Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/620

 JUDGES

548

JUDGES

Rationalists and of Protestants in the matter of the so-called late and manifold redaction of Judges.

IV. Authenticity. — The chief arguments for the authenticity of .Judges are given Ix'low under Historicity and Sources. \Vc now appeal to: (a) The canoniz- ing of the book by Jews and Christians as an authentic narrative of part of Israel's history; (b) the life-like style of the work; (c) the minute and accurate details of the narrative; (d) the evident purpose of the narra- tor to give a history of the things whereof he knows.

V. Purpose. — Although the purpose of the nar- rator is evidently to give a history of the events that took place in Israel between the days of Josue and of Samuel, yet that purpose is rather epic and didactic than historical in the modern sense of the word. (1) The narrator does not purpose history in the modern sense; he does not narrate in historical order all the important events of the period. This fact is clear from the appendixes (xvii-xxi), which give very important events outside their proper his- torical order. (2) The historian of Judges has an epic purpose, as early historians (e. g. Herodotus) often had. The epos, or theme, of the historian of Judges is evolved in the summary (ii, 6-iii, 6) where- with he introduces the history proper; he has it ever in mind to unfold why Jahweh allowed the foe to abide so long in the promised land, and even to defeat the chosen people, and why He raised up the judges. The idolatry of Israel is the reason. (3) The didactic purpose of the book is to teach Israel that the com- mandments of Jahweh should be obeyed (iii, 4). When Israel leaves Jahweh, Jahweh leaves Israel, at least for the while; the foes of Israel triumph (cf. Aug., "De Civ. Dei", xvi, 43).

VI. Sources. — The problem is complicated. Most contradictory theories have been proposed. According to Moore (see " Internat. Crit. Comm." on "Judges", also art. in "Eneyc. Bibl."), the body of the book (ii, 6-xvi, 31) is Deuteronomistic ; the general setting of the stories and the purpose of that setting show characteristics of the seventh and sixth centuries, the influence of Deuteronomv and of the great Prophets Jeremias and Ezechicl. The stories of the book, out of their setting and apart from their set purpose in the Book of Judges, are pre-Deuteronomic ; they show no Deuteronomic traces except in the introduc- tions and the links that chain the various stories to- gether. Indeed, Moore would have it that this redac- tion and unification of the sources was the work of a pre-Deuteronomic editor; this etlitor is not admitted by Kittel. To sum up, then, the opinion of Moore, one of the most eminent Protestant students of Judges, the book itself (i. e. ii, 6-xvi, 31) is made up of two strands (J and E), united not later than 621 b. c. by a pre-Deuteronomic redactor (Rje), and re-edited shortly thereafter, during the Deuteronomic reform of Josias and the influence of Jeremias, by the Deuterono- mic editor of the Hexateuch (D). Many critics refuse to assign anv strata of Judges to the Hexateuchal fictions — J, E, JE, P or R, and D, even though they postulate many and late sources for the book in its present state. Among Catholic scholars a fe\v, who wrote tefore the Biblical Commission issued its de- crees about the Pentateuch, have accepted the late redaction. Most Catholic scholars, however, are unanimous against these few who have left the tradi- tional positions of Catholic Bible-study. In the matter of historical criticism of Judges, as of the Pentateuch, Catholic scholars do not deny the use of various sources by the inspired writer, but postulate that these documents shall have Ijeen written and put togi^ther very much earlier than the Rationalists wish. There is no proof whatsoever of the late and manifold redaction of these documents in our present book. Cor- nely (loc. cit., 214-22) and Hummelauer (In Lib. Jud. et Ruth, 27) both consider that the writer of Judges was probably Samuel; and both admit that the work

shows signs of the use of pre-existing documents. Such is the opinion also of Kaulen (" Einleitung in die heilige Schrift", 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1890, 181).

(1) Judges, in its present state, cannot- have been written before Israel had a king. Only in the time of a king could the writer have said: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself" (xvii, 6; cf. xviii, 1; xxi, 24). These words appear only in the appendix (xvii-xxi), which we admit to be later than some of the sources used by the sacred writer; this appendix is generally admitted to be part of the work done by the last editor of Judges. This editor, then, wrote while Israel had a king.

(2) The book was not written after Solomon had done evil. The writer deems the lack of a king to be the explanation of the idolatry of the Danites and the misdeeds of the tribe of Benjamin. Such an explana- tion would have been out of the question had the writer known cither of the idolatry brought in by Jeroboam and encouraged liy Solomon or of the separation of Juda from Israel.

(3) This last editor must have written before David had reigned seven years. For Jerusalem was still called Jebus and was occupied by the Jebusites (xix, 11); whereas, in the seventh year of his reign, David took the citadel of Sion, called it the city of David, and destroyed the Jebusites (II Kings, v).

(4) Finally, it is likely that Judges antedates even the first seven years of David's reign and the last years of Saul's. The book purposes to keep the children of Israel from idolatry and from the Divine punishments thereof. In the beginning of David's ami the end of Saul's reign there was no need of such purpose; Saul had "rooted out the magicians and soothsayers from the land" (I Kings, xxviii, 9). Moreover, in that period the writer would have seen that even a " king in Israel" did not prevent the tribal and internal dissensions of the days of the judges.

(5) Since, then. Judges was most likely written in the first years of Saul's reign, there is no more prob- able writer thereof than Samuel. He had yielded to Israel's clamours, and set up Saul as king. A new war was impending. There was none in Israel more likely to make the people ready for that war by driv- ing home to them the thesis of Judges — that fidelity to Jahweh meant success against the foe of Israel.

(G) The use of previous documents by Samuel suffi- ciently explains the varied literary style on account of which the Rat ionalists frame their various hypotheses. The song of Debbora (v) is archaic by contrast with the language of its setting. The story of Ciedeon is originally from a different hand than that of the first writer of Samson's history; the latter uses -it"S (xii, 6; xiv, 17, 20), where the former has [;• (vi. 17; vii, 12; viii, 26); he who originally wrote that "the spirit of God clothed [ncOP] Gedeoii" (vi.34),may be admitted not to have been identical with him who conceived that "the spirit of the Lord rushed [niiSni] upon Samson" (xiv, 6, 19; xv, 14).

Catholic commentators of old assigned the Book of Judges to many hands. So Maldonatus (Comm. in Matt., ii, 23), Pineda (In Job, prtef., iii), Clair (p. 10), and many others. Hummelauer (In Jud., 27) argues that the longer narratives — those of Aod (iii, 15-30), Barac (iv and v), Gedeon (vi-viii), Abimelech (ix), Jephte (xi, 1-xii, 7), and Samson (xiii-xvi) — are distinct accounts, written by separate authors, who were contemporary or almost contemporary with the events they narrated. These varied narratives Samuel incorporated much as he founil them; he drew from tradition for the minor details which he gives about the lesser judges. While setting these stories together, Samuel was inspired in regaril to the complete thoughts he culled from others, as' well as the introductions, links, and remarks he superadded.

VII. liisToiuciTY. — (1) Internal Evidence. — The