JUDGES 5 RECONSIDERED: WHICH TRIBES? WHAT LAND? WHOSE SONG?*

Raymond de Hoop

. Introduction

Probably the most famous problem with regard to the settlement and the twelve-tribe system is the list of ten names of those who did and those who did not take part in the battle against Sisera and his allies (Judg :–). The wording of the so-called Song of Deborah suggests that the ten names listed involve the whole of Israel. Does this imply that at an earlier stage of its history, Israel consisted of ten tribes only and consequently that the system of twelve tribes originated in a later phase of its history?1 A lot of ink has been spent on this list, relating this number of ten (supposed) tribes to Martin Noth’s amphictyony hypothesis.2 Noth himself dismissed the song as irrelevant for the discussion of the twelve- tribe system because the names were only added subjectively by the poet in contrast to the two tribes Zebulun and Naphtali in Judg :– .3 Attempts have nevertheless been made to bring the number of ten in line with this amphictyony as a former stage of it,4 but since the number

* It is an honour for me to dedicate this essay to Ed Noort, whose research and teaching are so strongly focussed on the land. Research for this paper has been carried out as a research-fellow of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Thanks are due to Dr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, who was kind enough to correct the English of this paper. 1 Generally it is assumed that because the majority of names are tribal names (the names of Jacob’s sons), the remaining names are substitutes for the other known tribes. Gilead, for example, is considered in that case to be a substitute for the tribe of Gad, cf., e.g. A.Caquot,“Lestribusd’IsraëldanslecantiquedeDébora,”Sem  () –, . See also C.H.J. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis (SSN ; Assen ), , who states that Gilead is used as a tribal name in Judges  even when it is clearly a geographical designation. On this discussion, see furthermore R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (London ), –. 2 For this theory see especially: M. Noth, Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT .; Stuttgart ). 3 Noth, System, –, –; idem, Geschichte Israels (d ed.; Göttingen ),  n.. 4 Cf. S. Mowinckel, “‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme,’” in Von Ugarit nach Qum-  raymond de hoop twelve (or six) is an essential part of the amphictyony, these attempts have proved to be unsuccessful.5 Despite the fact that some scholars assume the song to be the product of an editorial process,6 the number of ten names has scarcely been questioned in recent research.7 Yet it should be stressed that the song does not deal with ten parties (or tribes or whatever these names may designate) that should have joined the battle, but with eleven:wealsohavetoreckonwithMeroz(:),forthereisnoindication that it designates a different entity from the ten listed in :–. There is a peculiar discrepancy between the mild rebuke of four parties in this list of ten and the vehement cursing of Meroz because of the same offence, apparently. This discrepancy is hardly dealt with by scholars or even ignored. In this essay, I wish to deal with this discrepancy as a means to investigate whether all ten names originally belonged to the song. I am also trying to determine whether these names are real tribal names or whether we are sometimes dealing with references to the land.8 Apparently unrelated to this matter is the question as to who com- posed this song: was it indeed Deborah as the text will have us to believe, or should we have our doubts about the poet and reckon with a later ascription to her? Both matters will prove to have a strong impact on our appreciation of the genesis of the song and the list of ten names. Even though Judges – apparently did not play a very important role in the

ran: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung (ed. J. Hempel and L. Rost; BZAW ; Berlin ), –, esp. ; A. Weiser “Das Deboralied: Eine gattungs-und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie,” Z AW  () –, esp. , –; K.- D. Schunck, Benjamin: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines Israelitischen Stammes (BZAW ; Berlin ), . 5 De Geus, Tribes, –. 6 M.Z. Brettler, The Book of Judges (OTR; London ), ; G.T.K. Wong, “Song of Deborah as Polemic,” Bib  () –, ; E.A. Knauf, “Meroz (Judg. :),” in In Search of Philip R. Davies: Whose Festschrift Is It Anyway? (ed. D. Burns and J.W.Rogerson; LHB/OTS; Sheffield ); many scholars refrain however from attempts to differentiate between possible layers in the text. 7 Caquot, “Cantique de Débora,” – (two tribes); N. Na"aman, “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV–V),” VT  () – (two); P. Guillaume, “Deborah and the Seven Tribes,” BN  () – (seven); E.A. Knauf, “Deborah’s Language: Judges Ch.  in Its Hebrew and Semitic Context,” in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica: FS Rainer Voigt (ed. B. Burtea et al.; AOAT ; Münster ), –, at  n.  (seven [although some differ from Guillaume’s set]). Intheoppositedirection:J.C.deMoor,“TheTwelveTribesintheSongofDeborah,”VT  () – (twelve). 8 Cf.alreadyR.deHoop,Genesis  in Its Literary and Historical Context (OTS ; Leiden ),  with n. .