Judges 17 - Introduction

PART III

Chapter s 17 18, and 19 21, form a double Appendix to the Book of Judges proper (Judges 2:6 to Judges 16:31). As they exhibit no traces of the characteristic handling of the Deuteronomic compiler, and lie outside his chronological scheme, they must have been added by some later editor after the central division of the Book had reached its present shape. We can readily understand why these narratives were appended: they belong to the same general period as the -judges," and were considered to be worth preserving for their historical value, which indeed is great. We can also see why the Deuteronomic compiler left them out: they are not concerned with the doings of any -judge," while they reveal a state of morals and religion in Israel which by no means came up to the Deuteronomic standard of what was edifying or correct.

Appendix I. Chs. 17 18 The Origin of the Sanctuary at Dan

A man named Micah in the hill country of Ephraim had a sanctuary of his own, provided with a sacred image and served by a Levite. In the course of their migration towards the north, a party of 600 Danites came to Micah's village, robbed his shrine, and carried off both the image and the priest. They advanced up the country to Laish, a town near the sources of the Jordan, captured it, changed its name to Dan, and set up Micah's image there and made his Levite the priest of the new settlement. Such was the origin of the sanctuary at Dan, a place renowned in Israelite history. Cf. the accounts of the origin of the sanctuary at Beer-sheba Genesis 21:33; Genesis 26:23-25 J, at Beth-el ib.Genesis 28:17-22 E, at Ophrah Judges 8:24-27, at Jerusalem 2 Samuel 24:18-25.

When did these events take place? The editor who appended the story dates it vaguely in the days before the monarchy (Judges 17:6; Judges 18:1), and probably meant us to think of some time in the interval between Samson and Saul. But we have found reason to believe that a portion of the Danites, and only a portion is mentioned here, had settled in the north before the days of Deborah (see on Judges 13:2); probably, therefore, the migration belonged to the early period referred to in Judges 1:34.

The story throws an interesting light on the social and religious conditions of ancient Israel. A wealthy person or family might possess a private sanctuary and the means of consulting the divine oracle; any Israelite could become a priest, but a Levite was preferred on account of his special skill. The Levites of the period seem to have attached themselves to the tribe of Judah, and to have made themselves a centre in Beth-lehem; but they joined other tribes too, or wandered in search of employment. It was a time of barbarous manners and crude religious ideas. As a matter of course the graven image, the ephod, and terâphim, were used in the service of Jehovah; the racy description of the robbery leaves no doubt as to which side the story-teller favoured.

In many places the narrative is confused and inconsistent, especially at the following points: (a) the account of the origin of Micah's image Judges 17:2-3, contrast Judges 17:5; (b) the enumeration of his sacra, graven image, molten image, ephod, terâphim Judges 17:4-5; Judges 18:14; Judges 18:17 f., Judges 18:30; (c) the account of the Levite in Judges 17:8-11 a, Judges 17:12 b, Judges 17:13; Judges 18:17 b, Judges 18:18; Judges 18:30, contrast the young manin Judges 17:7; Judges 17:11 b, Judges 17:12 a, Judges 18:3; Judges 18:15; (d) the sending out of the spies Judges 18:2; (e) the spoliation of Micah's sanctuary Judges 18:14; Judges 18:16; Judges 18:18 a, contrast Judges 18:15. This confusion and redundancy have been explained as due to later interpolations assisted by the corruption of the text (Kuenen, Wellhausen, and recently Lagrange). Most modern scholars, however, recognize here, as in the story of Gideon, a combination of two narratives, both very ancient and closely parallel; and on the whole this view seems to give a more satisfactory explanation of the difficulties. But while the signs of more than one hand are clear, much uncertainty remains as to which details are to be assigned to the one narrator or the other; our results must be to a great extent merely tentative.