Parallel Structures in Judges and the Formation of the Book

Introduction

More than in any other book in the Hebrew Bible, specific words and phrases in the book of Judges are repeated. Indeed, a closer look at the book of Judges reveals even more instances of repetition than usually noted, especially in the form of parallel structures. In this article, I hope to demonstrate that mapping the repetitions at their different levels and thinking about their function sheds new light on the problematic repetition of the references to the death of Joshua in Josh. 24.29, Judg. 1.1 and 2.8, and to the period of Samson as judge in Judg. 15.20 and 16.31. This may also yield some new insights for the continuing effort to reconstruct the formation of the book.

Judges 1.1–2.9 as a recapitulation of the book of Joshua

Within the first chapter of the book of Judges, we find the much-repeated refrain noting that the Israelite tribes sometimes ‘dispossessed’ (ירשׁ hiph.) the peoples living on the land given to them (1.19, 20) but mostly failed to do so (1.19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). This is in line with the oft-repeated use of the same verb in the book of Joshua. It comes as no surprise, because these two books share the theme of the occupation of the land, and it underlines the difference between the image of success in Joshua and that of failure in Judges. However, there are a number of problematic repetitions, which cannot be explained easily. The book of Judges begins in the same way as the book of Joshua does, namely, with a reference to the death of the previous leader (‘It happened after the death of Joshua’ // ‘It happened after the death of Moses’). This suggests that the book of Judges starts where the book of Joshua ended. The rest of the first chapter of the book of Judges, however, seems to present a different situation from the one described at the end of the book of Joshua. It is especially confusing to read about the death of Joshua a second time in Judg. 2.8 as if it had not been reported earlier.

Much effort has been invested in reconstructing the way in which the seam between the books of Joshua and Judges attained its present form. ¹ The available texts leave open various possibilities, and the history of research shows a constant change of opinion, including scholars who change their own points of view. With Erasmus Gaß, one has to conclude that ‘(t)he compositional knot between the book of Joshua and Judges has yet to be convincingly untangled’ (Gaß 2018, 219). A simple but relevant way to enter into this complex discussion is to list the instances in which the book of Judges repeats information already given in the book of Joshua. It is important to note that in most cases the parallels with the book of Joshua not only use the same words but also appear in the same order:

In cases 4–5 and 7–8, the sequence in Judges is not aligned with the parallel passages in Joshua. In cases 4 and 5, this can be explained by considering that both passages concern the story of Caleb and thus can be regarded as one. It can also be compared to the way Josh. 24.28–31 is repeated in Judg. 2.6–9, that is, with a change in the order of the lines, with the final line now placed after the first line.

The many parallels and the way they are ordered indicate that the first part of the book of Judges in its present form bases its structure on the book of Joshua. The differences between the parallels can in most cases be explained as adaptations of the text in Joshua by the author of Judges.

The beginning of the book of Judges presents the succession of Joshua by the tribe of Judah as similar to the succession of Moses by Joshua. The only other places where we find the phrase ‘and it happened after the death of’ (ויהי אחרי מות) are Gen. 25.11 and 2 Sam. 1.1. This is in contrast to the way the book of Joshua opens, as it lacks the reference to a leader going in the ways of Moses (Sasson 2014, 124), but it should be taken into account that the message here remains positive, with a fruitful interaction between YHWH and the Israelites.

The similarities between the stories about Adonisedek and Adonibezek can be regarded as a way of showing that the tribe of Judah was as successful as Joshua because the tribe of Judah defeated a similar enemy. The use of the nearly identical names is almost certainly no coincidence. ² The relation between these kings was noted at an early stage, for instance, in the LXX of Josh. 10 where this king was also named Αδωνιβεζεκ. According to Josh. 10, Joshua defeated Adonisedek. The reader is told that his allies, five Amorite kings, are captured while fleeing, before being killed and hung on a tree. Whether Adonisedek also suffered this fate is not clear. The author of Judg. 1 seemed to have used this gap in the story to relate his version of the conquest story found in the book of Joshua. ³ The possibility of establishing a link with Jerusalem (the city of David) and to link this to Bezek (a city associated with Saul in 1 Sam. 11.8) was likely important for the author of the book of Judges because it helps him depict Judah as following in Joshua’s footsteps. Finally, it can be noted that within the sequence of parallels, the repeated reference to Jerusalem in Judg. 1.7-8 and 1.21 is parallel to the sequence of the references to Jerusalem found in Josh. 10 and 15.

The repetition of the story of Caleb, Othniel and Achsah is clearly a way of relating the book of Judges to the book of Joshua. On one hand, it emphasizes the positive role of Caleb, whereas on the other, it establishes a connection to the first judge, as described in Judg. 3.7–11. The only difference between the texts from Joshua and Judges is the added phrase ‘younger than he’ in describing the family line of Othniel: ‘son of Kenaz, brother of Caleb younger than he’ (Judg. 1.13). Within the context of the first chapters of Judges, it is emphasized that Othniel belongs to a new generation. He is the favoured exception of the generation who did not know what YHWH had done for Israel (Judg. 2.10) and, therefore, he is shown to be fit to become the first judge (Judg. 3.9).

The change to Benjamin as the tribe responsible for not driving the Jebusites out from Jerusalem (Judg. 1.21) instead of Judah (as reported in Josh. 15.63) can be related to the story in chapter 19, in which the same city and the same tribes play a role. According to Judg. 19.10–12, the travellers avoid staying the night in Jebus/Jerusalem because of the Jebusites still living there. Instead they go to Gibeah, a Benjaminite town, where they are brutally mistreated, leading to a war between the Israelites, who are led by Judah and the Benjaminites. Apparently, the reference to Benjamin’s failure to drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem in 1.21 was necessary after the report in 1.8 of Judah’s capturing Jerusalem. It provides the background for the story at the end of the book.

It is often overlooked but important to note that the parallels between the beginning of Judges and the book of Joshua as a whole do not stop here. There are clear correspondences between the stories in Josh. 24 and Judg. 2.1–5. Both in Shechem (Josh. 24.1) and in Bochim (Judg. 2.1), the Israelites are addressed as one people. Both Joshua and the messenger of YHWH mediate the words of YHWH and remind the people that YHWH made a covenant with their ancestors, leading them out of Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land. Reading Judg. 2.1–5 alongside Josh. 24 emphasizes that the events in Bochim demonstrate that Joshua was right when he expressed his doubts about the Israelites being able to keep to the covenant and was rightly worried about the consequences (Josh. 24.19–20).

The repetition of the report of Joshua’s death and burial can be viewed as the conclusion of the series of parallels with the book of Joshua. In addition, the differences between the two reports can again be explained as Judges quoting Joshua (Noort 1993, 113–115; Spronk 2019, 87–88). ⁴ This is so because it is more likely that an author/editor would add ‘great to ‘every deed of YHWH’ (Judg. 2.7), than diminish YHWH’s work by leaving out this adjective in Josh. 24.31. In regard to the difference in the name of Joshua’s burial place – Timnath Serah (Josh. 24.30) and Timnat Heres (Judg. 2.9) – the book of Joshua seems to have preserved the original name, which is also used in Josh. 19.50. The Hebrew word חֶרֶס in the name in Judg. 2.9 can be interpreted as a reference to the sun, as found in 14.18 (also in Job 9.7). It can be regarded, therefore, as part of the idealization of the good old days of Joshua, in which the miracle of the sun in the valley of Ajjalon (Josh. 10.12–13) plays a prominent role (Noort 1993, 129).

One should be slow to ascribe the double reference to Joshua’s death in the first chapters of the book of Judges to sloppy editorial work. The clear parallel structures indicate that the beginning of the book of Judges should be read as a deliberate recapitulation of the story of the conquest of the land in the book of Joshua. It can be seen as an example of narrative juxtaposition. In the Hebrew Bible, juxtaposition is a well-known technique ‘deliberately used by editors and authors to shape the readers’ interpretation of stories, episodes, and scenes in biblical narrative’ (Gilmour 2014, 212). As will be further demonstrated below, the use of repetition in the form of juxtaposition appears to be characteristic of the book of Judges. ⁵ According to Jacobus Marais, this phenomenon of looking at events or retelling stories from different perspectives in the book of Judges also explains contradictions:

I want to put forward the hypothesis that the fields/frames of reference in the book of Judges represent perspectives. The episodic structure of Old Testament narrative has long since been recognised. It is my contention that not only phrases, clauses and sentences are juxtaposed in Old Testament narrative, but episodes and frames of reference too. This juxtaposition occurs on both the level of the text continuum and the level of semantics. Each episode, or frame of reference, thus represents a particular perspective. The whole of the book of Judges is a juxtaposition of perspectives in which juxtaposition dominates the causal, chronological or formal logical relationships between them. Paradoxes, deconstructions and inconsistencies abound and are an integral part of the representation. (Marais 1998, 68)

Whereas Marais distinguishes different perspectives within the book of Judges, one can also see the beginning of the book of Judges as a new perspective on the conquest of the land. What is important to note here is that the parallel structure indicates that Judg. 1.1–2.9 has not simply been placed chronologically after the book of Joshua but also next to it. This explains the contradictory repeated reference to the death of Joshua. In Judg. 1.1, it is part of the chronological sequence, and in 2.8, it is part of the parallel structure.

Repetitions in the middle section of the book

The repeated cycle of punishment and deliverance in chapters 2–13 can also be seen as a form of juxtaposition because it consists of ostensibly sequential stories that can be read next to each other. From Judg. 2.11 on, most of the stories about the individual saviours and judges are introduced by the recurring phrase ‘the Israelites did what is evil in the eyes of YHWH’ (2.11; 3.7; 6.1) or ‘continued to do what is evil in the eyes of YHWH’ (3.12; 4.1; 10.6; 13.1). It may be no coincidence that this is repeated seven times. The resultant pattern created by these repetitions in chapters 2–13 is that YHWH time and again punishes the Israelites for abandoning him by giving them into the hands of their enemies and then saves them again after they have shown remorse. This recurring pattern clearly serves to emphasize the apostasy of the Israelites. Every time they make the same mistake and fail to learn from the past, their guilt is aggravated. Next to this, one can observe a decline in the quality of the saviours and judges sent by YHWH, although there are no explicit references to the movement from positive to negative. It is clear that the first judge, Othniel (Judg. 3.5–11), is simply the best and that none of his successors will reach his level. The deterioration can be deduced from the repeated rebellion by the Ephraimites. This rebellion was first experienced by Gideon (Judg. 8.1–3). The way he handled the matter appears to be much better than how it was handled by Jephthah (12.1–6), where it ended in one Israelite tribe killing thousands of men of another Israelite tribe.

Another example of juxtaposition in this middle part of the book of Judges concerns the story of the victory over the Canaanite army lead by Sisera in chapter 4, which is retold in song in the next chapter. When it comes to the form of this repetition, it should be noted that it lacks the structural parallels found in the way Judg. 1.1–2.10 recapitulates the book of Joshua. The same can be said about the other stories in the middle section of the book. Apart from the similar introduction, each has its own structure. This changes again in the final part of the book.

Parallel Structures in the story of Samson

The story of Samson (chapters 13–16) is characterized by the use of a number of much-repeated key words, including ‘to tell’ (נגד) ‎ 23x, ‘to know’ (ידע) ‎ 6x, ‘to see’ (ראה) ‎ 16x (especially in chapter 13), ‘to go down’ (ירד) ‎ 10x, ‘to go up’ (עלה) ‎ 14x, and ‘to bind’ (אסר) ‎ 17x (in chapters 15–16). ⁶ Many scholars have noted the clear parallel between the attempts by Samson’s bride to have him tell her his secret in 14.16–17 and Delilah’s actions in chapter 16. This appears to be only one of many repetitions in chapter 16 of the events in chapters 14–15. ⁷ The same words are used in both versions of the story, and also the sequence of events is in most cases the same:

Comparing the sequence of chapters 14–15 with chapter 16, the latter mostly surpasses the former, usually negatively. With Robert O’Connell, one can speak of ‘escalated parallelism’. ⁹ In the stories about Samson’s conflicts with the Philistines, the number of the defeated enemy escalates numerically. It can also be found in the length of the descriptions of the way the two women seduce Samson to reveal his secret.

The assumption of the deliberate use of a parallel structure can in fact help explain the repetition of the length of Samson’s judgeship. The seemingly premature report in 15.20 that Samson was a judge for twenty years, which is repeated in 16.31, has always puzzled the commentators. ¹⁰ It is often explained as a trace of the work of a compiler who added chapter 16 or inserted a text before chapter 16 and apparently forgot to transfer the now-misplaced reference to Samson’s period as a judge found at the end of chapter 15 to the end of chapter 16. It can also be regarded, however, as a rhetorical device underscoring the parallelism between chapters 14–15 and chapter 16. ¹¹ It invites the reader to compare the outcome of chapter 15 to that of chapter 16. According to chapter 15, Samson threatens to die after having killed a thousand Philistines, but he survives. According to chapter 16, he threatens to die powerless and shameful, but in the end, his death is a success because he takes three thousand Philistines with him.

The comparison with other instances of repetition in the book of Judge is of interest here. When one takes into account that the repeated reference to the number of years as a judge is associated with Samson’s death and burial, a parallel with the repetition of the report of the death and burial of Joshua in Judg. 2.8–9 can be seen. In both cases of narrative juxtaposition, chronology appears to be of only secondary importance.

The parallelism between the two episodes can be used to support the broadly accepted reconstruction of the formation of the story of Samson. The author/editor seems to have written an introduction (chapter 13) to an older story (chapters 14–15), emphasizing the role of YHWH, who is mentioned 18 times in this one chapter and no more than 8 times in the next three chapters, and of the human hero of the story as someone called by YHWH. ¹² He then probably also added the stories of Samson and the harlot in Gaza, and of Samson and Delilah in chapter 16. ¹³ These were structured in the same way as the stories in chapters 14–15. In this final chapter, the most important elements of the introduction were taken up again, that is, the vow of dedication to YHWH and the role of the deity, who is completely absent in chapters 14–15.

Parallel Structures in chapters 17–21

The final five chapters of the book of Judges are clearly linked by the repeated formula in 17.6; 18.1; 19.1; and 21.25 – that there was ‘no king in Israel in these days’, to which is added in the first and last reference that ‘every man did what was right in his eyes’. This takes the place of the repeated references to the Israelites doing what is ‘evil in the eyes of YHWH’ in chapters 2–13. The reference to the lack of a king underlines the fact that chapters 17–21 do not mention leaders like the preceding saviours and judges at all. The stories about the Danites in chapters 17–18 and the Benjaminites in chapters 19–20 also display other common features (Block 1999, 474–475; Nelson 2017, 344–345). Like the recapitulation of the book of Joshua in Judg. 1.1–2.9 and the parallelism in the two parts of the story about Samson, the story of the Danites and the story of the Benjaminites can be regarded as juxtaposed narratives with a parallel structure. Compared to the parallel structures analysed above, the repetitions are less on the level of words and more thematic. Nevertheless, the number and sequence of the similarities is certainly not coincidental.

When placed next to each other, it is clear that just as in chapters 14–16, the latter episode can be seen as an escalation and deterioration. This is especially clear in that three times, the second story mentions an enquiry of YHWH. This element is emphasized by the problematic way in which YHWH seems to mislead the Israelites the first two times. That things are getting worse is also evident in the identity of the people being killed: first the inhabitants of Laish, which is described as related to the Phoenician city of Sidon, and later, the people of Gibeah, followed by most other members of the tribe of Benjamin.

The combination of references to Dan and Bethel as the location of a sanctuary is remarkable. Within the Hebrew Bible, they are associated with Jeroboam’s initiative to install cultic centres in these two places as alternatives for the temple in Jerusalem after the separation of the kingdom, which in the book of Kings is presented as the primary sin of the kings of Israel (1 Kgs 12.30; 2 Kgs 10.29). It is also noteworthy and, from a chronological point of view, problematic that in 18.30 and 20.28, the priests of these sanctuaries, Jonathan and Phineas, are presented as grandsons of Moses and Aaron and thus as part of the second generation. This reminds us of the reference in 2.10 to the generation that came up after the generation that had still witnessed the good deeds YHWH did in the time of Joshua. In chapter 2, this is part of the general description explaining the repetitive cycle of sin, punishment, remorse and redemption. These references to the second generation after Moses and Aaron both at the beginning and at the end of the book of Judges are chronologically confusing and much discussed (Chisholm 2013, 34–53). This problem was already noticed by Josephus, who solved it in his Antiquities of the Jews by placing the stories of chapters 19–21 immediately after his retelling of the first two chapters. He only briefly refers to the migration of the Danites, conflating what was told in Judg. 1.34 with the story of Judg. 18 (Ant. 5.175–178). Among modern commentators, we find similar attempts to reconstruct a convincing chronology, replacing the stories of chapters 17–18 and 19–21. ¹⁴ A more plausible way to explain the place of these chapters in the book of Judges is to regard the text in its present form as another form of juxtaposition, namely as the second panel of a diptych. What happened after the introduction ending with the report of Joshua’s death and burial is told in two panels. The first (2.10–16.31) is characterized by the refrain that ‘the Israelites did what is evil in the eyes of YHWH’, the second (chapters 17–21), by the refrain that ‘everyone did what is good in his eyes’. This two-part structure is in line with the stylistic iteration we have already identified within and between individual episodes as a structuring principle for the book of Judges as a whole. ¹⁵

The second panel contains not solely the repeated structure of chapters 19–20 as a parallel to chapters 17–18. Repetition can also be observed in the final chapter because the two stories about women for the Benjaminites appear to have been built in the same way (Nelson 2017, 341–342):

As with the other cases of repetition, one can find here some intensification in the second part in that here the Benjaminites are encouraged to disturb a feast for YHWH in Shiloh, which is also known from the book of Joshua (18.1) as a holy place. Again, the parallels between the two stories are in line with the results of a diachronic analysis of the text, leading to the conclusion that we are dealing with two originally independent sources for the same story (Edenburg 2016, 58–75; Schulz 2016, 108–122). The author of the book of Judges seems to have based this final chapter on the second story, about the girls of Shiloh captured into marriage by the Benjaminites, and introduced this with the story about Jabesh.

Links between the book of Judges and the books of Samuel

The book of Judges is not only connected by repetition to the previous book in the Hebrew Bible but also to the next book. Many scholars have noted that in the books of Judges and Samuel one comes across an opening line, which runs like a thread through Judg. 13 until 1 Sam. 9 (Leuchter 2007; Levin 2011, 136):

Judg. 13.2 – ‘There was a certain man from Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah’

Judg. 17.1 – ‘There was a man from the mountains of Ephraim, whose name was Micah’

Judg. 19.1 – ‘… there was a man a Levite staying in the remote mountains of Ephraim’

1 Sam. 1.1 – ‘There was a certain man of Ramathaim Zophim, of the mountains of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah’

1 Sam. 9.1 – ‘There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish’

This may seem like an extremely common phrase, but it is not. In the Hebrew Bible, this narrative beginning is only found in the verses mentioned above. Only Job 1.1 (‘There was a man from the land of Uz, Job was his name’) comes close. In addition to this, it should be noted that the story of the birth of Samson in Judg. 13 and the story of the birth of Samuel in 1 Sam. 1 appear to have much more in common than this opening line, using the same words and themes in mostly the same order:

The parallels do not always follow precisely the same order, but they are certainly not coincidental. They indicate that the story of the birth of Samson can be read as foreshadowing the story of Samuel. This is especially clear in the repeated phrase about not cutting the hair of the boy. It uses the same word מוֹרָה for ‘razor’ instead of the more common תַּעַר (cf. Num. 6.5, where it is also used in relation to being consecrated to YHWH). It is usually observed that the motif of the razor fits better in the story of Samson, where it plays an important role in chapter 16, than in the story of Samuel, where it does not return in the chapters after 1 Sam. 1. This is used as an argument that it was added to 1 Samuel 1.11 to place Samuel in the tradition of Samson (Dietrich 2010, 45–46). The reverse however is also possible, i.e. that the story of Samson was described in such a way as to foreshadow the story of Samuel. The motif of not cutting the hair, which was, according to Num. 6.5, one of the rules for dedicating someone like Samuel to the service of YHWH, was expanded and given a more prominent meaning in the story of Samson. Something similar can be noted when one compares Hannah’s vow in 1 Sam. 1 to the similar command by the messenger of YHWH in Judg. 13. The very fact that the latter is related to the divine sphere instead of coming from a human being can be interpreted as another example of ‘escalated parallelism’.

As was noted above, there is a consensus among scholars trying to reconstruct the growth of the text, that chapter 13 was added as an introduction to older stories about Samson, which underscores the role of YHWH. To this can now be added the suggestion that the author/editor responsible for this addition may also have used the story of Samson’s birth to relate the stories about Samson to the beginning of the following book in the Hebrew Bible, emphasizing the contrast between Samson and Samuel, who were both devoted to YHWH but acted very differently as leaders of Israel (Spronk 2020, 135–136).

To this, too, we might add the argument that not only the beginning but also the end of the story of Samson can be related to the following books in the Hebrew Bible because the end of Samson’s story shows a clear parallel with the end of the books of Kings:

Judg. 16.21a – ‘The Philistines held him down and gouged out his eyes. They brought him down to Gaza and bound him in two bronze fetters.’

2 Kgs 25.7 – ‘They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon.’

This unique combination of being blinded, bound with bronze fetters (using the same Hebrew words in Judges and in Kings) and brought to the capital of the enemy must have been intentional. Just as Samson’s birth story ties him to the beginning of the books of Samuel, so too the story of his demise relates him to the end of the books of Kings. This all supports the suggestion that the author/editor of the book of Judges was familiar with the stories in the books of Samuel and Kings. This author/editor used the repetition skilfully to bring together stories and traditions from older sources into the book we now know as the book of Judges and to relate this book to the previous and following books recounting the history of Israel between conquest and exile.

Conclusion

In the book of Judges, repetition is found not only in the recurrence of words and phrases but also in larger parallel structures. Such repetition characterizes the book in both form and content. Judg. 1.1–2.9 functions as a counterpart of the book of Joshua. It demonstrates that history can repeat itself, but it also emphasizes the differences. From 2.10 until the end of chapter 16, the story of decline and rescue is explicitly introduced and then replayed time and again. Chapters 17–21 repeat the story of the decline of the second generation after Joshua, represented by the grandsons of Moses and Aaron. Chronologically, they are placed next to the stories of chapters 2–16, thus forming a diptych.

Chapter 16 repeats chapters 14–15, illustrating how difficult it was for Samson to learn from his mistakes. The stories in chapters 17–18 and 19–20 also display a similar structure. The story of the taking of the girls from Jabesh-Gilead (21.1–14) parallels the story of the taking of the girls from Shiloh (21.15–23), emphasizing the dire straits the Benjaminites had landed in.

Just as the book of Judges appears to be related to the book of Joshua by the use of a parallel structure in the first chapters, so too it is connected to the books of Samuel by the parallel structures of Judg. 13 and 1 Sam. 1. This could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that the book of Judges in its present form is a relatively late construct, which was created to bridge the gap between the story of the conquest of the land and the history of the kings (Spronk 2010; Carr 2011, 291; and Spronk 2019, 16–19). Whatever the case may be, it can be concluded that the author of the book of Judges, working with material from different sources, used a variety of artful repetitions to structure his story coherently. ¹⁶