To the unity of religious pragmatism in the main stock of the book of Judges corresponds a unity of chronological scheme. Al though most of the "judges" had no more than a local influence, they are represented as successive rulers in Israel, and the history is dated by the years of each judgeship and those of the inter vening periods of oppression. But it is impossible to reconcile the numbers with the statement elsewhere, that the fourth year of Solomon was the 48oth from the exodus (I Ki. vi. 1). (See BIBLE : Old Testament, "Chronology." 3. The last section of the book (chs. xvii.–xxi.) appears to owe its position to the latest redactor (akin to the latest stratum in the Hexateuch). It consists of two narratives: (a) That of Micah and the Danites (xvii. seq.) is of value both as a record of the state of religion and for the picture it gives of the way in which one clan passed from the condition of an invading band into set tled possession of land and city. Its interest lies in the foundation of the Ephraimite sanctuary by Micah as also in that of Dan. (b) The history of the Levite and the Benjamites (xix.–xxi.) presup poses a degree of unity of feeling and action among the tribes of Israel which it is not easy to reconcile with the rest of the book. It resembles Ruth in giving a good deal of curious archaeological detail (the feast at Shiloh) in a form which suggests that the usages referred to were already obsolete when the narrative was composed. The older portions include : The story of the Levite (xix.), the vengeance taken by Israel (e.g., xx. 3-8, 14, 19, 47), and the reconstruction of the tribe by intermarriage with the women of Shiloh (xxi. 1, 15, 17-19, 21-23). The post-exilic expansions (found chiefly in xx., xxi. 2-14, 16, 24, seq.) describe the punishment of Benjamin by the religious assembly and the massacre of Jabesh-Gilead for its refusal to join Israel, 40o virgins of the Gileadites being saved for Benjamin. It is noteworthy that whilst Gibeah and Jabesh-Gilead, which appear here in a bad light, are known to be associated with Saul, the sufferer is a Levite of Bethlehem, the traditional home of David. The account of the great fight in xx. is reminiscent of Joshua's battle at Ai (Josh. vii.–viii.).
The Book of Judges consists of a number of narratives collected by Deuteronomic editors; and to the same circles are due ac counts of the invasions of Palestine and settlement in Joshua, and of the foundation of the monarchy in I Samuel. The connection
has been broken by the later insertion of matter (not necessarily of late origin itself), and the whole was finally formed into a dis tinct book by a post-exilic hand. The older stories preserved in ii. 6–xvi. 6 reflect tribal rivalry and jealousy (cf. Isa. ix. 21, and the successors of Jeroboam 2), attacks by nomads and wars with Ammon and Moab ; conflicts between newly settled Israelites and indigenous Canaanites have been suspected in the story of Abi melech (q.v.). A striking exception to the lack of unity among the tribes is afforded by the account of the defeat of Sisera, and here the old poem represents a combined effort to throw off the yoke of a foreign oppressor, while the later prose version approximates the standpoint of Josh. xi. 1-15 with its defeat of the Canaanites. (See DEBORAH.) The general standpoint of the stories (especially Judges v.) is that of central Palestine; the ex ceptions are Othniel and Samson—the latter interrupting the introduction in x., and its sequel, the former now entirely due to the Deuteronomic editor. Of the narratives which precede and follow, ch. i. represents central Palestine separated by Canaanite cities from tribes to the south and north ; it is the situation recog nized in Judges xix. 10–I 2, as well as in passages embedded in the latest portions of the book of Joshua, though it is in contradiction to the older traditions of that book. Chapters xvii. seq. (like the preceding story of Samson) deal with Danites, and xix.–xxi., by describing the extermination of Benjamin, form a link between the presence of the tribe in the late narratives of the exodus and its new prominence in the traditions of Saul (q.v.). As an histori cal source, therefore, the value of Judges will depend largely upon the question whether the editor (about 600 B.C.) had access to trustworthy documents relating to a period some six or seven centuries previously. (See further JEws, and SAMUEL, DooKs OF.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-See G. F. Moore, Ency. Bib. art. "Judges," and his commentary in the Internat. Crit. Comm. (1895) ; Lagrange, Livres des juges (1903) ; Cooke, Camb. Bible (1913), and C. F. Burney