href="#ulink_3b950059-5d23-5f91-b54a-f6188bfa46c8">29. Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 55.
30. Block, Judges, Ruth, 39.
31. Ibid., 66–67.
32. Among the more violent incidents in the book are the mutilation of Adonibezek (1:6), the disembowelment of Eglon (3:21–22), the skull-splitting of Sisera (4:21), the slaying of the Midianite kings (8:21), the head-crushing of Abimelech (9:53), and the burnt sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (11:39). The gouging out of Samson’s eyes (16:21) and the dismemberment of a concubine’s corpse (19:29) may be included in this bloody catalog of violence.
33. Of note, quite large numbers are noted throughout Judges. “It is doubtful that such large numbers can be taken at face value in light of demographic analysis of ancient Palestine by modern archaeologists,” with population estimates for Israel between the twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE ranging from 50,000 to 75,000, and for Canaan in the same period ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 (Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 110 n.2). Perhaps the large numbers in the book are hyperbolic. More likely, @la, ’lp, usually translated “thousand,” refers not to a fixed number but to a contingent of troops numbering far less than a thousand. However in Jdg 20:10, @la clearly means “thousand.” Also difficult to reconcile with this understanding of @la as a contingent is the “twenty-five thousand [@la] and a hundred,” in 20:35. “[N]o workable solution to the problem of the large numbers has so far been found, and the advantages of leaving them as they are outweigh any gains involved in changing them. They cannot be changed without upsetting their relationship to other numbers, and they serve an important rhetorical purpose that is lost if they are altered” (Webb, Judges, 74; see his discussion in ibid., 71–74). For the purposes of this commentary, the traditional numbering will be followed.
34. Ibid., 61.
35. O'Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 20–25, 57.
36. Schneider, Judges, xiv.
37. It must be noted that no judge is entirely bad—a fact true of most humans. That is, no doubt, why the writer of Hebrews lauds Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah, among other OT worthies (Heb 11:32; also see 1 Sam 12:11 that mentions Jerubbaal, “Bedan” [likely Barak], and Jephthah as “deliverers”). That does not necessarily vitiate the generally negative assessments of these individuals in the book of Judges. Of these characters, the writer of Hebrews notes in subsequent verses that “they conquered kingdoms, . . . and routed foreign armies” (Heb 11:33–34). Surely these intrepid individuals, warts and all, did exercise faith of some sort, in some way, to some degree. “The narrator’s use of the Old Testament text in this regard is neither strained nor improper,” and neither do those illustrative citations in the NT contradict the (negative) pictures painted in Judges (Chisholm, Judges and Ruth, 78).
38. Block, “Echo Narrative Technique,” 338.
39. Yahweh’s deliverances from the Egyptians, Amorites, and Maonites are otherwise not encountered in Judges, causing the reader to suspect that Israel’s malfeasance went well beyond what is described in the book.
40. Ibid., 341.
41. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 23. Much of what follows in these sections on thematic parallels is taken from ibid.
42. The choice of Judah for leadership in the civil war in Epilogue II (particularly Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25) seems quite unnecessary, since the tribe plays no distinguishing role in the ensuing battles; neither is Judah ever mentioned again. It appears to have been added simply to link the Epilogue with the Prologue.
43. The only occurrences of the root ~rx in the book.
44. No other act of “inquiring” of Yahweh occurs in the book (but see 13:18; 18:5). For that matter, the inquiries of 20:18, 23, 27 are the only instances in the OT where such a seeking of advice from Yahweh is made regarding a battle against fellow-Israelites (ibid., 34 n.17).
45. These are the only references to these peoples and this place in Judges.
46. These are the only occurrences of the phrase in Judges.
47. These are the only instances of corporate grief expressed by “weeping” in the book; 2:4 and 21:2 have the only occurrences of “lifted up their voices and wept.” The first lament takes place at Bokim, the second at Bethel. If it is true that Bokim is a pseudonym for Bethel (see Pericope 1: Jdg 1:1—2:5), then the two events are linked further.
48. The only mentions of “covenant” in Judges.
49. The only times such giving in marriage is noted in the book. All these instances (except for 3:6, which deals with exogamy) are pledges preceding a war—Caleb taking Kiriath-sepher (1:12), and the Israelites decimating Benjamin (21:1–24). But in the first case, the result is “blessing” (1:15); in the second, a “curse” (21:18) (ibid., 43–44; also see Pericope 1).
50. Ibid., 41.
51. The moral and spiritual aspects of the tribes’ failures are clearly noted in Prologue I (see 2:1–5), and what would subsequently happen with the judges in the Body is foreshadowed in Prologue II (see 2:11–19).
52. Ibid., 152.
53. Another dischronology: In 1 Sam 12:9–11, the order of the judges mentioned is Jerubbaal, “Bedan” (likely Barak), and Jephthah; in Heb 11:32, it is Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah. In other words, the layout of the Body (the story of the judges, 3:7—16:31, that has Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson, in that order) may not necessarily be in chronological sequence. Dischronology is also observable elsewhere: a grandson of Moses, Jonathan, Micah’s domesticated Levite-priest, is in action in Epilogue I (Pericope 12: Jdg 17:1—18:31; see 18:30), and a grandson of Aaron, Phinehas, in Epilogue II (specifically Pericope 14: Jdg 20:1—21:25; see 20:28). Thus the events of the Epilogues likely occurred soon after Joshua’s time. The placement of those events towards the end of the book of Judges serves the narrator’s theological purpose—he is doing something with what he is saying. So the reader’s interest, for application purposes, ought to be not behind the text, upon chronologies, histories, and such, but upon the theological thrust projected in front of the pericope.
