Gershon Galil, «The Chronological Framework of the Deuteronomistic History», Vol. 85 (2004) 413-421
This article points out that the series of the minor judges were not included in the deuteronomistic edition of the Book of Judges, and therefore did not form part of the Dtr’s chronology. In the author’s opinion the Dtr constructs a chronological framework spanning 480 years from the Exodus to the establishment ofthe Temple (1Kgs 6,1) and correlates it with the chronological data in Deuteronomy–Samuel.
416 Gershon Galil
Moreover, he excluded from his calculations the 58 years of oppression by the
Ammonites and the Philistines, and the three years of Abimelech (11).
Moore, Noth, Richter, and other scholars, are of the opinion that the series
of the “Minor Judges†with the dates assigned to them totaling 76 years, were
included in the DH, and in the schematic framework in 1 Kgs 6,1. This is one
of the main flaws in their systems, since, in my opinion, the notices of the
minor judges were not included in the deuteronomistic edition of the book of
Judges, and therefore cannot form part of the Dtr’s chronology or of the
schematic framework spanning 480 years from the Exodus to the fourth year
of Solomon (12). The notices of the minor judges are clearly secondary in the
Book of Judges. They are devoid of any theological aspect: in these passages
we find no sin, no repentance, and no forgiveness. Salvation is mentioned, but
no salvation stories are related, and even the typical round figures are not
mentioned. Moreover, the interpolation of these passages in chapters 10 and
12, evidently contradicts the Dtr’s attitude towards the period of the judges,
since, in his opinion, the Israelites were on a road downward: “as soon as the
judge was dead, they would relapse into deeper corruption than their
forefathers†(Judg 2,19). Accordingly, the reaction of the Lord changed: “I
will deliver you no more†(Judg 10,13), so there was no more room for
prosperity and success, but just for judgment, decline, and oppression. The Dtr
divides the epoch of the judges into two main parts: the period of the four
saviors, who succeeded in their mission (Othniel, Ehud, Deborah and Gideon),
and the period of the three judges/leaders who disappointed: Abimelech,
Jephthah and Samson (13). The period of these last three leaders is described by
the Dtr as dark and cruel, without rest or peace, characterized by deep
corruption, and one of the lowest points in the relationship between God and
his chosen people. This is exactly the point were a post-deuteronomistic editor
inserted the notices of the minor judges, in an effort to balance the Dtr’s hard
and gloomy description of the relations between God and the Israelites: “In
the midst of escalating social chaos, the notices of the minor judges serve as a
refreshing interludes of order, family growth and prosperity...†(14).
(11) For another proposal to coordinate the chronological data in Deuteronomy–
Samuel with 1 Kgs 6,1 see G. SAUER, “Die chronologischen Angaben in den Büchern
Deuteronomium bis 2. Königeâ€, TZ 24 (1968) 1-14. For a critical review of his suggestions
see J.J. BIMSON, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (JSOTSS 5; Sheffield 1981) 83-84.
(12) For the opinion that the series of the minor judges were added to the Book of
Judges by a post-deuteronomistic editor see K. BUDDE, Das Buch der Richter (KHAT;
Freiburg 1897) ix, xvii, 78; C.F. BURNEY, The Book of Judges (New York 1970 [1903])
289-290; ROWLEY, From Joseph to Joshua, 92, 97; C.A. SIMPSON, Composition of the Book
of Judges (Oxford 1957) 142-145; J. GRAY, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (NCB; London 1967)
5-6, 327; Y. ZAKOVITCH, “The Associative Arrangement of the Book of Judges and its Use
for the Recognition of Stages in the Formation of the Bookâ€, Isaac Leo Seeligmann
Volume. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World (ed. Y. ZAKOVITCH – A. ROFE)
(Jerusalem 1983) I, 180-182 (Hebrew). It is a common opinion that the series of the minor
judges have been included in the Book of Judges “simply to supplement the number of the
‘great judges’ to the conventional number of twelve, thus possibly to make the judges as
representative as possible of all the elements of Israel†(GRAY, Joshua, Judges, 327).
(13) For the “disappointing judges†see Y. AMIT, The Book of Judges. The Art of
Editing (BIS 38; Leiden 1999) 85-92.
(14) C. PRESSLER, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (WBC; Louisville – London 2002) 194.