LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

throughout 2:1–23. While this—as well as the similarities between the divine speech in 2:20–22 and the angelic utterance in 2:1–3 (“fathers,” “covenant,” “obey/listen,” and “drive them out” are shared)—may incline one to treat chapter 2 as an integral whole, the notion of a pericope that is espoused here is more pragmatic: separating 1:1—2:5 from 2:6—3:6 (and including the account of Othniel, 3:7–11 to comprise Pericope 2), enables the preacher to derive fairly distinct theological thrusts from each of the two pericopes, keeping the resulting sermons also distinct.

71. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 148.

72. From O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 62.

73. “House of Joseph” (1:22, 23, 35) is a league that indicates the northern tribes.

74. Ibid., 60–61.

75. Block, Judges, Ruth, 83. This is certainly a stylized and schematized arrangement of reality that is rarely so neat. But, of course, such author’s doings serve a theological agenda.

76. Ibid., 83–84.

77. As the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, whose descendants formed the two largest northern tribes (Gen 41:50–52), “Joseph” was a convenient designation for all the northern tribes (see Josh 18:5; Ezek 37:15, 19; Zech 10:6).

78. See Deut 7:1–5, 16, 25–26 for Yahweh’s similar warning to the exodus generation.

79. Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts, 75.

80. Perhaps it was because Simeon’s land allotment was within that designated for Judah (Josh 19:1–9)?

81. Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 23–24. “Hormah” is a play on ~r'x' (kharam, “utter destruction”). On “utter destruction,” see Deut 2:34; 3:6; 7:2; 20:17; Josh 2:10; 6:17–21. While the issue of such violence may need to be addressed some time in one’s pastoral ministry, my recommendation for the preacher is not to get bogged down by it in the pulpit. Employing another occasion to deal with it (Sunday School class? Adult Bible Fellowship?), or even writing a white paper on the topic, would be a better alternative. In a sermon, the preacher needs to maintain focus on the theological thrust of the text. As Younger notes, “[~r'x'] was not concerned with the eradication of . . . particular cultural preferences. But it was deeply concerned with the eradication of the Canaanite religion: its gods/idols, altars, rituals, divinatory practices, uses of magic, worldview, and so on” (Judges, Ruth, 77).

82. Not to mention the chariots of Pharaoh (Exod 14:23–28; 15:4; also see Josh 11:4–9) that were no match for Yahweh’s might. Drews suggests that it was the iron tires attached to wooden rims that are being referred to here. The weight of fully iron-clad chariots was likely too prohibitive for any kind of martial use; besides, the widespread use of iron occurs only later in history (“The ‘Chariots of Iron,’” 19–20).

83. Webb, Judges, 110.

84. Thus Caleb’s success (1:20) is enclosed on either side by failures: Judah’s (1:19) and the Benjaminites’ (1:21).

85. That Jerusalem shows up again in 1:21 makes it likely that the Judahites’ exertions described in 1:8 were against the Jebusite fortress on the southern hill of the city; the Benjaminites likely directed their attention to the citadel further north.

86. Issachar’s absence is inexplicable, though Chisholm notes that this may be to reduce the more complete number seven (= tribes involved in the inheritance lists in Joshua 18–19) to an incomplete six (= tribes involved in Judges 1: Judah, Joseph [= Ephraim + Manasseh], Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan) (Judges, Ruth, 135–36). Reuben and Gad lived outside the boundaries of the Promised Land, where the Amorites had already been taken care of (Numbers 21). Levi, of course, did not have a land inheritance.

87. The subjection to “forced labor” was permitted by Yahweh, but only of the inhabitants of those cities not given to the Israelites as an inheritance (Deut 20:11, 16–18; also see 7:1–2). Those allotted to Israel—depicted in Judges 1—were to be utterly destroyed. So the notations of “forced labor” are disconcerting. Was this some sort of compromise the Israelites had made with the Canaanites in exchange for their lives? Was there an economic criterion factoring into their (dis)obedience to divine command?

88. Ibid., 128.

89. Olson, “The Book of Judges,” 744.

90. Adoni-bezek is not explicitly called a “king,” but his name (Adoni-bezek = “Lord of Bezek”) suggests he was, as also does the description of his enemies as “seventy kings.” It is likely deliberate that Abimelech is the only one labeled “king” in Judges (9:6), crowned entirely by human initiative with no input from deity whatsoever.

91. The verbs used for “recompense” are different, ~lv, shlm, in 1:7 and bWv, shub, in 9:56–57, but Wong notes that the verbs are used in parallel elsewhere in the OT (Exod 21:34; Deut 32:41; Ezek 33:15; Joel 3:4) (Compositional Strategy, 205, 206). See Pericope 8 (Jdg 8:33—10:5). The interpolation of the Adoni-bezek cameo, that does not seem to fit the rest of the movement of Prologue I, indicates the likelihood that his story was deliberately intended to adumbrate the narrative of Abimelech and depict the latter as worse than his Canaanite counterpart.

92. Note the singular as the verb “he, Judah, went” in Jdg 1:10, 11, whereas plural verbs indicate the subject “sons of Judah” in 1:8, 9.

93. Reconciling these with Josh 10:36–37; 11:21–22 is not easy; there it appears that Joshua wiped out the Anakites in Hebron. Perhaps the Judges 1 account (and perhaps the Joshua 14–15 narratives) is a flashback, included here for theological purposes, rather than chronological completion.

94. “She charmed him [her father] to ask for a field” (1:14). Chisholm observes that “she ‘buttered’ her father up (as daughters are apt to do!)” (Judges and Ruth, 125).

95. There are several other equally zestful women in Judges: Deborah (4:4–14), Jael (4:17–22), and the woman of Thebez (9:53–54).

Скачать книгу