JUDGES. This name is applied to fifteen per sons who at intervals presided over the affairs of the Israelites during the 450 yeais which elapsed from the death of Joshua to the accession of Saul. The term yudges; used in the English Bibles, does not exactly represent the original CltiD shophetim, e., rulers of the people,' from nte), which is not synonymous with n judicare, but signifies, in its general acceptation, causam aliczejus agere, tueri (see Bertholdt, Theolog. Litt. Blatt., vii. 1, sq.; comp. Gesenius, s. v. Unt:/). The station and office of these shophetim are involved in great ob scurity, partly from the want of clear intimations in the history in which their exploits and govern ment are recorded, and partly from the absence of parallels in the history of other nations, by which our notions might be assisted. In fact, the govern ment of the judges forms the most singular part of the IIebrew institutions, and that which appears most difficult to comprehend. The kings, the priests, the generals, the heads of tribes—all these offer some points of comparison with the same functionaries in other nations ; but the judges stand alone in the history- of the world : and when we think that we have found officers resembling them in other nations, the comparison soon breaks down in some point of importance, and we still find that nothing remains but to collect and arrange the con cise intimations of the sacred text, and draw our conclusions from the facts which it records.
The splendid administrations of Moses and of roshua so fill the mind of the reader of Scripture, *that after their death a sense of vacancy is experi enced, and w e wonder how it happens that no successor to them was appointed, and how the machinery of the government was to be carried on without some similar leaders. But when we come to examine the matter more closely, we perceive that the offices filled by Moses and Joshua, whose presence was so essential for the time and the occa sion, were not at all involved in the general ma chinery of the Hebrew government. These persons formed no part of the system : they were specially appointed for particular services, for the perform ance of which they were invested with extraordi nary powers ; but when their mission was accom plished, society reverted to its permanent institutions and its established forms of government. It is, therefore, in the working of these institutions, after the functions of the legislator and the military leader had ceased, that we must look for the cir cumstances that gave rise to the extraordinary leaders which engage our present attention. Now
we shall find that, apart from such offices as those of Moses and Joshua, a very excellent provision existed for the government of the chosen people, both as regarded the interests of the nation gene rally, as well as of the several tribes.
To this latter branch of the government it is im portant to draw particular attention, because, as it existed before the law, and is assumed throughout as the basis of the theocratical constitution, we hear but little of it in the books of Moses, and are apt to lose sight of it altogether. This part of the subject belongs, however, to the art. TRIBE ; and it suffices to mention in this place that every tribe had its own hereditary chief or prince,' who presided over its affairs, administered justice in all ordinary cases, and led the troops in time of war.
His station resembled that of the Arabian emirs, 0/ rather, perhaps, of the Khans of the Tartar tribes inhabiting Persia and the countries further east. He was assisted in these important duties by the sub ordinate officers, the chiefs of families, who formed his council in such matters of policy as affected their particular district, supported his decisions in civil or criminal inquiries, and commanded under him in the field of battle (Num. xxvi., xxvii. ; josh. vii. 16-18). This was, in fact, the old patriarchal government, to which the Hebrews were greatly attached. It seems to have been sufficient for all the purposes of the separate government of the tribes ; but, as we find in similar cases, it was de ficient in force of cohesion among the tribes, or in forming them into a compacted nation. In fact, it was an institution suited to the wants of men who live dispersed in loosely connected tribes, and not to the wants and exigencies of a nation. It was in principle segregative, not aggregative ; and al though there are traces of united agreement through a congress of delegates, or rather of national chiefs and elders of the tribes, this was an inefficient instrument of general government, see ing that it was only applicable or applied to great occasions, and could have no bearing on the nume rous questions of an administrative nature which arise from day to clay in every state, and which there should somewhere exist the power to arrange and determine. This defect of the general govern ment it was one of the objects of the theocratical institutions to remedy.