that the poem severed from its historical explanation would scarcely be intelligible, and the close connexion manifestly subsisting between them. It is difficult to conceive the independent existence of the history; because, as here given, it is based on the ode. In addition to this, Bertheau has acutely remarked, that peculiar phrases and words appear in iv. 4-24, which the writer seldom or never uses elsewhere, such as 70W verse 18;

ויהם ;7 in a rare sense, verses 6 and משכת ; 21 verse ותצנח

а

found both here and in Ex. xiv. 25, Josh. x. 10 in the immediate neighbourhood of poems or poetical passages, and therefore apparently borrowed with the poems themselves from one and the same source. The sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters, relating to Gideon, betray their indebtedness in various points to historical tradition embodied in a written document. The ninth chapter unmistakeably shews, that it was taken from a larger history containing an account of Shechem and its rulers in the time of the judges. Jotham's fable (ix. 3–15) bears the stamp of authenticity. The story of Jephthah belonged to a larger history relating to the Israelites east of Jordan (xi.-xii. 6). The history of Samson in xiii. xvi. was not the subject of a special document, but was taken from a larger one narrating the Philistine wars. This appears from the phrase he shall begin to deliver in xiii. 5, implying that the narrative was continued in Samson's successors, Bertheau conjectures, that the short accounts in 2 Sam. xxi. 15-22; xxiii. 8-39, were from the same document. The imitation of Gen. xvi. in Judg. xiii. is apparent to every reader.

The verses ii. 6-9, are repeated in Josh. xxiv. 28-31 with slight variations, shewing that the thread of the history is resumed in the same words, or nearly so, with which it had been broken off.

From these remarks it is obvious, that the body of the present work was mainly derived from older written materials, of which it is now impossible to obtain a more definite knowledge. How far the author moulded the documents at his disposal, or incorporated them in the form and language they already presented, cannot be determined-except in a very few instances. Speaking generally, it does not appear that he made extensive alterations, or left any deep impress of his own upon them. He extracted such accounts as suited his purpose, incorporating them into the general narrative by appropriate words at the commencement and end. Hence he was more a compiler than an independent author. It may be, as Ewald thinks, that an older book of judges continued down much later than Solomon, and from which some specified verses in 2 Chronicles

were taken, formed the basis of all this division, with the exception of the part relating to Samson; but we will not undertake to affirm it.

Jahn and others have thought that two authorities were used in the account given of Samson; the sketch of his adventures with Delilah being taken from another source than the preceding. This rests on no other basis than the termination of the fifteenth chapter, where we read : "and he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines, twenty years," as is stated at the close of narratives relating to the other judges. It has also been remarked, that xvi. 12 is like a repetition of xv. 13, 14. We see no necessity for entertaining this hypothesis. Surely it is a sufficient explanation of the concluding verse of chapter xv. to say, that the writer intended to conclude the history of Samson with the enumeration of the seven exploits just given; but afterwards saw occasion to add five others, without disturbing the closing formula.

V. OBSERVATIONS ON XVII-XXI.-The third division, which is an independent part of the book as it now is, consists of two historical narratives, detailing events belonging to the commencement of the judges-period. The writer might have placed them before j. 6, had he been guided solely by their contents ; and accordingly Josephus assigns them that position in his chronologically arranged account; but they are suitable where they now stand, a resting-point having been presented after the death of Samson and immediately before the appearance of Samuel, of which the writer thought it best to avail himself by inserting a history that served to prepare the way for a kingly government, and so put a stop to the lawlessness of the people doing what was right in their own eyes. The two histories do not present much internal union, and consist of different materials. Auberlen indeed has tried to shew, not only in them but also in Ruth, a typical significance and similarity of plan, but without success. They betray the hand of one writer. It is often remarked in both, that there was then no king in Israel (xvii. 6; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xxi. 25). We find the use of the perfect in describing what belongs to the same time as the preceding, as in xviii. 7; xx. 43; numerous infinitives with the prefix 5 xviii. 9; xix. 15; xx. 10 ; sentences introduced by the

. pronoun DJ or 197 at the beginning of the discourse, xviii. 22, 27; xix. 11, 22. Single expressions which are not frequent elsewhere often recur, as noj xviii. 6; xix. 10; xx. 43; 30 55 xviii. 20; xix. 6, 9, 22; 727 Dņa xviii. 10; xix. 19 ;

-in juxtaposi מִשְׁפָּחָה and שֵׁבֶט ;45 ,42 .xviii. 22 ; xx הִרְבִּיק

tion, xviii. 19; xxi. 24: '5 Spysy and b#17 xvii. 11; xix. 6, etc. In the two narratives also, Levites settled in Bethlehemjudah play an important part. These and other characteristics attest identity of authorship in chaps. xvii.- xxi.

What now is to be said of the writer of these chapters in relation to the body of the work, i.e., ii. 6-xvi? It is clear that diversity of authorship must be asserted. The prophetic survey of history which pervades the second division is wanting here. Theocratic ideas couched in appropriate expressions, and shewing the point of view taken, are not found, as in the preceding portion. The writer never betrays a theological interest; the nearest approach to it being in the appellation bestowed on Israel, “the people of God,” which is only occasional (xx. 2). The diversity is so obvious that one wonders at its denial by Keil. The narration presents another standpoint. In accordance with this is the absence of such characteristic phrases and words as have just been adduced to shew identity of authorship in chaps. xvii., xviii. and xix.-xxi. The frequent use of the perfect with preceding separated from it by one or more words betrays a linguistic peculiarity which cannot be found in ü. 6xvi.

As far as we are aware, Ewald was the first who perceived that similarity between this part of the book and the first, which leads to the inference that the writer of both was the same person. In both the tribe of Judah is prominent; whereas it is not spoken of in the second part. In both the congregation of Israel taught by the divine oracle executes the will of God, and not the judges. In them too the tribes are geographically distinguished, and their different wars carefully noted. Common to both also are the expressions '13? by ip i., 1; xx. 18; 717'n bepa i. 1, and xx. 23, 27, and the answer to the oracle i; ,

i; XX. ,

1 and i. 12. jan xix. 4; i. 16. The use of the preterite with

; preceding has been referred to before. This identity of authorship in chaps. i., xvii.-xxi. proves diversity of authorship in i.-i. 5, and ii. 6-xvi.; it having been already shewn that the writers of ii. 6-xyi. and xvii. xxi. were different. Independently of this, it is perceptible that the first chapter did not proceed from the same writer as ii. 6-xvi. because there is a double commencement with the death of Joshua (i. 1 and ii. 6-10) as well

;8 .iשְׁלַח בָּאֵשׁ ;11 .and xvii ,35 ,1.27 יאַל לִשְׁבת ,18 .xx ; 2 .1 ;1 .xxi נָתַן לְאִשָּׁה .48 .i. 8, 25, and xx הִכָּה לְפִי חֶרֶב .48 .xx

as a twofold account of the parts which had not been conquered; a more full one in the first chapter, and a shorter in ij. 1-6. The same author would not have proceeded thus. Besides, the same materials are differently presented; for in the first chapter with the first five verses of the second, the ancient inhabitants are represented as still unexpelled because the Israelites preferred living with them to destroying them in obedience to the divine command; while in ii. 11-iii. 6, God is said to permit many of the Canaanites to remain, as a punishment of the Israelites for not obeying his voice.

VI. UNITY, AUTHORSHIP, AND DATE.—The attempt of Keil' to shew the unity of the whole work in opposition to these peculiarities is unsuccessful. The nature of the contents, the desire of describing vividly, and the different sources whence the writer drew, are insufficient to account for them on the principle of unity of authorship. Nor is it enough to say, that the whole book has its singularities of diction. The main point is, why are certain peculiarities of expression found in the first and third divisions, not in the second ? And why too is the point of view taken by the writer of the first and third so different from that of the chief compiler? These particulars cannot be explained on the supposition of one author throughout.

Believing as we do that the book proceeded from one compiler or editor in its present state, with the first chapter at the beginning, and the so-called appendix (chaps. xvii.-xxi) subjoined, it is not easy to fix the age he lived in. The song of Deborah bears in itself the marks of antiquity, and may have been written soon after the time of the prophetess herself. Supposed Aramaeisms in it and the use of w prefixed are no proper marks of a late date, as has sometimes been asserted. The former are genuine poetic peculiarities; while the latter points to northern Palestine as the district of its birth. But the age of the lyric is quite different from the age of the last author or compiler of the whole.

It is necessary to speak of the different parts separately, i.e., of the time when i.-ij. 5, xvii. xxi., and ii. 6-xvi. were written. The portion i.-ii. 5 has an inherently vivid character which favours its composition soon after the events described occurred. It is graphic and lively, as though no great interval had elapsed since the things happened. The twenty-first verse of the first chapter agrees, for we read there that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day,” shewing that the time was before David. So also the twentyninth verse where we read that the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among the Ephraimites, implying a period prior to that of Solomon, to whom Pharaoh gave the place after he had destroyed the Canaanite inhabitants (1 Kings ix. 16). As to xvii.-xxi. it must be referred to the time of the kings, because it is remarked in different places that there was “no king in Israel in those days,” (xvii. 6. xviii. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 25). Thus Israel enjoyed the benefits of kingly rule when the events here described were committed to writing. And it is probable that the kingly rule had not been long established; the manner in which it is introduced leading to that supposition. Perhaps the reign of Saul is referred to, or the beginning of David's. But

be thought that xviii. 30, “until the day of the captivity

it may

,is in favour of a later date עַד יוֹם גְלוֹת הָאָרֶץ ",of the land

because the words appear to refer to the captivity of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, either under Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xv. 29), or Shalmaneser (2 Kings xvii. 6). Hengstenberg, Hävernick, and Welte refer them to the unfortunate war with the Philistines, in which the ark was carried away by the enemy (1 Sam. iv.), i.e., the time of Eli and Samuel. But the appeal to 1 Sam. iv. 21 is wholly inapposite unless it could be shewn that y'78m signifies the ark of the covenant, and that the removal of the ark from Jerusalem is equivalent to the removal of Israel itself. As little can the words be referred to the carrying away of the Israelites by the Philistines. The Assyrian date, however, though apparently the most natural interpretation, can hardly be adopted, because there is reason to suspect the correctness of the reading. The expression is singular and rather poetical. It would scarcely have been used by the writer of the context. It is improbable that Jonathan the grandson of Moses (not of Manasseh) and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan, after the ten tribes separated from the other two, as the thirtieth verse aflirms; and the thirty-first verse disagrees with the thirtieth as it stands, for it states or implies

the time during which Micah's image was set up in Dar was that in which the house of God or tabernacle was at Shiloh ; whereas in the thirtieth, Jonathan and his sons are said to have been priests to the tribe of Dan worshiping that image till the captivity of the land. In other words, Jonathan and his posterity were priests in this idolatrous worship of the Danites till the tabernacle was removed from Shiloh, i.e., till Eli's time (ver. 31); while they officiated in the same worship till the Assyrian captivity centuries after (ver. 30). We adopt Houbigant's conjecture, and read 91777 for 1787, which brings out the sense, “ till the captivity of the ark,” i.e., by the Philistines in the time of Eli. Both verses state that the Danites practised the idolatrous worship of a graven image while the