men,” hired with “seventy pieces of silver” donated by the Shechemites to Abimelech. For further discussion, see J. C. de Moor, “Seventy!” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollagen, ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (AOAT 250; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1998), 199–203; and F. C. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat,” PEQ 109 (1977): 113–15.

84. Jacob had two wives plus two concubines, who gave birth to twelve sons; David had eight wives plus concubines that gave birth to nineteen sons. Thus it seems reasonable to posit that Gideon must have had, at the least, fourteen and perhaps as many as thirty wives!

85. Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” 50. There may be an even deeper level of wordplay in the name; see J. P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 33–45, esp. 33–34.

1. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 38.

2. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 154.

3. Ibid., 159.

4. T. J. Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” JBL 115 (1996): 401–23.

5. It is possible that the Shechemite deity El Berith is represented by one of the bronze idols discovered in excavations at Shechem (ibid., 423).

6. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 174.

7. Cf. 1:24, where the phrase ʿāśâ ḥesed (to show loyalty/faithfulness) occurs.

8. The use is extensive: 9:2, 3, 6, 7, 23 (2x), 24, 25, 26, 39, 46, 47, 51 (reference not to Shechem but Thebez). Note that in 9:57 the naming is changed from “the citizens/nobles of Shechem” (baʿ ^alêš^ekem) to “the men of Shechem” (ʾanšēš^ekem). Fokkelman argues that this may have been to honor God, who is the agent there and has let nemesis take its course in order to fulfill Jotham’s curse (“Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 35 n. 7). Note the similar expression in Josh. 24:11 and 1 Sam. 23:11–12. In both Judg. 9 and 1 Sam. 23 it describes a group or assembly that makes decisions for Shechem and Keilah. Such an expression occurs at Amarna and Ugarit, where it refers to a group distinguished from the king or chief leader (Moran, The Amarna Letters, 175, n. 5). The usage is also observable in Phoenician and Old Aramaic inscriptions.

9. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 143–46.

10. The words translated “clan” are different (ʾelep in 6:15 and mišpaḥâ in Judg. 9:1) but are synonyms (cf. their usages in 1 Sam. 10:19, 21).

11. Abimelech was certainly of the spiritual mold of Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Note that the number seventy is used in this murderous vignette too. Moreover, there are a number of similarities and differences between Abimelech’s murder of his brothers and Jehu’s murder of the sons of Ahab (2 Kings 10). See Block, Judges, Ruth, 312–13.

12. The total disregard for the fifth commandment (“honor your father and mother”) is evident.

13. Beth Millo may refer to an earth-filled platform on which walls and other large structures were built, perhaps here identical to the stronghold in 9:46 (Boling, Judges, 171).

14. Cf. NRSV, “by the oak of the pillar” (cf. Josh. 24:26).

15. Jether, Gideon’s eldest child (8:20), and Jotham, his youngest son, stand in contrast to their father and Abimelech. Thus Jether vs. Gideon is parallel to Jotham vs. Abimelech.

16. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 155–56.

17. HALOT, 375.

18. For the olive tree and the vine, see Rafael Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries (JSOTMS 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

19. The identity of these three is not important to the fable, since it is the fourth item that is the climax and focus of the fable. Two features—the breaking of an established rhetorical pattern and a content variation (i.e., the offer is not made to a valued member of the forest family)—have a significant rhetorical function. They indicate that verses 14–15 are the most important part, the rhetorical climax or focus of Jotham’s presentation. See G. S. Ogden, “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9,” BT 46 (1995): 301–8, esp. 303.

20. Ironically, the phrase “in your/his shade” is used in the ancient Near East to mean “under the special protection of the king”—one of the traditional roles of monarchs. Compare the following passage from an Akkadian poem: “O the shade of the cedar, the shade of the cedar, the shelter of kings! O the cypress shade of the magnates! The shade of a sprig of juniper is shelter for my darling Nabu and for my fun and games!” See A. Livingstone, “Love Lyrics of Nabu and Tashmetu,” in COS, 1.128.

21. The thornbush (ʾāṭād) can be identified with the Ziziphus spinachristi, a plant common in the northern part of Israel, especially on the eastern slopes of the adjacent plains of Samaria or with the Rubus species, a thorny and prickly plant. See K. L. Younger Jr., “,” NIDOTTE, 1:363–64. In the “Aramaic Wisdom of Ahiqar” there is a conversation between the bramble and the pomegranate tree.

22. Thus the first conditional clause, despite its positive form, is actually a null condition. It is the second conditional clause that indicates the point Jotham wishes to make, namely, that they acted in bad faith by making Abimelech their king.

23. And thus the only “legitimate heir” to Gideon’s rule disappears permanently from the scene.

24. In Gen. 34 (another story of Israelites and Shechem), it is “three” days between the time that a covenant is established and a devastating calamity comes on the city.

25. The phrase rûaḥ rāʿâ appears to have the nuance of “calamitous spirit.” This phrase is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 16:14–23; 18:10–12; 19:9; 2 Kings 19:7) and appears to indicate that this “bad,” “calamitous spirit” produces negative and destructive effects on the object, i.e., unpropitious conditions. Here this rûaḥ rāʿâ produces enmity, distrust, and bad faith between Abimelech and the Shechemites. For further discussion see Block, Judges, Ruth, 323–324; idem, “Empowered by the Spirit of God: The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Historiographic Writings of the Old Testament,” SBJT 1 (1997): 42–61.

26. Again, following O’Connell’s observations (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 143–50).

27. This verb is the eighth and climactic verb in the series of verbs describing the activities of the Shechemites.

28. Hamor was the Hivite ruler before the Israelites ever settled in or around Shechem, according to Gen. 33:19; 34:1–31; Josh. 24:32. Thus if Abimelech could play the ethnicity card, so could Gaal.

29. Cf. Ezek. 38:12. The NIV’s “the center of the land” has commonly been understood as “the navel of the earth,” which may have been a reference to Mount Gerizim, the center of the land of Canaan. Eshel and Erlich have identified the phrase used here with Ras e-Tagur, on the southwestern corridor of Jebel el-Kabir, northeast of Shechem. See H. Eshel and Z. Erlich, “Abimelech’s First Battle with the Lords of Shechem and the Question of the Navel of the Land,” Tarbiz 58 (1988–1989): 111–16. Block has recently argued that the phrase in question should be understood as “elevated ground” and refers to some “elevated plateau without external fortifications” (Judges, Ruth, 328–29).

30. Arumah was apparently Abimelech’s base of operations. Most scholars feel that Arumah sat on top of Jebel el-ʿUrmeh.

31. From the following incidents, it is clear that opponents to Abimelech are still in certain quarters of the city.

32. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 148–53.

33. For the destruction and salting of cities in the ancient world, see S. Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem: A Religio-Literary Aspect of City Destruction,” VT 13 (1963): 52–62. Compare the Roman salting of the land after the destruction of Carthage in the Third Punic War.

34. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 148–53.

35. L. E. Stager has recently reassessed the archaeological data concerning the temple structures at Shechem and concluded that G. E. Wright’s temple 2, which he associated with the temple of El-/Baʿal-Berith, was actually part of a ninth-eighth century B.C. building known as the “Granary” (Building 5900) and that Wright’s temple 1, the great fortress (or migdāl) was the temple of El-/Baʿal-Berith. See L. E. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant,’ ” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, ed. P. H. Williams Jr. and T. Hiebert (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 228–49. For Wright’s earlier discussion, see G. R. H. Wright, “Temples at Shechem,” ZAW 80 (1968): 26; G. E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965), 95–100. For further discussion, see E. F. Campbell Jr., Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale (ASOR Archaeology Reports 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 107–9; idem, “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 263–67.

36. Cf. the destruction of the tower of Peniel (Judg. 8:17).

37. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 160–62.

38. Cf. 2 Sam. 11:21. The location of Thebez (tēbēṣ)) is uncertain. Some identify it with modern Tubas, thirteen miles northeast of Shechem. Others understand the name to be a corruption of “Tirzah” (tirṣâ), six miles northeast of Shechem. Campbell has recently suggested a tell about 2 km north of modern Tubas and that the name shifted to its present location during the Roman period. See Campbell, Shechem II, 107.

39. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 161.

40. K. van der Toorn, “Mill, Millstone,” in ABD, 4:831–32.

41. See further Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 38–39.

42. The term rōʾš is a key word in the story (vv. 7, 25, 34, 36, 37, 43, 44[2x], 53, 57). Its range of meanings (“head,” “mountain top,” “company”) allows it to serve as another binding element for the story as well as to hint at this final denouement, when Abimelech is struck on the head and mortally wounded while the evil of the Shechemite leaders also falls (like a stone) upon their heads. See Ogden, “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9,” 302.

43. Block, Judges, Ruth, 334.

44. Fokkelman (“Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 34) points out that Abimelech has desperately craved to prove himself a worthy successor to his father by living up to one interpretation of his name (“the king [Gideon] is my father”), only to experience the original intention of the name (“The king [divine] is my father”).

45. Though it must be remembered that the Shechemites were unquestionably the (twice) instigators of Abimelech’s demise that eventually led to his death.

46. O’Connell points out the structural (chiastic) as well as thematic parallels between 9:23–24 and 9:56–57 (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 167–69).

47. There are some interesting parallels between Abimelech and Hitler. Both had severe hatred for their fathers, which manifested itself in the hatred of others. Both rose to power through the brutal elimination of their potential rivals. Both used morally empty and reckless men to aid their rise to power and in the maintaining of that power. Both made pacts with elite power structures: Abimelech with the lords of Shechem and Hitler with the German industrialists and bankers. Both of these elite power structures realized soon after their pacts that they had misjudged their coconspirator and had gotten much more than they had bargained for. Both Abimelech and Hitler brought almost total destruction on their lands. Both died ignominious deaths, leaving their lands in ruins.

1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 160. See also Boling, Judges, 187.

2. This statement may be a type of replacement for the component statement “and the land had rest for X years,” which occurs with the four cyclical judge narratives prior to the introduction of Tola.

3. As pointed out in the introduction, this phrase functions as a literary device, signaling narratorial rather than strict historical sequence.

4. The name appears to mean “worm,” which Block suggests invites the reader to interpret this “lowly person” against the backdrop of the ambitious and pretentious Abimelech (Judges, Ruth, 338).

5. See Boling, Judges, 187; L. Stager, “Shemer’s Estate,” BASOR 277/278 (1990): 93–108. See also Z. Gal, “The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations,” Tel Aviv 9 (1982): 79–86. According to excavations, the site of ancient Samaria was apparently occupied from an early period. Numerous oil and wine presses have been discovered, which appear to be a small part of a large and impressive estate with vineyards and olive yards occupying the surrounding slopes of the hill of Samaria. See R. E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria (HSM 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Stager, “Shemer’s Estate,” BASOR 277/278 (1990): 93–108.

6. Based on noun pattern, it is more likely that Samaria (šōmrôn) is derived from Shemer (šemer) than from Shamir (šāmîr). For an analogy of the same name pattern in the book of Judges, note “Samson” derived from “Shemesh,” i.e., “sun” (šemeš šimšôn).

7. From the biblical and archaeological evidence it seems that some of the tribe of Issachar may have settled together with Cisjordanian Manasseh, at least in the latter’s territory in the northern Samarian hills (see Gal, “The Settlement of Issachar,” 82–85). The strong connections of Issachar to this region are illustrated by the outstanding position this tribe held in the history of Israel. Several important kings came from Issachar, while Manasseh, a much larger tribe, contributed not even one king.

8. The choice to live in another tribal allotment will be encountered again in the double conclusion.

9. The Hebrew text is difficult at this point. See Boling’s discussion (Judges, 188).

10. Boling understands the “sons” to be metaphoric for “confederates.” However, the notice concerning Ibzan (12:8–10) seems to argue convincingly that these were literal “sons,” though the number “thirty” may, of course, be symbolic of an ideal royal family, though the narrator does not make this connection.

11. For biblical evidence see 2 Sam. 13:29 (David’s sons on mules [pered]); 18:9 (Absalom as an acting king on his mule); 1 Kings 1:33 (Solomon on David’s mule); cf. Gen. 49:11 (the donkey [ʿayir] of the one to whom the scepter belongs); Zech. 9:9 (a king will come riding on a donkey [ʿayir]); Matt. 21:5; Luke 19:30 (Christ’s riding on a donkey). Cf. also Judg. 5:10. Evidence from the ancient Near East can be seen from Mari and elsewhere; see, e.g., ARM, 6:76:20–25; for discussion, see A. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), 2–4, 80.

1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 41–78. See also Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 176–81.

2. Block, Judges, Ruth, 381–82.

3. Yahweh’s remarks in 10:11–14 demonstrate that there were other oppressions that Israel suffered during the judges’ era that are not fully narrated (or for that matter alluded to). The oppressions of the Egyptians, Amorites, Sidonians, and Maonites have no corresponding narration in the book. See the comments and discussion in the introduction (pp. 28–30). The attempt to root these oppressions in the history of the nation (esp. to the period of the judges) is to force the data beyond its intention.

4. This word is used in 9:53 of the “crushing” of Abimelech’s head by the upper millstone.

5. Cf. also the previous confrontation of the messenger of Yahweh in 2:1–5.

6. Block, Judges, Ruth, 347.

7. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 46.

8. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 187.

9. Block, Judges, Ruth, 348.

10. See R. D. Haak, “A Study and New Interpretation of QṢR NPŠ,” JBL 101 (1982): 161–67.

11. Block, Judges, Ruth, 349; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 187–88; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 75, 230 n. 75; Klein, Triumph of Irony, 95; Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 178.

12. In this section, śārê gilʿād (“leaders of Gilead”) is parallel to ziqnê gilʿād (“elders of Gilead”).

13. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 188.

14. The name Jephthah means “He [DN] has opened [the womb]” or “May he [DN] open [the womb].” As a personal name, it is attested in the form yptḥʾl in Old South Arabic and as a place name in the Heb. yiptaḥēl (Josh. 19:14, 27).

15. Indicated by the circumstantial clause at the beginning of 11:1.

16. Block correctly notes: “The narrator’s characterization of Jephthah as a ‘valiant warrior’ (gibbôr ḥayil, 11:1) hardly commends him spiritually for the role of savior of Israel. Indeed, he was a most unlikely candidate for leadership, being the ostracized son of a harlot and leader of a band of brigands in the mountains of Gilead (11:1–3)” (“The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” 50).

17. For a discussion of this term in v. 1, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 353.

18. D. Marcus, “The Bargaining Between Jephthah and the Elders (Judges 11:4–11),” JANES 19 (1989): 95–110, esp. 98; idem, “The Legal Dispute Between Jephthah and the Elders,” HAR 12 (1990): 107–11. In addition, one might surmise from the text that Jephthah was older than his brothers, otherwise there would not be any need to specify “when they were grown up.” See also T. M. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” CBQ 59 (1997): 33–44.

19. Ironically, after the Israelites plead with Yahweh, “Do with us whatever you think best [haṭṭôb, lit., good]” (10:15), Yahweh arranges that their deliverer comes from the land of Tob (Ṭôb, 11:3a)—the land to which his Gileadite half-brothers had unjustly banished him! See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 50, 223 n. 19.

20. For a discussion of this term, see A. F. Rainey, “Who Is a Canaanite?” 1–15; and “Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite Society,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 481–96.

21. Block, Judges, Ruth, 354.

22. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 35.

23. Marcus, “The Bargaining Between Jephthah and the Elders,” 98. Marcus shows that (1) the clauses before maddûaʿ always state undeniable facts and (2) the maddûaʿ clause either calls into question a situation or assumption, or indicates incredulousness that, given the preceding facts, certain acts could be carried out. Thus nobody in one’s right mind would think that such a thing could happen (pp. 97–98).

24. Marcus, “The Bargaining Between Jephthah and the Elders,” 99. Marcus argues that the dispute between Jephthah and the elders in Judges 11 centers only on the issue of Jephthah’s disinheritance and reinstatement. He argues against the view of a distinction in the elders’ offer between “commander” (qāṣîn) and “head” (rōʾš). I feel that it is not an either/or in this context, but a both/and. Jephthah wants to be reinstated, and he wants more than just qāṣîn; he wants rōʾš. The heightened employment of rōʾš in the pericope, the elders’ attitude described below, as well as other factors seem to indicate that both issues are present in the text’s dialogue.

25. Block righty observes: “Jephthah’s appeal to Yahweh sounds pious—a tacit recognition of Yahweh as the national deity—but like Abimelech he was driven only by self-interest” (Judges, Ruth, 355).

26. Malamat, “The Period of the Judges,” 158.

27. Willis, “The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 41.

28. Block, Judges, Ruth, 356.

29. See O. Bächli, “ ‘Was habe ich mit Dir zu shaffen?’ Eine formelhafte Frage im Alten Testament und Neuen Testament,” TZ 33 (1977): 69–80.

30. See esp. the extensive discussion in O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 193–203.

31. For the deliberate patterning of Judg. 11 along the lines of Num. 20–24 and Deut. 2–3, see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 199.

32. There may have been some emotional charge in the tone of this question, since Jephthah has personally been “dispossessed” or “disinherited” by his half-brothers.

33. See Soggin, Judges, 210.

34. This is esp. ironic since Jephthah has deliberately patterned his speech along the lines of Num. 20–24 and Deut. 2–3. Yahweh alone determines the boundaries of nations (cf. Deut. 32:8–9; Amos 9:7).

35. Some scholars (see most recently O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 196–99) take the view that the disputation was against a king of Ammon who had recently taken part of the Moabite territory and was thus entitled, by diplomatic protocol, to claim Moabite land rights and to defer to Moabite deities. While this is a remote possibility, it is really begging the question. There is no evidence for such an assumption. Ammonite inscriptions do not refer to Chemosh, and to assume that this was permissible with the Ammonite king is a great assumption indeed without any evidence. The fact that Jephthah has committed a theological error in his statement opens the door to the possibility that he has committed a factual error. While it would be wrong to conclude that Jephthah was an inept negotiator (inept is certainly too strong a term), it is certainly true that Jephthah, for all his verbal facility, opens his mouth too quickly in other places in the narration of his story and thus likely has committed a bungle here.

36. Recently, Aufrecht proposed that the national deity of the Ammonites was El, not Milcom, since Milcom does not appear as a theophoric element in Ammonite personal names. The evidence, however, is small for Ammonite personal names, and I believe it is better to reserve judgment on this issue until more data are produced. See W. E. Aufrecht, “The Religion of the Ammonites,” in Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald and R. W. Younkers (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 152–62.

37. Milcom (mlkm) is attested 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13. Some of the Greek manuscripts and other versions read Milcom in seven other passages (many of which modern English translations opt to read as Milcom): 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Kings 11:7; 1 Chron. 20:2; Jer. 49(30):1, 3; Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5. According to 2 Sam. 12:30, Milcom, like a number of deities, was depicted by an anthropomorphic image. There are a number of extrabiblical attestations from Ammon, most notably the Amman Citadel Inscription (see COS, 2.24), and seals and bullae (see COS, 2.71).

It has been commonly thought that Milcom is another form of the god Molech/Malik (mlk). See, e.g., R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (2 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 2:444–46. The facts that both deities’ names derive from the same Semitic root mlk (to rule, reign) and 1 Kings 11:7 (MT has mlk; LXX has mlkm) have added to the possible confusion. Many recent scholars understand the two as separate deities with only Milcom being definitely identified with the Ammonites as their national deity. Second Kings 23:10–13 seems to treat the two separately. Yet both deities appear to have had connections to the netherworld and with fire (see E. Puech, “Milcom,” DDD. col. 1078; G. C. Heider, “Molech,” DDD, col. 1096).

38. Chemosh is not only attested as the Moabite national deity in a number of biblical texts (e.g., 1 Kings 11:5, 7, 33), but is also attested in the Mesha Inscription (see COS, 2.23) and Moabite seals (e.g., COS, 2.72).

39. Block takes this to be a deliberate, intentional error on the part of Jephthah to insult him and start the war.

40. Cf. Num. 22–24. That this mention of a Moabite king is evidence that the king of Ammon has taken Moabite land is doubtful (see comments in note 35). In that Jephthah has rehearsed the history including the other identifiable characters, it is not surprising that he mentions the next character in the historic narration of the book of Numbers after Sihon.

41. Soggin observes that this has an approximate analogue in the Mesha Inscription (Judges, 211). Line 10 states: “Now the Gadite [lit., man of Gad] had settled in the land of ʿAḥarot from antiquity; and the king of Israel had fortified for him [the Gadite] ʿAḥarot.” One must be cautious in accepting Jephthah’s number “three hundred” as an accurate number. Since Jephthah has been wrong on a number of points in the speech already, this may also be erroneous (see the discussion of Block, Judges, Ruth, 363).

42. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 63–64. Willis argues that the actions of Jephthah beginning in 11:29 indicate that he has stepped over the line of traditional authority into the arena of charismatic authority. He is no longer leading Gileadites alone; he is attempting to expand his authority to include all the other clans of Manasseh and even Ephraim (“The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 42).

43. Gideon usurps the victory after the battle(s) and does so subtly. But Jephthah does so before the battle in a blatant manner.

44. E.g., Klein, Triumph of Irony, 95; Boling, Judges, 215–16; D. Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock, Tex.: Texas Tech Univ. Press, 1986), 54–55.

45. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 64; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 180–81; Soggin, Judges, 215–16; Block, Judges, Ruth, 367–72. Block states: “Although some may interpret the vow as rash and hastily worded, it is preferable to see here another demonstration of his shrewd and calculating nature, another attempt to manipulate circumstances to his own advantage” (p. 367). But he also states: “Ironically, the one who appeared to have become master of his own fate has become a victim of his own rash word” (p. 372).

46. Manipulation speaks to its intent; rashness to its content.

47. The Heb. b^ešālôm carries this connotation (Soggin, Judges, 213). The NIV’s “in triumph” is not as accurate.

48. Cf. Mesha’s action in 2 Kings 3:27. See Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” 50.

49. See Webb, The Book of the Judges, 64, 227 nn. 51, 52; Klein, Triumph of Irony, 91 (cf. 221 n. 13); Block, Judges, Ruth, 367.

50. Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow; Boling Judges, 208–9.

51. Note in this instance the clear use of w^ehinnēh to denote surprise and shock.

52. Gen. 14:17 appears to be a parallel, where the verbs yṣh and qrʾ are used to describe someone (here the king of Sodom) “going/coming out to meet” someone after a military victory (Abram’s victory over the kings of the east). However, there is a difference in referent (in Judg. 11:31 it is indeterminate) and a difference between a straightforward narrative and the direct speech of a vow. In my opinion, the context—esp. in its relating of the grievous surprise of Jephthah—must come into consideration so that the combination of the verbs yṣh and qrʾ are not limited only to human beings but also include animals. In any case, this ambiguity only heightens the irony of the passage.

53. See Y. Shiloh, “The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City,” IEJ 20 (1970): 180–90; A Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 340–45; 485–89.

54. Compare the empty word shibboleth, below.

55. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 74.

56. Only by overlooking the plain meaning of ʿôlâ, and overestimating Jephthah’s spirituality by not taking into account the macrostructure of the cycles section can one argue that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter but devoted her to some kind of perpetual virginity (for this interpretation, see G. L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 164–65). The phraseology of the Hebrew here eliminates this interpretation: “He did his vow to her,” namely, “whatever comes out is Yahweh’s, and I will burn it up as a burnt offering [haʿ ^alîtīhû ʿôlâ].”

57. The Jewish sources struggled with Jephthah’s vow. Targum Jonathan states: “And at the end of two months she returned to her father and he fulfilled on her his vow, which he had vowed. She had not know any man. And it became a decree in Israel that no one may offer up his son or his daughter for a burnt offering, as Jephthah the Gileadite did, who did not ask Phinehas the priest. For if he had asked Phinehas the priest, he would have rescued her with a monetary consecration.” For a translation and discussion, see W. F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges (OTS 36; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 555–57.

58. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 93.

59. Ibid., 96.

60. Cf. also Lev. 18:21: “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”

61. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 181.

62. Note the contrast between the despicable behavior of Jephthah and the sensitivity and submissiveness of his daughter.

63. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 40. Cf. also Abimelech with the two women, one of whom gives him life, the other death.

64. No doubt for the same reason that he does not intervene in stopping the slaughter of Gideon’s sons by Abimelech.

65. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 182.

66. Sandra Wilson, Hurt People Hurt People (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993).

67. We recognize that some abortions are the tragic result of the hard choice in favor of the life of the mother. But the vast bulk of abortions performed throughout the world are not for this reason.

68. Willis argues that the “squabble did not erupt until Jephthah had claimed authority beyond Gilead. The Ephraimites did not object (indeed, had no right or reason to object) to the Gileadite elders making Jephthah qāṣîn and rōʾš, because that right was beyond Ephraimite ‘jurisdiction’: by intertribal tradition it was confined to Gilead’s sphere of control. Only when matters moved beyond the traditional were objections raised” (“The Nature of Jephthah’s Authority,” 43 n. 33). While this may have been a factor, the text states that the Ephraimite disquiet is caused by the noninvitation of Jephthah to participate in the war against the Ammonites.

69. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature As Politics,” 408.

70. According to Malamat, the heavy Ephraimite losses may indicate that Jephthah exploited this opportunity to clear Gilead of all the Ephraimites who had settled there (“The Period of the Judges,” 159–60).

71. D. Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites: The Shibboleth Incident (Judg 12:6),” Maarav 8 (1992): 95–105, esp. 100.

72. Lit., “I was a rîb man, I and my people, with the Ammonites.” Jephthah asserts that he resorts to diplomacy first, in contrast to the Ephraimites, “who would fight first and negotiate later” (Boling, Judges, 212).

73. He may have appealed to the Ephraimites during his movements in 11:29, but this is purely conjecture.

74. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 71.

75. Cf. Josh. 22, where the Transjordanians feared this very thing, namely, that they would be considered second-class citizens of Israel.

76. The etymology of the word is uncertain, possibly “ear of wheat” or “current of water.” See Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites,” 99.

77. Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites,” 100–101.

78. For this illustration, see J. A. Emerton, “Some Comments on the Shibboleth Incident (Judges XII 6),” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu (AOAT 215; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 155–56.

79. G. von Rad, Gottes Wirken in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 41.

80. For the dialectal issues, see A. Faber, “Second Harvest: šibbōlet Revisited (Yet Again),” JSS 37 (1992): 1–10.

81. Marcus, “Ridiculing the Ephraimites,” 100.

82. Perhaps in some cases, only because we have a civil government that prevents it.

1. Boling, Judges, 215–16. But see Block, Judges, Ruth, 389.

2. Webb, The Book of Judges, 161.

3. There is a Hittite parallel for these thirty sons and thirty daughters, though the Hittite story is quite different. See H. A. Hoffner Jr., “The Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa,” COS, 1.71; M. Tsevat, “Two Old Testament Stories and Their Hittite Analogues,” JAOS 103 (1983): 35–42.

4. Lit., “to the outside” and “from the outside.” Family or clan is implied in the ellipsis.

5. The name Elon is also the name of Esau’s “Hittite” father-in-law (Gen. 26:34; cf. 36:2).

6. It is also possible that there is a wordplay here with ʾayil (despot; cf. Ex. 15:15) (see KBL², 37–38). If so, then the name Elon ʾêlôn) is punned with “little despot” (ʾayilôn).

7. Block, Judges, Ruth, 390.

8. For the identification of Pirathon, see G. Galil, “Pirathon, Parathon and Timnatha,” ZDPV 109 (1993): 49–53; E. A. Knauf, “Pireathon—Farʿaṭ,” BN 51 (1990): 19–24; and N. Naʾaman, “Pirathon and Ophrah,” BN 50 (1989): 11–16.

9. Cf. the ironic border description given in Judg. 1:36.

10. This notion appears again in the debate between the Israelites and Samuel over the issue of judgeship versus monarchy (with special reference to Samuel’s sons); see 1 Sam. 8:1–5.

1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 160.

2. See J. A. Freeman, “Samson’s Dry bones: A Structural Reading of Judges 13–16,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis (2 Vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1974, 1982), 2:145–60.

3. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 223.

4. Ibid., 221–22. According to O’Connell, the Othniel and Ehud accounts have only one climax each, and the cycles of Deborah/Barak/Jael, Gideon/Abimelech, and Jephthah have two each. All together these cycles have eight climaxes. But the Samson cycle has nine all by itself.

5. See J. Cheryl Exum, “Literary Patterns in the Samson Saga: An Investigation of Rhetorical Style in Biblical Prose” (Ph.D. diss.; Columbia University, 1976), 83; idem, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13,” JBL 99 (1980): 43–59, esp. 44–45.

6. See D. M. Howard Jr., “Philistines,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. J. Hoerth et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 231–50.

7. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 163.

8. Familiar motifs and themes found throughout Israel’s literary corpus occur in the Samson narrative. See J. L. Crenshaw, Samson: A Secret Betrayed, a Vow Ignored (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1978), 20, 41–50.

9. It is important to remember that barrenness is one of the specific Deuteronomic curses for lack of covenantal fidelity to Yahweh (Deut. 28:18).

10. Block, Judges, Ruth, 396.

11. The phrase “and he will begin the deliverance of Israel” recalls the phrase concerning Tola in 10:1a, “Tola . . . rose to save [deliver] Israel” (10:1a). Whereas Tola apparently succeeded, Samson will only begin the process of deliverance. The delivering activities of Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, and David are yet future.

12. Technically Samson’s Nazirite status begins at his conception.

13. Often this expression describes a prophet (cf. Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 9:6–10; 1 Kings 12:22).

14. Boling, Judges, 220.

15. Block, Judges, Ruth, 407.

16. The answer “I am” in such a theophanic context is reminiscent of Ex. 3:14.

17. The mentioning of the prohibition against haircutting is also lacking in the Lord’s answer here, as it was in the explanation of Manoah’s wife to her husband (13:6–7). Is it because Manoah’s wife speaks better than she knows? There is a tightening of the dietary restrictions concerning the consumption of the product of the vine, but this is only in closer agreement with the Nazirite restriction.

18. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 214 n. 304.

19. Ibid., 218.

20. For a detailed comparison of the sacrifices of Gideon and Manoah, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 410–16; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 164–68; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 218–19.

21. See Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomoist, 181–87.

22. This sets a precedent for Samson’s more flagrant violations of Yahweh’s grace. See Klein, Triumph of Irony, 122.

23. Ibid., 124.

24. Theologically correct (Ex. 33:20; Isa. 6:1–5), but logically incorrect.

25. IBHS §§30.5.4b; 38.2e.

26. Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13,” 57.

27. Mahaneh Dan mentioned in 13:25 and 18:12 is problematic. The location of Mahaneh Dan in 18:12 is specifically west of Kiriath Jearim in Judah. It may be that there were two specific places called Mahaneh Dan, one west of Kiriath Jearim and the other between Zorah and Eshtaol, a general enclave wherein were settled the remnants of the tribe of Dan (subsequent to the migration of Judg. 18). It is also possible that the reference in 13:25a is not a proper name but simply a reference to “a Danite camp between Zorah and Eshtaol.” See O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 215 n. 307.

28. Compare also how the theophany in the Gideon account raised reader expectations.

29. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 116.

30. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 214.

31. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 118.

32. Alternatively, one could understand the paralleled accounts to contain three episodes (14:1–4, 5–9, 10–20) parallel to three others (15:1–3, 4–8, 9–19).

33. The table generally follows the discussions of C. Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance in the Samson Saga,” JSOT 19 (1981): 3–29; and Webb, The Book of the Judges, 163–64.

34. O’Connell rejects any parallels between chapters 14 and 15. While the parallels are not identical, there seems, in my opinion, to be some basic parallels between the episodes.

35. Timnah has been identified with Tell Batash in the Sorek Valley, west of Beth Shemesh.

36. See Klein, Triumph of Irony, 125.

37. The Israelites were not the only ones in the ancient Near East to practice circumcision, but their practice was different in that it was tied to the covenant (Gen. 17). Unfortunately, there is nothing in the text that indicates that Samson’s parents were remotely interested in covenantal issues.

38. Compare Samson’s characterization with that of the “fool” (k^esîl) in Proverbs. In particular, note how the fool brings sorrow to his father and mother (Prov. 10:1; 17:21), bitterness (17:25), and calamity (19:13). He has little regard for them (15:20). See also 10:23; 13:20; 14:7; 17:12; 18:6; 29:11.

39. Block, Judges, Ruth, 424.

40. Cf. the much later example in John 2:1–11.

41. The most common types of pottery found by archaeologists in Philistine settlements is the strainer-spout “beer jug.” See T. Dothan and M. Dothan, People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 90, 134.

42. Cf. the use of the number “thirty” in the power contexts of Jair (10:3–5), Ibzan (12:8–10), and Abdon (12:13–15). Cf. also David’s “thirty” men, warriors of great exploits (2 Sam. 23:13–39; 1 Chron. 11:15).

43. Long robes or capes and tunics. See M. Görg, “Zu den Kleiderbezeichnungen in Ri 14, 12f,” BN 68 (1993), 5–9.

44. Cf. the similar threat of Ephraimites to Jephthah (12:1).

45. Heifers were not normally used for plowing; so the thirty have not played fair. See H. Wolf, “Judges,” EBC, 3:470.

46. Although Samson is gifted with the empowerment of the Spirit of Yahweh, it is clear from the contexts that he misuses this special empowerment for his own ends again and again.

47. Apparently he hoped to conceal his actions by going such a long distance from Timnah.

48. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 188.

49. The mention that this happens at the time of the wheat harvest (i.e., May–June) is anticipatory of the burning of the grain that will take place later in the story.

50. Boling explains this as “the ancient counterpart of the box of chocolates” (Judges, 234). Note also the use of a young goat by Judah as payment to the “prostitute,” Tamar, in Gen. 38:17–20, as observed by Moore, Judges, 340.

51. Boling, Judges, 235.

52. Wolf suggests that this may be evidence of a visit-type marriage, in which the wife would stay in her father’s house and be visited periodically by her husband (“Judges,” 470–71). He appears to follow de Vaux (Ancient Israel, 28–29), based on a Middle Assyrian law that describes this (see M. Roth, “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” COS, 2.132, law A §27). However, the context of Samson’s departure in rage (14:19) and the actions and comments of the woman’s father (14:20; 15:2) suggest that Samson’s return was not expected.

53. Block argues that these are jackals (as in Ps. 63:10; Lam. 5:18; Ezek. 13:4) (Judges, Ruth, 441 n. 368). See also Boling, Judges, 235; Soggin, Judges, 246.

54. Hence the earlier mention of the wheat harvest (15:1).

55. For the structure of this verse, see D. N. Freedman, “A Note on Judges 15, 5,” Bib 52 (1971): 535.

56. The destruction of all these food items, esp. the very basic commodity of wheat grain, had significant implications for an ancient dry-farming society that lived so often on the edge of hunger, where rationing was a common part of life. The potential for famine and death was quite serious.

57. By referring to him as “the son-in-law of the Timnite,” the Philistines recognize Samson’s status as the husband of the man’s daughter and discredit Samson’s father-in-law’s action in giving his wife to the second man.

58. Boling (Judges, 234) translates: “If this is the sort of thing you do, I swear I will be vindicated against you! But thereafter, I quit!”

59. “He left them a tangle of legs and thighs” (ibid., 235).

60. Note how the Lord purposely designated six cities of refuge in Israel in order to prevent the endless and senseless cycle of revenge killings (see Deut. 19:1–14).

61. Apparently, the tribe of Judah is under the Philistine oppression and is willingly content to accept this. The Judahite force is mustered not to support Samson, whom they obviously respect for his reputed strength (they do not attempt to tie him up without his consent); but it is mustered to capture Samson for the Philistines. The Judahites are simply interested in maintaining the status quo.

Interestingly, there are three thousand Judahites. Only one thousand Philistines are killed by Samson! The implication is clearly that the Judahites outnumber the Philistines, since even if Samson killed half of them and the other half escaped, there would have been only two thousand Philistines near Lehi. In fact, there seems to be no other reason in the narrative for giving the numeric size of the Judahite force. Thus in spite of numeric superiority, the Judahites are motivated purely by self-interest.

62. This reading is supported by a similar phrase in Ex. 8:14[Heb. 10] and the reading in the LXX: “A heap I heaped them”). It is preferred over the NIV (“I have made donkeys of them”), which relies on repointing the MT reading of ḥ^amōrātāyim as ḥ^amartîm (see Soggin Judges, 247; Boling, Judges, 239; Block, Judges, Ruth, 446; Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 333).

63. See Boling, Judges, 239. According to Boling, the line is also an example of archaic poetic progression used to convey impassioned speech (cf. Judg. 5:30 “one girl, two girls”).

64. Block, Judges, Ruth, 446.

65. See Boling, Judges, 239.

66. Ibid., 239.

67. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 216.

68. Ibid., 217.

69. Block, Judges, Ruth, 451.

70. Some scholars explain the name through an Arabic root dalla (to flirt, be flirtatious; e.g. Boling, Judges, 248). In my opinion, a preferable explanation with abundant attestations from the entire period of the Old Testament’s corpus is to relate the root dll to Akkadian dalālum (to praise, glorify), which is an element in a number of personal names—e.g., Ludlul-Sin, Sin-ludlul, Adalal-Sin, Adalal, Idlal-Dagan (Mari), Dilīl-Adad, Dilīl-Aššur, Dilīl-Issār). See CAD D, 46–47; and PNA, 1/2:384.

71. Note that Samson (“Little Sun”) will be reduced by Delilah (sounds like “night”).

72. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 217 n. 310.

73. Some scholars have argued that Delilah is an Israelite rather than a Philistine woman. This is usually based on three points: (1) Her name is thoroughly Semitic, (2) the geographic location is the Sorek Valley, and (3) she is the only paramor of Samson who is named. See J. M. Sasson, “Who Cut Samson’s Hair? (And Other Trifling Issues Raised by Judges 16),” Prooftexts 8 (1988): 334–35. None of these is compelling. Recent Philistine inscriptions demonstrate a strong tendency among them to adopt Semitic names; Philistine incursions up the Sorek Valley certainly make it possible for them to be living there; and the fact that she is named is a literary feature of the story, not an ethnic indicator.

74. This is a technical political title that connects the social organization of the five great Philistine cities on the southern coastal plain with an Aegean homeland (see Boling, Judges, 148).

75. These 5500 shekels would equal 550 times the average annual wage. Assuming a figure like $25,000 as an average annual wage today, the Philistine offer would be in the $15 million category. Eleven hundred shekels is the same amount of silver that Micah’s mother has in 17:2.

76. His specification of “fresh” and “undried” sinews/bowstrings means that once more he is trivializing his Nazirite vow.

77. This may imply that there were no Philistine survivors of this earlier incident.

78. J. Walton, V. Matthews, and M. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 269.

79. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 164.

80. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 138.

81. Contrast Judg. 3:12–30 above.

82. See Boling, Judges, 250.

83. E. L. Greenstein, “The Riddle of Samson,” Prooftexts 1/3 (1981): 237–60.

84. K. van der Toorn, “Mill, Millstone,” in ABD, 4:831–32. As van der Toorn points out, these were likely similar to the one discovered at Ebla, where sixteen grindstones were found in their original places.

85. Ibid., 831. Cf. the discussion of the upper millstone in 9:53, which was used by “a [certain] woman” to kill Abimelech.

86. Two other prominent Canaanite deities are now attested in Philistine inscriptions: “Asherah” and “Baal.” Dedicatory inscriptions to both deities have been found at Ekron.

87. According to Healey, this does not mean that the name was taken from the West Semitic word for “grain.” The word for “grain” probably comes from the name of the god and not vice versa. Also the etymology of the name from the word dāg “fish” is quite doubtful, although a sarcastic wordplay is not out of the question. For further discussion, see J. F. Healey, “Dagon,” in DDD, cols. 407–13.

88. Ironically, the Philistines are singing a victory song, when, had Samson delivered the Israelites, it would have been the Israelites singing a victory song.

89. As in other instances, the term zākar (to remember) is not the opposite of “to forget,” as if God has forgotten him. Rather, the verb means “to take note of, to act on behalf of” (see Block, Judges, Ruth, 467).

90. For the reflexive verbal usage, see Boling, Judges, 251.

91. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 225.

92. Block, Judges, Ruth, 468.

93. Contrast David in his encounter with Goliath, who is concerned about Yahweh’s name and reputation (1 Sam. 17).

94. A. Mazar, “A Philistine Temple at Tell Qasile,” BA 36 (1973): 43.

95. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 165.

96. Webb (ibid., 171) correctly notes that the two notices are symmetrical but not identical. He concludes from these statements that Samson’s judgeship began effectively at Ramath Lehi and concluded with his death at Gaza.

97. The much more godly Samuel will subdue the Philistines (1 Sam. 7).

98. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 224.

99. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 118.

100. See E. Browne, “Samson: Riddle and Paradox,” TBT 22 (1984): 161–67. Cf. also the oratorio Samson (1743) by the German-born composer George Frederic Handel.

101. B. Webb, “A Serious Reading of the Samson Story (Judges 13–16),” RTR 54 (1995): 110–20, esp. 116.

102. Ibid., 120.

103. Besides this single occurrence in the New Testament, Samson is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, with the possible exception of 1 Sam. 12:11, where there is textual confusion between the reading of the last named judge (LXX^L and Syriac: Samson; MT and others: Samuel). For further discussion of this verse, see the introduction, p. 25.

104. Samson’s faith is seen in his trust in Yahweh to hear his prayer and strengthen him once more, even though Samson’s motives are only for personal vengeance. Yahweh answers the prayer in spite of Samson’s sinful motives, because he will vindicate and glorify his name and can even use a Samson to accomplish this.

105. Block, Judges, Ruth, 469.

106. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 118.

107. The voluntary emptying of the second person of the Godhead (Phil. 2).

108. It is also fruitful to contrast Samson with John the Baptist. Once again the similarities only heighten the contrasts.

1. Block, Judges, Ruth, 477.

2. The NIV’s translation of this line obscures the literary links back into the cycles section of the book. Therefore, I will use the literal translation throughout in order to facilitate the commentary.

3. M. K. Wilson, “As You Like It: The Idolatry of Micah and the Danites (Judges 17–18),” RTR 54 (1995): 73–85, esp. 74–76.

4. P. J. Achtemeier, “Gods Made with Hands: The New Testament and the Problem of Idolatry,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 50.

5. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 239–40.

6. Ibid., 240.

7. Lit., “taken.” The same verb will be used of the Danite action in 18:17 so that Micah’s “stealing” is anticipatory of the Danites’ “stealing.” The first conclusion moves from family sin to community idolatry to tribal apostasy.

8. See Klein, Triumph of Irony, 143–44.

9. See Block’s discussion, Judges, Ruth, 478–80.

10. In the ancient Near East, silver often took on magical connotations.

11. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 480 n. 19; Boling, Judges, 256; J. D. Martin, The Book of Judges (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975), 180. Cundall argues that the two words pesel ûmassēkâ reflect the manner of making an idol. The word pesel means the carving of the wood or stones by the craftsman, while pesel ûmassēkâ means the melting down of the metal and overlaying it on the carved sculpture (Cundall, Judges, 184).

12. The biblical teraphim appear to have been ancestor figurines that were most often used in divination, see K. van der Toorn and T. J. Lewis, “,” ThWAT, 8:765–78.

13. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 150. While her discussion is helpful, she confuses the term massēkâ (found in Judg. 17–18) with the term maṣṣēbâ (not found in Judg. 17).

14. This is clear in their initial formulations in verses 4 and 5 and reinforced in 18:14, where the five Danites list the items in Micah’s house as ʾēpôd ût^erāpîm ûpesel ûmassēkâ. In 18:17–18, in the description of the Danites’ theft, the pair pesel and massēkâ is split for rhetorical reasons: ʾet-happesel w^eʾet-hāʾēpôd w^eʾet-hatt^erāpîm w^eʾet-hammassēkâ.

15. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 150.

16. Cf. the golden calf incident (Ex. 32).

17. G. Yee, “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body,” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. G. A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 158.

18. The term “father” is used here as a title of honor by which Micah acknowledges his willingness to subordinate himself to and be dependent on the Levite in spiritual matters. This is ironic in that the Levite is described as a naʿar (“boy, youth”) but is made a “father” by Micah’s perversion of the God-ordained priestly ministry.

19. P. Satterthwaite, “ ‘No King in Israel’: Narrative Criticism and Judges 17–21,” TynBul 44 (1993): 75–88, esp. 78.

20. Boling, Judges, 263. Perhaps his Kohathite connection gives him away (cf. the accent or dialect distinctions in the Shibboleth incident, 12:1–6).

21. Thus indirectly the Levite’s words are the cause or, at least, the legitimation of the slaughter. Ironically, in the second conclusion below, another Levite’s words will be the cause for the civil war’s great slaughter.

22. The meaning of two clauses of the Hebrew text of Judg. 18:7 are uncertain (see NIV text notes). For the most recent discussion, see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 477–80.

23. Ibid., 237.

24. The number “six hundred” is anticipatory of the six hundred men that make up the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin in 20:47 (cf. the six hundred Philistines killed by Shamgar, 3:31).

25. Ironically, in their threat to kill Micah, the Danites inadvertently threaten to do the punishment that the Deuteronomic law demanded for the crime of idolatry.

26. Cf. Num. 13:21.

27. For the archaeological context, see A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994).

28. In an effort to prevent desecration of the name of Moses, later scribes modified the name slightly, making it read “Manasseh” (see NIV text note).

29. For Shiloh, see I. Finkelstein, ed., Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 10; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology, 1993).

30. Three times at the end of ch. 18 (18:24, 27, 31) the text states that the cult objects that the Danites place in their shrine at Dan are man-made, obviously condemning the Danite shrine as false in every respect.

1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 196.

2. S. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration,” CBQ 44 (1982): 365–78, esp. 366–67; Block, Judges, Ruth, 515.

3. The two repetitions at the center of the double conclusion (i.e., 18:1a and 19:1a) are intrinsically bound together by a chiasm, ʾên melek versus melek ʾên respectively.

4. Wilson, “As You Like It,” 73–85, esp. 74–76.

5. D. M. Hudson, “Living in a Land of Epithets: Anonymity in Judges 19–21,” JSOT 62 (1994): 49–66, esp. 59–65.

6. Block, Judges, Ruth, 517.

7. This analysis is based upon my own observations in connection with those of J. P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 33–45, esp. 40–45.

8. The MT’s phrase is problematic. In ancient Near Eastern culture, it is doubtful that she would have played the prostitute and then gone home to her father. It is possible that the phrase is meant to be understood figuratively (i.e., the concubine plays the harlot by walking out on her husband—this seems to be the NIV’s rationale). However, the phrase is not used with this nuance elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The phrase znh ʿl does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The ancient versions, however, preserve a different reading. LXX^A reads: ōrgisthē autō, “she was angry with him,” and Targum Jonathan reads: wbsrt ʿlwhy, “she despised him.” As Block argues, it is best to understand the MT’s znh either as a scribal error for znḥ, “to reject, detest,” or, more likely, to retain the Hebrew and recognize a second root, znh, meaning “to be angry, quarrel.” See Block, Judges, Ruth, 523.

9. Fokkelman correctly observes that much space is given to enjoying hospitality—C, D, and D′—and at first the reader wonders what all this trivial hospitality has to do with the crime and its horrors. The answer is that the story signifies how much the Levite is attached to “carousing” (yṭb lb and synonyms) and that such hedonism and materialism lead to a situation in which throwing women out as a sexual prey for the rabble seems right to the Levite. See Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 43.

10. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20,” 366–67. See also S. Lasine, “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World,” JSOT 29 (1984): 56–57 n. 34.

11. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 249.

12. This term often has negative, even pejorative connotations.

13. The term ʿābar can mean not only “to cross over, pass over, traverse,” but also “to violate (a commandment or the covenant)” (cf. Judg. 2:20). This may be subtly anticipatory of the “violation” that will take place in Gibeah. The term sûr can also have moral connotations and may hint at the moral “turning aside” that takes place in Gibeah.

14. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 44.

15. It is only about 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) between Bethlehem and Jerusalem (Jebus) and only another 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) or 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) between Jerusalem (Jebus) and Gibeah, depending on the location of ancient Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl or modern Jabaʿ respectively). The total distance is well within the average distance that could be traversed in a day; but with the late start, the three would have had to travel at a much faster rate and must have been quite tired when they arrived in Gibeah.

16. For a discussion of the motif of “night as danger,” see W. W. Fields, “The Motif ‘Night As Danger’ Associated with Three Biblical Destruction Narratives,” in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 17–32, esp. 21–32.

17. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 250.

18. The LXX reads: “to my house,” not “to the house of the Lord.” If the MT’s “to the house of the Lord” is accepted, then this would convey the Levite’s attempt to further legitimate himself to the Ephraimite old man. However, it is more likely that the LXX preserves the better reading here (as most modern versions translate). For a discussion see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 483.

19. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 262 n. 32.

20. Lasine, “Guest and Host in Judges 19,” 40. Also see D. I. Block, “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature: A Study of Judges 19,” WTJ 52 (1990): 325–41.

21. The meaning of the phrase is still uncertain. See T. J. Lewis, “Belial,” ABD, 1:654–56; S. D. Sperling, “Belial,” DDD, cols. 322–27.

22. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 189.

23. The NIV’s “you can use them” is a poor translation of the verb ʿinnâ (to humiliate, do violence to), which in such a context as this can have the technical nuance of “rape.” Cf. Gen. 34:2; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11.

24. Cf. the double conclusion’s refrain (lit.): “Every man did what was right in his own eyes”; also the initial cyclical component: “The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (e.g., 2:11).

25. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 189.

26. The narrator’s choice of term here is powerful.

27. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 190.

28. Both verses 25 and 29 use the verb ḥzq (seize) to emphasize the callousness of the Levite.

29. See Lasine’s discussion of the 1 Sam. 11 passage (“Guest and Host in Judges 19,” 52–56).

30. E.g., D. S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1955). Bailey argues that the men of Sodom (and Gibeah) were not wanting intercourse with Lot’s guests, but simply credentials by which to judge that the strangers posed no threat to the town and that the host and the men evince an improper manner of inhospitality.

31. J. G. Taylor, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” Themelios 21/1 (1995): 4–9, esp. 5.

32. For the excellent discussion of homosexuality, see ibid., 4–9.

33. I recognize that feminist literary criticism is remarkably pluralistic and diverse. It is not monolithic in the interpretation of this passage. Nonetheless, it is accurate to say that this is the primary approach to the passage by most feminist interpreters.

34. P. Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 65.

35. J. Cheryl Exum, “Feminist Criticism: Whose Interests Are Being Served?” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. G. A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 65–90, esp. 83–88.

36. Ibid., 84.

37. Ibid., 87.

38. Interestingly, Fewell argues for the versional reading: “The young woman ‘resists’ him (reading zanach instead of zanah) . . .” (“Judges,” 75).

39. Exum, “Feminist Criticism,” 84.

40. Ibid., 85.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. All of us who interpret the text of the Scriptures need to be aware of how we too often do this.

44. Ibid., 67, esp. n. 4.

45. I would like to quote one final example of how Exum violates the integrity of the text of the book of Judges. She states: “One of the ways men deny their responsibility for violence is by scapegoating women, blaming women for violence of which they are the victims. We can see this tactic at work in the texts we have examined. But the violence unleashed against Bat-shever is not her fault, any more than it was Bat-jiftah’s fault (as Jephthah implies) that she became the sacrificial victim, or the Timnite woman’s fault that the Philistines retaliated against her when Samson burned their fields, or Delilah’s fault that Samson was captured by the Philistines (he didn’t have to tell her his secret). Attention to the gender politics of Judges enables us to expose the phenomenon of scapegoating women for what it is: a strategy patriarchy uses to avoid facing and having to deal with its own violent legacy” (ibid., 87).

According to the text of Judges, Jephthah does blame his daughter when it is clearly not her fault but his. And he wrongly and ignorantly carries out his vow on this innocent victim. But other than this case, Exum’s statements are patently inaccurate to what the text says. As I have argued above, the text does not fault the concubine; it blames the men of Gibeah, the Levite, and the host. The Philistines burn Samson’s wife because of what her father-in-law did (15:6); the text does not fault her. The text paints a vivid portrait of Samson’s foolish handling of Delilah’s attempts to get the information concerning his strength. The text does paint Delilah guilty of taking the bribe and betraying Samson; but it is ultimately Samson’s fault for telling Delilah, and he suffers the consequences for the flippant revelation of his special spiritual giftedness and status with Yahweh. Thus, it is Exum who has made the text a scapegoat rather than the text scapegoating the women in it. An interpretation that violates the integrity of the text is an invalid interpretation, whether androcentric or otherwise.

46. K. Stone, “Gender and Homosexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame,” JSOT 67 (1995): 91–103.

47. Block, Judges, Ruth, 543.

48. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 44 n. 20.

49. Richard N. Ostling, “Era’s New Dividing Line,” Chicago Tribune (July 21, 2000): sec. 2, p. 8.

50. Ibid.

51. Boling, Judges, 275.

52. The number given is 400,000 soldiers armed with swords, which is huge even by modern standards. This could be hyperbole stressing the massive number, or perhaps the term ʾelep should be understood as unit or contingent (hence 400 units or contingents)—still a considerable number compared to the Benjamites. Whatever the case, the fact that this callous, self-interested Levite is able to produce this kind of response is amazingly paradoxical—a larger response than any of the major/cyclical judges!

53. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 191.

54. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 200–202.

55. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20,” 377.

56. For some of the literary aspects of the narrative, see E. J. Revell, “The Battle with Benjamin (Judges xx 29–48) and Hebrew Narrative Techniques,” VT 35 (1985): 417–33; P. E. Satterthwaite, “Narrative Artistry in the Composition of Judges xx 29ff.,” VT 42 (1992): 80–89.

57. Yahweh puts Judah in the van, appropriately so, since the ravished concubine is a Judahite (Webb, The Book of the Judges, 193).

58. Not to be confused with a later Phinehas the son of Eli (1 Sam 1–4).

59. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 179. Cf. the “Cuthean Legend,” in which Naram-Sin is defeated three times before the fourth inquiry is “an affirmative yes.”

60. Note that out of the seven “sins” listed that God “hates,” at least three apply to slanderous gossip. Divorce is not mentioned in this list in Proverbs.

61. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 195.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 260.

65. Not the elders of a tribe, as in the story of Jephthah, but of the entire nation.

66. The detailed description of the festival’s location at Shiloh may indicate that this passage was written at a time when Shiloh was in ruins, having been destroyed in the connection with the battle of Aphek (1 Sam. 4:1–11).

67. Block, Judges, Ruth, 580–81. He observes that the mention of the girls dancing and the emphasis on the vineyards may indicate a grape-harvest festival characterized by revelry, music, and dance—indicators of a Canaanized society.

68. The verb ḥṭp, translated “seize” in the NIV, is a verb that appears in only one other place in the Old Testament (Ps. 10:9). It occurs twice in that verse, describing a wicked and violent man’s ambush of an innocent person and comparing it to that of a lion pouncing on its prey to devour it.

69. Families, esp. brothers, were responsible for demanding legal satisfaction in cases of a girl’s being abducted (Gen. 34:7–31; 2 Sam. 13:20–38).

70. In this verse the verb is gzl, a violent action reflected in its use in 9:25 to describe highway robbery.

71. Cf. Deut. 13:12–18.

72. The book of Lamentations produces this same reading experience.

73. Block, Judges, Ruth, 584.

74. Ibid., 586.

75. Ibid., 585.

1. See R. L. Hubbard Jr., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 23. Luter pursues this possibility (see Luter, “Ruth,” in A. B. Luter and B. C. Davis, God Behind the Seen: Expositions of the Books of Ruth and Esther [Expositor’s Guide to the Historical Books; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 14–15). See also A. B. Luter and R. O. Rigsby, “An Alternative Symmetrical Structuring of Ruth, with Implications for the Dating and Purpose Questions,” JETS 39 (1996): 15–28. But this is doubtful, see the discussion in F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC 9; Dallas: Word, 1996), 25–35.

2. A. J. Beldstein, “Female Companionships: If the Book of Ruth Were Written by a Woman . . .,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 116–35.

3. The opening paragraph and the concluding episode and genealogy obviously represent traditional male perspectives. See R. Bauckham, “The Book of Ruth and the Possibility of a Feminist Canonical Hermeneutic,” BibInt 5 (1997): 29–45.

4. While there were literate females throughout the ancient Near East, the bulk of writers through the history of the region were males. Certainly the scribes in any redactional stage or copyists were males. See C. Meyers, “Returning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 89.

5. For example, the linguistic evidence of Aramaisms is not particularly convincing; see P. T. Nash, “Ruth: An Exercise in Israelite Political Correctness or a Call to Proper Conversion?” in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Åhlstrom, ed. H. G. Åhlstrom and L. K. Handy (JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 347–54.

6. For thorough recent discussions, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 18–30 (slightly favoring an early postexilic date); and Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 23–35 (favoring a preexilic date). Block argues at length for a late preexilic date, specifically by a northern author during the days of Josiah (Judges, Ruth, 590–98), while E. Zenger argues for a second-century B.C. date in the time of the Hasmoneans (Das Buch Ruth [ZBAT 8; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986], 28).

7. The book of Proverbs (esp. in Prov. 1–9) develops a contrast between two feminine personifications: “lady wisdom” and the “foolish woman” (ʾēšet k^esîlût), the “prostitute” (zônâ), or the “strange woman” (ʾiššâ zārâ). Thus Ruth stands in clear contrast to these personifications of foolishness/folly.

8. For further discussion, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 6–7.

9. E. F. Campbell Jr., Ruth (AB 7; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 35–36.

10. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 7–9; Campbell, Ruth, 34–35. The Davidic genealogy at the end of Ruth perhaps served as an impetus in this “promotion.”

11. See the extended discussions of Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 8–23; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 10–16.

12. See among others, Campbell, Ruth, 14–18; J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folkorist Interpretation, 2d ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 179–83; and A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 107–10.

13. The genealogy, then, is the work of the narrator, as spokesman for the Israelite narrative tradition, viewing the story of Ruth and putting it in the proper context in that narrative tradition. It is a kind of prologue and epilogue rolled into one, providing material that surrounds the story. This does not mean, however, that it is a late addition (Berlin, Poetics, 110).

14. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 19–20.

15. See most recently, G. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); R. Routledge, “Ḥesed As Obligation: A Re-examination,” TynBul 46 (1995): 179–96; D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:211–18.

16. It is clear that acts of ḥesed can precede the establishment of a covenant (b^erît) and do not require the establishment of a covenant. However, the establishment of a covenant enhances the facilitation of acts of ḥesed because the covenant secures the continuation of mutual acts of ḥesed. The existence of a covenant assures the permanence of ḥesed.

17. Hence its semantic overlap with terms like raḥ^amîm (maternal compassion). True ḥesed should act out of pure motives. See A. Jepsen, “Gnade und Barmherzigkeit im Alt Testament,” Kerygma and Dogma 7 (1961): 266. Contra K. D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 73.

18. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed, 24, 44–45.

19. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible, 192.

20. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed, 233–34.

21. E. F. Campbell Jr., “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Ḥesed () and Change,” Austin Seminary Bulletin 105 (1990): 64–74, esp. 67.

22. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible, 267.

23. Campbell, “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Ḥesed () and Change,” 69–70.

24. Routledge, “Ḥesed As Obligation: A Re-examination,” 179–96.

25. Ibid., 182.

26. The general consensus of scholars is that the reference is to Yahweh’s, not Boaz’s, ḥesed. See, e.g., Hubbard The Book of Ruth, 50–51, 186, 212–13; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 134–36; Block, Judges, Ruth, 611, 672–73.

27. The possibility of deliberate ambiguity (so that both Yahweh and Boaz can be inferred) should be considered. Cf. the case with Othniel in Judg. 3:9 (see commentary above). While Sakenfeld concludes that the reference is to Yahweh’s, not Boaz’s, ḥesed, it is interesting that she closes her discussion by asking whether there just might be deliberate ambiguity here (The Meaning of Ḥesed, 106). See also Campbell, “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Ḥesed () and Change,” 67.

28. See Sasson, Ruth, 197–221; W. Humphreys, “Novella,” in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature, ed. G. Coats (JSOTSup 35; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 82–96; Campbell, Ruth, 4–10; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 47–48; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 30–47.

29. There are short stories in the extant literature of the ancient Near East; but none in which the major characters are women, especially a foreign woman, with familial and societal issues playing such important roles.

30. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 30–47.

31. Ibid., 52. Some scholars have claimed that the book of Ruth is focused on the significance of ḥesed.

32. A. Berlin points out many of these connections (“Big Theme, Little Book,” BRev 12 [1996]: 40–43, 47–48).

33. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 42; M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 207–10. Block has recently argued that the book is an edifying short story functioning as an apology to the northern Israelites for the Davidic dynasty, legitimating Josiah’s kingship (Judges, Ruth, 599–616).

34. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 17.

35. B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978): 23–49, esp. 24–25.

36. J. M. Sasson, “Ruth,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987), 321.

37. R. L. Hubbard Jr., “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution,” BBR 1 (1991): 3–19.

38. See the discussion of Israelite social structures in the introduction to the book of Judges, pp. 25–28.

39. Mullen feels that the order of kinship by which the gōʾēl was determined is given in Lev. 25:48–49. See E. T. Mullen Jr., “Gōʾēl” in DDD, cols. 706–8.

40. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 51.

41. Mullen, “Gōʾēl,” col. 706.

42. J. Unterman, “The Social-Legal Origin for the Image of God as Redeemer of Israel,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 399–405.

43. While there may have been a social hierarchy (from top to bottom): gēr (foreigner) → tôšāb (temporary resident) → śākîr (hired worker) → ʿebed (slave), since Yahweh alone owned the land, the Israelites are ironically likened to “foreigner” (gēr) and “temporary resident” (tôšāb) (Lev. 25:23–24). See R. Rendtorff, “The Gēr in the Priestly Laws of the Pentateuch,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. M. G. Brett (Biblical Interpretation Series 19; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 77–87, esp. 79.

44. Brichto observes: “The gōʾēl was not merely a close-kinsman obligated to blood-vengeance or privileged to redeem property. The gōʾēl is he who redeems the dead from the danger of his afterlife by continuing his line.” See H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973): 1–54, esp. 21.

45. Scholars usually refer to the marriage of Boaz and Ruth as a levirate marriage. However, Hubbard (The Book of Ruth, 50–51, 57) argues for a distinction between the levirate (yā-bam) and “redemption” (g^eʾullâ) marriages. But there seems to me to be clear overlap with the issue being family or clan wholeness and continuity.

46. The very conditional framing of the laws of the gōʾēl also indicate that volition is involved. It is in this volitional aspect of the gōʾēl that the concept of ḥesed comes into play.

47. Hubbard, “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel,” 11–12.

48. Interestingly, in Isaiah, gōʾēl refers exclusively to Yahweh.

49. Often these three passages are thought to come from different sources and/or traditions and are arranged chronologically by commentator preferences. For a discussion and evaluation, see R. Westbrook, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité 24 (1977): 65–87, esp. 65–68; idem, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 69–89. Variations of this type of marriage are found in other ancient Near Eastern cultures.

50. Westbrook, Property and the Family, 73. He concludes that all three biblical sources reflect an institution with this single legal object.

51. Ibid.

52. For further discussion of the detailed legal aspects of the levirate, see K. L. Younger Jr., “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” JANES 26 (1998): 128–31.

53. See Westbrook, “Redemption of Land,” Israel Law Review 6 (1971): 371; H. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife,” 15–16.

54. Westbrook, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” 77.

55. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 50–51, 57.

56. In contrast to segmented genealogies (i.e., the “family tree” genealogies).

57. R. R. Wilson, Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 57–61.

58. R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1977), 133–34.

59. Cf. the New Testament situation in the impositional structure of Matthew’s genealogy of Christ.

60. In Gen. 5 and 11, there are exactly ten generations. These also evince examples of “telescoping” or “gapping” of names (e.g., compare 1 Chron. 6:3–14; Ezra 7:1–5). The didactic function of genealogies is also observable in Gen. 5 and 11. See T. D. Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis,” TynBul 44 (1993): 261–67.

61. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 14–16.

1. See Bush’s discussion of the structural parameters (Ruth, Esther, 59–60).

2. Hubbard states: “While certainty eludes us, the Ruth story most likely falls between Ehud and Jephthah since, except for Eglon, Israel dominated Moab” (The Book of Ruth, 84). But the book supplies no real indication or hint within the story of a precise date, nor any evidence that this is of concern to the meaning of the book.

3. Interestingly, the ideal judge, Othniel, was also a Judahite like David. See commentary on Judges 3:7–11.

4. For a discussion of the literary links between these passages, see K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 40–41.

5. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 67. For a detailed evaluation of the rabbinic excesses, see Campbell, Ruth, 58–59.

6. E.g., one writer states: “Suffering happens; there is no underlying reason given. The deaths are reported, not explained.” See J. C. Howell, “Ruth 1:1–8,” Int 51 (1997): 281–84, esp. 282.

7. And Deuteronomy, or parts of it, may be earlier than typically thought.

8. Note the concise remarks of Sasson, “Ruth,” 322.

9. See the discussion in Block, Judges, Ruth, 624–27.

10. Moab could fare better in drought years than Judah due to evaporation from the Dead Sea, as demonstrated by actual rainfall measurements during the first half of the twentieth century. See D. Ashbel, “There Was a Famine in the Land . . . (Ruth 1:1),” Yediot 29 (1965), 221–26 (in Hebrew).

11. A. Berlin, Poetics, 103: “Had Ruth been a Judahite, there would have been nothing remarkable in her actions.”

12. The phrase “man from Bethlehem in Judah” also recalls the “young Levite from Bethlehem in Judah who lived (gûr) with Micah in Ephraim” (Judg. 17:7–11). See Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth,” 25.

13. Although as a number of commentators observe this does not mean that there was nothing but utter hatred and constant war between the two. There were periods of peace and coexistence.

14. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 87. Ironically, the Israelite family goes to live in Moab and suffers the deaths of all of the males, Ruth, the Moabitess, goes to live in Judah and has the pleasure of giving birth to a son.

15. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 624–27, Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 87 nn. 19, 22, see also note 10.

16. Block comments concerning Naomi’s name: “This may be an abbreviated name, missing the theophoric element and thereby suppressing the role of God” (Judges, Ruth, 625). But it is common for biblical female personal names to lack theophoric elements, so it is highly questionable that there is any “suppressing of the role of God” in her name.

17. The Ugaritic personal name ki-li-ia-nu (alphabetic equivalent klyn) is most likely Hurrian and thus a false lead to explicating the unrelated Hebrew kilyôn. See S. C. Layton, “Leaves from an Onomastician’s Notebook,” ZAW 108 (1996): 608–20, esp. 615–20. See also R. Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (OLA 28; Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 13, 80, 113, 130.

18. It is preposterous to suggest that parents would name their children “sickly one” or “destruction.” Compare comments on the name of Cushan-Rishathaim in Judg. 3:8–10.

19. See S. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 215–16.

20. N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Israel (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979), 269. The description of David in 1 Sam. 17:12 as “the son of an Ephrathite . . . from Bethlehem in Judah” adds significance to the coda’s genealogy in Ruth 4:18–22.

21. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 60.

22. Ibid., 60.

23. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 93.

24. The meaning of the name is uncertain. The meaning of “nape (of the neck)” is doubtful. Equally problematic are the meanings “cloudy” or “scented.” See Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 94 n. 14.

25. The meaning of her name is also uncertain. See Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 94 n. 15; Block, Judges, Ruth, 628. The attempt to explain Ruth’s name from a root meaning “friend” is doubtful. Perhaps a derivation from the root rwh (to soak, irrigate, refresh), hence “refreshment, satiation” is possible. But Ruth will serve as the bridge from Naomi to Boaz, from the past to the future.

26. However, this is hardly a favorable wording; nor is the context, which mentions Balaam (Deut. 23:4–5) and forbids treaties with them (23:6). The prohibition against treaties with the Moabites is parallel to the prohibition against treaties with the people in the land (i.e., the Canaanites).

27. The Targum (1:4–5) explicitly attributes the deaths of the two sons to the sin of marrying Moabites. The Midrash (Ruth Rabbah 2.10) relates the deaths to the earlier sin of leaving Judah. But the biblical text is silent on this issue.

28. There are also important differences between Job and Naomi. Job’s integrity is immediately and explicitly set forth, whereas Naomi’s is only established over the course of the book. The divine reason for Job’s trials is explicitly stated, whereas the divine reason for Naomi’s is only inferred. The reactions of the two to the trials is different (at least as far as the prologue of Job is concerned).

29. That potential tragedy is implicit in her angry outcries (1:11–13, 20–21) and explicit in the joyous exclamation of her neighbors (4:14–15), who rejoice that the newborn will “renew [her] life and sustain [her] in [her] old age.” In short, as in Lev. 25, here the gōʾēl delivers an unfortunate Israelite, not from loss of land or lengthy servitude, but from annihilation.

30. See Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 96–97; and P. S. Hiebert, “Whence Shall Help Come to Me?: The Biblical Widow,” in Gender and Difference, ed. by P. L. Day (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 134–37.

31. H. A. Hoffner Jr., “,” TDOT, 1:290.

32. Hubbard states: “If a woman is ‘saved through childbirth’ (1 Tim. 2:15; cf. Rachel’s cry, Gen. 30:1), Naomi is lost. With Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth she suffers the painful shame of childlessness” (The Book of Ruth, 97).

33. P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 167–68.

34. The NIV inverts the clauses of verse 6 and obscures this chiasm.

35. Note that in the Hebrew text, the mention of the Lord’s providing food comes after the decision to return to Moab in a kî (for) clause.

36. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 60.

37. But the mention here implicitly argues for his involvement earlier, an involvement that Naomi perceives (1:13b²—“the Lord’s hand has gone out against me!”). See discussion below.

38. Berlin (“Big Theme, Little Book,” 43) points out “in chapter 1 the repetition of the root šûb ‘return’ twelve times as Naomi bids her daughters-in-law return to their families in Moab and as she returns to Judah with Ruth. Technically, Ruth cannot return to Bethlehem, since the Moabite woman has never been there. Her return is really Naomi’s return.”

39. See Bush for a full explanation (Ruth, Esther, 72). The analysis here is indebted to his observations.

40. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth,” 26; Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 169; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 75.

41. Campbell, Ruth, 82.

42. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth,” 27–28.

43. Bush correctly observes the nature of the questions in the dialogues (Ruth, Esther, 77–78). See also R. T. Hyman, “Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth,” USQR 39 (1984): 190.

44. The NIV does not translate the particle kî as causal, but from the logic of the argument it seems appropriate.

45. Again, the NIV does not translate the particle kî.

46. On the interpretation of this clause, see the discussions of Hubbard (The Book of Ruth, 112) and Campbell (Ruth, 70–71).

47. With this statement, Naomi is implicitly acknowledging Yahweh’s sovereign activity in the earlier tragedies: famine, exile, bereavement, childlessness, etc.

48. Berlin, Poetics, 85.

49. Block interprets this as an indication that Naomi is acknowledging the existence of the Moabite god(s) and is therefore an evidence of her lack of orthodoxy (Judges, Ruth, 638–39). But this seems to be taking the phrase too literally. Literarily, the phrase “back to her people and her gods” is part of the foil. In contrast to Orpah, Ruth will choose the God of Israel. The phrase can be just as easily understood as a tacit recognition that in turning back to Moab this automatically meant that Orpah would be back in a society that worshiped these gods, and that’s all.

50. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 82.

51. The participle expresses durative action in past time, stressing the continuous nature of Ruth’s resolve, a nuance difficult to bring out in translation. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 83.

52. Block comments: “Although some would interpret Ruth’s declaration as a sign of conversion, it is better viewed as an affirmation of a transfer of membership from the people of Moab to Israel and of allegiance from Chemosh to Yahweh. How much she knew about the implications of claiming Yahweh as one’s God we do not know. She had indeed been observing Naomi for more than a decade, but from what we have seen of her in this chapter she hardly qualified to be a missionary of orthodox Yahwistic faith and theology. But this is a start, a noble beginning” (Judges, Ruth, 641). Not only is this again unduly harsh on Naomi; it is far too demanding on Ruth. That Ruth is a believer in Yahweh is confirmed by her actions; in this, with her confession, she is analogous to Rahab with her confession and confirming actions (Josh. 2; cf. James 2).

53. The root and meaning of this term is uncertain. It can be taken to express agitation and consternation, or delighted excitement. The context determines the meaning, which, in this case, seems to make the latter preferable (cf. 1 Sam. 4:5; 1 Kings 1:45).

54. See B. Jongeling, “HZʾT NʿMY (Ruth 1:19),” VT 28 (1978): 474–77.

55. The reason Naomi gives for calling herself Mara instead of Naomi is strikingly parallel to the reasons she gave in verse 13 for refusing Ruth and Orpah’s announced intention to accompany her to Judah: “[Life] is more bitter for me than for you.”

56. Naomi uses the divine name šadday as a synonym for Yahweh. The meaning of this name is still obscure. English translations have generally followed the LXX and the Vulgate in translating the word “the Almighty.” The name appears mostly in passages involving blessing and cursing, frequently in contexts expressing judgment (cf. Job 5:17; Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15).

57. Bush, Ruth Esther, 83.

58. It seems that Naomi may be drawing from the Song of Moses that documents some of Yahweh’s promised curses on the Israelites when they do not follow him, but worthless idols instead. Deut. 32:23 and esp. 24a state:

59. Ibid., 94.

60. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 96.

61. D. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth,” JBL 89 (1970): 27–37, esp. 30.

62. On some of these see Howell, “Ruth 1:1–8,” 281–84.

63. With an ironic twist this will definitely happen for Ruth. Yahweh will fulfill Naomi’s invocation in his name. We are never told what happens to Orpah.

64. D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “ ‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth,” JSOT 40 (1988): 99–108, esp. 100.

1. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 99.

2. It seems preferable to follow the majority of scholars and read here the Qere môdaʿ (relative).

3. “A real, substantial man of character” might capture the nuance here.

4. Block defines the phrase: “noble with respect to character” (Judges, Ruth, 651).

5. For use of this term in the social structure of ancient Israel, see the discussion in the introduction to the book of Judges.

6. See Sasson, Ruth, 41; Campbell, Ruth, 90–91.

7. See, e.g., Job 24:3, 21; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jer. 7:6.

8. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 104.

9. See ibid., 109–11.

10. Berlin, Poetics, 93–94.

11. This is Bush’s suggested translation of w^ehinnēh (Ruth, Esther, 113).

12. The term is naʿar (lit., young man), but the term is used in biblical and extrabiblical texts of a foreman or overseer.

13. The choice of the word nʿrh (young woman) is a natural means of inquiry. It implies Ruth’s youth vis-à-vis Boaz.

14. For the syntax of the question, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 655.

15. For a full recent discussion, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 113–19; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 147–52; and M. Carasik, “Ruth 2, 7: Why the Overseer Was Embarrassed,” ZAW 107 (1995): 493–94.

16. The clause is so difficult that Campbell (Ruth, 96) does not attempt a translation and states that “a hundred conjectures about a badly disrupted text are all more likely to be wrong than any one of them absolutely right!” See also Block, Judges, Ruth, 657–58.

17. Here I am following Carasik’s explication (“Ruth 2, 7,” 493–94).

18. This is not to claim that sexual harassment was a category of behavior recognized in the Israelite legal system, or even one that had a name in biblical Hebrew. But the phenomenon of sexual language or contact that could make a woman uncomfortable existed in the realities of the ancient world, just as today. That Boaz orders/commands (swḥ) his young male workers not to touch or hoot at Ruth confirms this interpretation. The command of Boaz to his workers in 2:16 as a warning against even a remark that would make Ruth uncomfortable reinforces this interpretation. Cf. also the incident of the shepherds driving away Jethro’s daughters from the well until Moses’ arrival (Ex. 2:17).

19. Carasik, “Ruth 2, 7,” 494.

20. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 121–22.

21. M. I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.: Studia Pohl 12; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 187–99, 303–10.

22. The clause is concessive in force, “though I am a foreigner.” See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 123.

23. There is also alliteration of the consonants n and k. See Campbell, Ruth, 98–99.

24. See, e.g., Prov. 2:16; 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27. Also see Gen. 31:15; 1 Kings 11:1, 8; Ezra 10:2.

25. The statement, esp. with its use of ʿzb and môledet, is reminscient of Abram’s migration (Gen. 11:28–12:4). Thus Ruth is indirectly likened to Abram.

26. There are further implications connected to this term in ch. 3.

27. Berlin, Poetics, 88–89. A šipḥâ is of lower status than an ʾāmâ. Thus in 1 Sam. 25:41, Abigail states: “Look, your ʾāmâ is but a šipḥâ to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” Abigail is an ʾāmâ but wants to further reduce herself to a šipḥâ vis-à-vis David.

28. The exact nature of the word ḥōmēṣ that the NIV translates “wine vinegar” is not known. Cf. Num. 6:3; Ps. 69:21; Prov. 10:26. Perhaps it is some kind of refreshing sour condiment (cf. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 173).

29. “Roasted grain” (qālî) was a staple of Old Testament society (cf. 1 Sam. 17:17; 25:18; 2 Sam. 17:28).

30. This clause is variously interpreted. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 126.

31. Kennedy argues that this clause means, “Don’t hoot at her or treat her in such a way as to send her away frightened and helpless” (A. Kennedy, “The Root GʿR in the Light of Semantic Analysis,” JBL 106 [1987]: 47–64, esp. 60–64).

32. The Hebrew literally states: “She beat out what she had gleaned.” In order to thresh small quantities, the stalks and ears of the grain were beaten with a stick (cf. Judg. 6:11; Isa. 28:27). For such threshing techniques, see O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 63.

33. In a one-sentence comment, Sasson links the interpretation of this verse to the data from Mari, but not to all the Ration Lists evidence. He states: “Given the fact that at Mari of the Old Babylonian period, the ration of a male worker rarely exceeded one to two pounds per day, we are impressed by Ruth’s ability to gather enough to last her and her mother-in-law a few weeks” (Sasson, Ruth, 57). Hubbard follows Sasson (The Book of Ruth, 79).

34. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, 61–62.

35. Campbell, Ruth, 104.

36. The even larger capacity measure for a ephah that is sometimes listed in commentaries (i.e., 36.4 liters) is a measure based on much later sources and would produce a homer (364 liters) that no donkey could carry! See the detailed discussion of M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” in ABD, 6:897–908, esp. 903–5. It may be that early Hebrew norms for the homer were not much different from those of the contemporary Mesopotamian homer. Thus Mesopotamian qû → sūtu → imēru :: omer → ephah → homer :: 1 liter → 10 liters → 100 liters respectively. The NIV text note states that the ephah is “probably about 3/5 bushel (about 22 liters).” This seems to be too high in light of recent research.

37. Ibid., 904. For a full discussion, see L. Milano, “Food and Diet in Pre-Classical Syria,” in Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East: A Collection of Essays, ed. C. Zaccagnini (Budapest: Chaire d’Egyptologie de l’Université Eötovos Loránd de Budapest, 1989), 201–71; F. M. Fales, “Grain Reserves, Daily Rations and the Size of the Assyrian Army: A Quantitative Study,” SAAB 4 (1990): 23–34.

38. According to this extrabiblical Hebrew inscription (lines 4–5), a month was devoted to harvesting barley and a month was devoted to harvesting wheat. See the discussion and bibliography in D. Sivan, “The Gezer Calendar and Northwest Semitic Linguistics,” IEJ 48 (1998): 101–5; Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 31–44.

39. For a more detailed discussion of the ration data and the implications of the ephah, see K. L. Younger Jr., “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” 121–25.

40. Zenger, Das Buch Ruth, 60.

41. This particular form of blessing is only found in 1 Kings 10:9 (= 2 Chron. 9:8) and Prov. 5:18.

42. In one sense, this is Ruth’s full name, similar to, e.g., Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3) or Ebed-Melech the Cushite (Jer. 38:7). See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 138.

43. Ibid. This may reinforce the possible conclusion that Ruth averaged an ephah per day.

44. The word pāgaʿ (with the prep. b) means “to physically attack” or “molest physically” (cf. Judg. 8:21; 15:12; 18:25; etc.).

45. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 140.

46. The very fact that Boaz stresses to his male workers not to “touch” or “hoot at” or in any way dispute Ruth is a clear indication that such things happened.

47. Cf. the “chance” finding of Joseph by the man in the field at Shechem in Gen. 37:15–17. If Joseph had not been “found” by this man, there would be no nation of Israel! Joseph would never have found his brothers, been sold into slavery, risen to vizier of Egypt, and saved his family from famine and the moral corruption of Canaan.

48. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 177.

49. Cf. also Ex. 22:22–24; Deut. 24:17–18; Ps. 68:4–5; 94:1–6; 146:9.

50. In fact verse 8 states: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” This is a continuation of the care for relatives as seen in the Old Testament context.

1. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 147.

2. Campbell, in fact, suggests that the verbal construction here alludes to other unspecified efforts by Naomi behind the scenes (Ruth, 116).

3. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 198.

4. The NIV translation does not reflect the conjunction + particle (w^eʿattâ) that regularly introduces a logical step in an argument, often a consequence or a conclusion. Thus the question should be translated: “So then, is not Boaz a relative of ours?”

5. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 148.

6. The choice of “tonight” rather than “this evening” may have been dictated by thematic considerations, i.e., to orient the audience to the timing of the scene about to unfold in the dark of the night. See Campbell, Ruth, 119; and Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 201 n. 16.

7. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 65–66.

8. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 150–52; Block, Judges, Ruth, 683. According to Ex. 22:25–26, poor people used this garment for a blanket at night. Since Ruth is a poor person going out to spend the night in the field, she certainly will need this to stay warm.

9. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 152. Block points out that this is confirmed by the interesting analogy of 2 Sam. 12:20, in which David ceased his mourning, washed himself, applied perfumed oil, put on his śimlâ, and went to the temple to worship—i.e., resumed normal life.

10. This particular term (marg^elôt), derived from regel, is used only in Ruth (3:4, 7, 8, 14) and Dan. 10:6. It probably has the same range of meaning as regel (foot, lower leg, leg), although in Dan. 10:6 it clearly refers to the legs as a whole (there it is paired to arms).

11. See, e.g., L. Morris, “Ruth,” in Judges, and Ruth (TOTC. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1968), 286; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 121.

12. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 152; Zenger, Das Buch Ruth, 67.

13. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 153.

14. For a fuller discussion, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 159–61.

15. Block notes that the notion of fear is not inherent in the word ḥrd used here (Judges, Ruth, 690, n. 34). Cf. Ex. 19:16; 1 Sam. 14:15; Isa. 32:11. The Targum reads, “and he was afraid, and his flesh became soft like a turnip from fear” (see discussion by D. R. G. Beattie, The Targum of Ruth [Aramaic Targum 19; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1994], 26 n. 5). Block adds: “Any effort to attribute the ‘startling’ to a dream or a midnight apparition or a visit by a night demon (Lilith) is unnecessarily speculative.” For further discussion see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 162.

16. I. Riesener, Der Stamm ‘bd in Alten Testament: Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden (BZAW 149; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1979), 76–83.

17. R. Schultz, “” and “” NIDOTTE, 1:418–21; 4:211–13.

18. This nuance seems to be confirmed in extrabiblical Hebrew inscriptions; see the discussion in Younger, “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” 126–28.

19. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 211.

20. The idiom pāraś kānāp ʿal (“to spread a garment-cover over [someone]”) means “to marry” (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Deut. 22:30 [23:1]; 27:20; Mal. 2:16).

21. L. Morris puts it this way: “Ruth had put herself under Yahweh’s ‘wing’ when she came to Judah. Now she seeks also to put herself under that of Boaz.” See Morris, Ruth, 290.

22. K. van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327–39, esp. 334–35.

23. Ibid., 335.

24. Hubbard, “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel,” 17.

25. The two descriptions are interconnected and establish his status and role. As pointed out in the introductory remarks on the gōʾēl, there was a hierarchy of response, and while it was a role that should be carried out, it was not a must.

26. Block, Judges, Ruth, 692.

27. Bernstein aptly puts it this way: “The narrative tells us straightforwardly that no sexual intercourse has taken place on the threshing floor, that final resolutions await the scene at the city gate. All the while, however, the vocabulary of the scene indicates that it might have, that the atmosphere was sexually charged. Thus the ambivalence. The words point, beneath the surface, to the might-have-been which the characters felt might be, while the combinations of the words emphasize the opposing reality. The author of Ruth is relying upon ambiguity in language to depict the tension of emotion, enabling him to convey the atmospherics of the scene without digressing from his narrative to describe them.” See M. Bernstein, “Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative,” JSOT 50 (1991): 15–26, esp. 19–20.

28. The request to Boaz reflects ḥesed loyalty to Naomi for as a gōʾēl, Boaz is a relative who can ensure security for Naomi, not just Ruth.

29. Campbell, Ruth, 125. Hence the attraction of the book to the final poem of the book of Proverbs in some of the canonical orderings (see the introduction).

30. Block, Judges, Ruth, 695.

31. Campbell, Ruth, 137.

32. The term miṭpaḥat is used only here and in Isa. 3:22, where it appears to have the nuance “cloak.”

33. For a discussion of the textual problem in this verse, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 698.

34. The question is not concerned about identification but about Ruth’s situation; the NIV translation attempts to reflect this.

35. Campbell, Ruth, 129.

36. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 186.

37. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 199.

1. Campbell, Ruth, 141. Cf. 2 Kings 8:5 for an interesting and clear analogy.

2. Sasson, Ruth, 106. This is a wordplay in which unrelated and perhaps even meaningless rhyming words are combined to produce a new idiom. English examples might included: “hodge-podge,” “helter-skelter,” “heebie-jeebies,” and “hocus-pocus” (see Block, Judges, Ruth, 706).

3. The renderings of the ancient versions, which attempt to translate the expression by some etymological explanation, are clearly attempts to translate a difficult and unknown phrase (i.e., they are nothing more than guesses by the translators).

4. Zenger, Das Buch Ruth, 81; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 197. Bush states: “Such a device can only raise our eyebrows and make us wonder proleptically about the role this man will play in the proceedings about to take place. (One wonders indeed if the Hebrew expression we have translated ‘So-and-So’ was also used euphemistically in place of a stronger epithet, as the English expression is!)” (p. 244).

5. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 199.

6. Brother is used in the sense of clan relative here.

7. For a more complete recent discussion of the difficulties, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 200–243. I must acknowledge my general dependence on Bush’s research and argumentation at this point.

8. Ibid., 202. At issue is not the transfer of ownership of property but the acquisition of the right of holding in usufruct someone else’s property until the next Jubilee Year” (E. Lipiński, “,” TDOT, 8:292).

9. The term “usufruct” means “the right of enjoying the use, profits, and advantages of another’s property or estate short of the destruction, waste or impairing of its substance.”

10. The absence of the seller and the failure to mention any payment or its amount render it most difficult, if not impossible, to regard the transaction involved as a preemptive sale, or sale of any kind, of the field of Elimelech to Boaz by Naomi. In addition, the nearer redeemer’s change of mind also makes it virtually impossible to understand the transaction as a preemption. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 215.

11. Outright sale was, of course, not possible to him.

12. Cf. 1 Sam. 4:5 (people rejoicing at the ark’s return) and 1 Kings 1:45 (people rejoicing at Solomon’s anointing). Even granting some overstatement here, the sentence, nevertheless, conveys the substantial impact of the return of Naomi and Ruth on the town. Boaz’s foreman refers to Ruth as “the Moabitess who came back from Moab with Naomi.” This seems also to indicate an awareness of her presence in Bethlehem.

13. It is inconceivable in a small town like Bethlehem that the ownership of a plot of land would have been forgotten after only ten years or so. Everything biblical points to a close registering of agricultural property. The detailed record-keeping in other regions of the ancient Near East also argues in favor of this man’s being aware of the property’s existence.

14. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, 9–89; idem, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” 65–87.

15. See Westbrook, “Redemption of Land,” 371; H. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife,” 15–16.

16. The Qere is preferred (see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 216, 229).

17. While “name” (šēm) can be used in the Old Testament as the virtual equivalent of “descendants, posterity” (cf. Isa. 66:22), in this context it has the connotation of “title.” See Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, 69–89.

18. For further discussion of ḥesed as the demonstration of the spirit of the law, see J. A. Loader, “Of Barley, Bulls, Land, and Levirate,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of S. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 123–38.

19. The term šāḥat in this context has connotations of “ruin” or “undermine.”

20. The nearer redeemer is now publicly caught in an ethical and economic dilemma. He has only three options: (1) He can agree to redeem the field and marry Ruth and so raise up an heir to inherit the family property of Elimelech. If he does this, he will incur the cost of redeeming the field, only to see it become the property of the heir he must raise for the line of Elimelech. (2) He can agree to redeem the field but ignore his pledge to marry Ruth. If he does this, he will cast himself in an unfavorable light as one who is willing to meet family obligations only when they benefit him and do not cost him. (3) He can cede his rights as redeemer to the next gōʾēl (i.e., Boaz).

21. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 246.

22. Since the singular naʿal is used as often as the dual to refer to the two sandals normally worn (cf. 1 Kings 2:5; Isa. 20:2; cf. Josh. 5:15 with Ex. 3:5), it is probably the usage here. Consequently, it remains uncertain who removes his sandals and gives them to the other and whether the act makes concrete a transfer of rights or legitimates the same by a symbolic payment. However, the most natural interpretation of 4:8 is to understand that the subject of the first verb, “the redeemer said,” is also the subject of the following verb “and he drew off,” and therefore it is the nearer redeemer who takes off his sandals and gives them to Boaz (cf. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 250). The act then symbolizes and makes concrete the transfer of rights from the one “redeemer” to the next. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 234–36.

23. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 190.

24. Ibid., 191.

25. The NIV unnecessarily reverses the clauses in this verse.

26. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 240. Campbell, however, notes reasons why Rachel is listed first (Ruth, 152): (1) because Rachel was Jacob’s favorite wife; (2) because Rachel was buried traditionally at Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19); (3) because Rachel experienced a lengthy barrenness at first just as Ruth had in her earlier marriage; (4) because Ruth is second-named in 1:4 and was apparently married to the younger of the two sons (like Rachel, who was married to the younger of two sons: Jacob)—thus Ruth the least in rank of the story’s characters is now to receive the reward of her faithfulness.

27. The range of meaning for ḥayil has resulted in numerous translations: “power, strength” (NEB, JB); “worth, ability” (KJV, ASV); and “wealth, possessions” (NASB, RSV).

28. Tamar bears twins, Perez and Zerah, after she masquerades as a prostitute to seduce her father-in-law, Judah, who had failed to fulfill his promise to give her his youngest son, Shelah, as husband after his two older sons died while married to her.

29. A. Berlin, “Big Theme, Little Book,” 47.

30. Note also the huge contrast between Boaz and Ruth and the Levite of Bethlehem and his nameless concubine (Judg. 19)

31. Naomi is “the person whose ‘trial’ holds the whole story together” (Campbell, Ruth, 168).

32. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 250–52.

33. W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klaglieder (KAT 17.1–3, 2d ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962), 70.

34. Campbell, Ruth, 168.

35. Block, Judges, Ruth, 729.

36. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 264.

37. There does not seem to be any reason to understand this act as a legal adoption of the child by Naomi. Naomi has no need to adopt the infant; he is already hers through the legal fiction of the levirate. See the discussion of Bush, Ruth, Esther, 257–58.

38. Bush has surveyed the syntactic structures of name giving in the Old Testament and convincingly argues that this is a case of semantic wordplay. See F. W. Bush, “Ruth 4:17: A Semantic Wordplay,” in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 3–14.

39. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 261. The fact that Obed is in all probability a hypocoristic (an abbreviated form) for a name without a theophoric element (cf. ʿbdyhw/ʿbdyh, a common name in the Old Testament [e.g., Obadiah]) does not speak against this view since such a semantic play totally ignores scientific etymology.

40. “The announcement is addressed to the larger community outside the family, which is invited, not to claim the child for itself, but to appreciate what this means for Naomi. Hence, Naomi, as the primary beneficiary of the birth, is cited as the one to whom the child is born.” See S. B. Parker “The Birth Announcement,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Essays in Honor of P. C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 133–49, esp. 139.

41. R. Hubbard Jr., “Ruth IV.17: A New Solution,” VT 38 (1988): 293–301, esp. 296.

42. See Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” 48. He states: “Ruth is said to be better to Naomi than ‘seven’ sons (4:15). The descendent of Perez who married Ruth appeared in the seventh generation (4:21). The young widow Ruth, worth more to the old widow Naomi than seven sons, married the seventh generation Boaz. The elders had blessed Boaz that his house be like the house of Perez (4:12). The reader is now shown what the house of Perez meant—seven generations to Boaz (4:18–21) and ten to David.”

43. Berlin, Poetics, 86.

44. While, in certain ways, this could have had more to do with Mahlon and Boaz than Ruth, the text presents it as a specific way of God’s blessing Ruth.

45. In the biblical way of understanding, Elimelech’s, Mahlon’s, and Kilion’s deaths were not the result of fate. In his sovereignty Yahweh determines the timing. Cf. 1 Sam. 2:6: “The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.”

46. Hubbard, “The Gōʾēl in Ancient Israel,” 18.

47. A. Gaebelein, As It Was—So Shall It Be: Sunset and Sunrise: A Study of the First Age and Our Present Age (New York: “Our Hope,” 1937); M. R. DeHaan, The Romance of Redemption: The Love Story of Ruth and Boaz (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958).

48. Cf. the analogy of the divine gōʾēl, whose redeeming activity in at least one instance (Isa. 54:5) is described in terms of a marriage with a childless widow.