www.newadvent.org Open in urlscan Pro
2400:52e0:1e00::1081:1  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

../utility/search.htm

<form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">
  <!-- Hidden Inputs -->
  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active">
  <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0">
  <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9">
  <!-- Search Box -->
  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label>
  <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel">
  <!-- Submit Button -->
  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label>
  <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel">
</form>

Text Content

 

Search: Submit Search



 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > J > Judges


JUDGES

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this
website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church
Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The seventh book of the Old Testament, second of the Early Prophets of the
Hebrew canon.


TITLE

The Hebrew name of the book was transliterated by Origen Safateím, and by St.
Jerome Sophtim; it was translated by Melito and Origen Kritaí, by the Septuagint
ì tôn kritôn bíblos or tôn kritôn, so, too, by the Greek Fathers; the Latins
translated liber Judicum or Judicum.

The Hebrew verb meant originally "to act as a Divine judge", and was applied to
God (Genesis 18:25), and to Moses acting as the specially inspired lawgiver and
judge of Israel (Exodus 18:13, 16). In time the elders of the people became the
"judges" (vv. 25, 26). In this book the term judges (shôphatîm) is applied to
the leaders of Israel, and would seem to indicate that their right was Divine
(Judges 10:2, 3). The office of judge differed from that of king only in the
absence of hereditary succession (xii, 7-15). It is worth noting that the
Phoenicians, according to Livy, called their chief magistrate suffetes (XXVIII,
xxxvii), and gave to the suffetes of Carthage a power analogous to that of the
Roman consul (XXX, vii; XXXIV, lxi).




CONTENTS

(1) Introduction (i-xx, 5). A summary of the conquest of Chanaan (i, 1-36). The
angel of Jahweh reproves the tribes that made league with the stranger (ii,
1-5). (2) The history of Israel under the judges (ii, 6-xvi), introduced by a
summary of its contents — Israel's forsaking of Jahweh, turning to Baal and
Astaroth, defeat by her enemies, and deliverance by Jahweh (ii, 6-iii, 6). Then
follow the wonderful deeds of the judges, of whom Gedeon and Samson are the
chief heroes; to them are devoted seven chapters. (3) Two more stories of the
times of the judges — the migration of Dan and their idolatrous worship of the
idol of Michas (xvii-xviii), the crime of the Benjamites and their punishment by
Israel (xix-xxi). For fuller analysis see Cornely, "Introd. Spec. in Hist. V. T.
Lib.", I, Paris, 1887, 109-14.


CANONICITY

The Book of Judges is admitted by all to belong to the canons of the Jews of
Palestine, the Jews of the Dispersion (the Alexandrian canon), and the
Christians. Only the authority of the infallible Church can determine the canon
of Sacred Scripture, and define the inspired meaning of the Books. Hence
Catholics may not go the way of Rationalists and of Protestants in the matter of
the so-called late and manifold redaction of Judges.


AUTHENTICITY

The chief arguments for the authenticity of Judges are given below under
Historicity and Sources. We now appeal to:

 * The canonizing of the book by Jews and Christians as an authentic narrative
   of part of Israel's history;
 * the life-like style of the work;
 * the minute and accurate details of the narrative;
 * the evident purpose of the narrator to give a history of the things whereof
   he knows.


PURPOSE

Although the purpose of the narrator 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 historical 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), wherewith 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 commandments 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. Augustine, City
of God XVI.43).


SOURCES

The problem is complicated. Most contradictory theories have been proposed.
According to Moore (see "Internat. Crit. Comm." on "Judges", also art. in
"Encycl. Bibl."), the body of the book (ii, 6-xvi, 33) 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 Deuteronomy
and of the great Prophets Jeremias and Ezechiel. The stories of the book, out of
their setting and apart from their set purpose in the Book of Judges/a, are
pre-Deuteronomic; they show no Deuteronomic traces except in the introductions
and the links that chain the various stories together. Indeed, Moore would have
it that this redaction and unification of the sources was the work of a
pre-Deuteronomic editor; this editor 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 Deuteronomic editor of the Hexateuch (D). Many critics refuse
to assign any strata of Judges to the Hexateuchal fictions — J, E, JH, P or R,
and D, even though they postulate many and late sources for the book in its
present state. Among Catholic scholars a few, who wrote before the Biblical
Commission issued its decrees about the Pentateuch, have accepted the late
redaction. Most Catholic scholars, however, are unanimous against these few who
have left the traditional 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 been written and put together very much earlier than the
Rationalists wish. There is no proof whatsoever of the late and manifold
redactions of these documents in our present book. Cornely (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 explanation would have been out of
the question had the writer known either of the idolatry brought in by Jeroboam
and encouraged by 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 (2 Samuel 5).

(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 and the end of Saul's reign there was no need of such
purpose: Saul had "rooted out the magicians and soothsayers from the land" (1
Samuel 28:9). 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 probable 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 driving home
to them the thesis of Judges — that fidelity to Jahweh meant success against the
foe of Israel.

(6) The use of previous documents by Samuel sufficiently explains the varied
literary style on account of which the Rationalists frame their various
hypotheses. The song of Debbora (v) is archaic by contrast with the language of
its setting. The story of Gedeon is originally from a different hand than that
of the first writer of Samson's history.

Catholic commentators of old assigned the Book of Judges to many hands. So
Maldonatus (Comm. in Matt., ii, 23), Pineda (In Job, præf., iii), Clair (p. 10),
and many others. Hummebauer (In Jud., 27) argues that the longer narratives —
those of Aod (iii, 15-30), Barac (iv and v), Gedeon (avi-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 found
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
regard to the complete thoughts he culled from others, as well as the
introductions, links, and remarks he superadded.


HISTORICITY


INTERNAL EVIDENCE

The writer of Judges was contemporary with some of the events which he narrated;
used documents written by those who were contemporary, or all but contemporary,
with the deeds they told; and shows every sign of sincerity, care, and truth.
The very concern of the writer to give the truth explains the manifold literary
style of the book. He has preserved to us unchanged the style of the song of
Debbora and that of the fable of Joatham. He has transmitted sayings peculiar to
place and to person (ii, 5; iv, 5; vi, 24, 32; xv, 19; xviii, 12, 29). The
nationalistic objections to the miraculous in the stories of Gedeon and Samson
are generally accepted by Protestant writers, who look upon these portions of
Judges as legendary; to Catholics these are as historical as any other portion
of the work. The enemies to the historicity of the book in vain insist that
these stories are set down as legends to please the Israelites. The writer of
Judges so berates the Israelites for idolatry and inter-tribal dissension that
it is unscientific to accuse him of truckling to their pride in their heroes.


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

(a) Catholic tradition is clear. The Fathers look upon the narrative of Judges
as fact-narrative; their unanimity is admitted by all who deem that unanimity
worth consideration.

(b) O.-T. testimony is manifold. The opening summary (i, 1-ii, 5) gives details
the historical value of which is attested by Josue: Juda's siege of Dabir
(1:10-15; Joshua 15:14-19), the Jebusites in Jerusalem (1:21; Joshua 15:63), the
Chanaanite in Gazer along with Ephraim (1:29; Joshua 16:10), the Chanaanite
dwelling with Manasses (1:27; Joshua 17:11). Like details are the death of Josue
(2:6-9; Joshua 24:28-31), the capture of Lesem by Dan (17:18; Joshua 19:47). The
Books of Kings tell us as facts much that we read in Judges. Israel's
forgetfulness of Jahweh, her defeat by the foe and salvation by the judges (1
Samuel 12:9-11); the death of Abimelech, son of Gedeon (9:53; 2 Samuel 11:21).
The Psalms dwell proudly on the deeds of the judges: the fate of Sisara, Jabin,
Oreb, Zeb, Zebee, and Salmana (vii, 22, 25; iv, 15; viii, 21; Psalm 82:10-12);
the entire history of Judges in outline (Ps. cv, 34-46). The Prophets refer to
real facts given in Judges: the defeat of Madian by Gedeon (Isaiah 9:4; 10:26);
the crime at Gabaa (Hosea 9:9; 10:9).

(c) In the New Testament, St. Paul mentions the judges in their proper place
between Josue and Samuel (Acts 13:20); praises some of the judges along with
certain kings (Hebrews 11:32).


TEXT

(1) Hebrew. Kittel's edition shows that the Masoretic text is in very good
condition. "It is better preserved than any other of the historical books"
(Moore, "Judges", 43). The only serious difficulties are in the song of Debbora.

(2) Greek. We have two distinct Septuagint forms (cf. Lagarde,
"Septuaginta-Studien", 1892, 1-72): one is seen in the Alexandrinus (A),
Coislinianus (P), Basiliano-Vaticanus (V), and many cursives; the other version
is represented by the Vatican (B), and a considerable number of cursives.

(3) Latin. St. Jerome's version is one of his most careful efforts at
translation of the Masorah, and is of the greatest exegetical importance.




SOURCES

Fathers: THEODORET, Quæstiones in Librum Judicorum in P.G., LXXX, 485; PROCOPIUS
OF GAZA, Comm. in Judices in P.G., LXXXVII, 1041; ST. AUGUSTINE, Quæstiones in
Heptateuchium in P.L., XXXIV, ;701. Modern commentators mentioned in the body of
the article. See also BONFRÈRE, Comm. in Jos., Jud., et Ruth (Paris, 1631);
SERARIUS, Jud. et Ruth explanati (Mainz, 1609); CLAIR, Les Juges et Ruth (Paris,
1878). Protestant commentators of worth are MOORE, KEIL, BUDDE, BERTHEAU.


ABOUT THIS PAGE

APA citation. Drum, W. (1910). Judges. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York:
Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08547a.htm

MLA citation. Drum, Walter. "Judges." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New
York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08547a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by WGKofron. With
thanks to St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address
is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I
greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical
errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2023 by New Advent LLC. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT