The Evolution of the Gideon Narrative Chapter Author(S): JACOB L

Society of Biblical Literature Brown Judaic Studies Chapter Title: The Evolution of the Gideon Narrative Chapter Author(s): JACOB L. WRIGHT Book Title: Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible Book Editor(s): Saul M. Olyan, Jacob L. Wright Published by: Society of Biblical Literature, Brown Judaic Studies. (2018) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvvnhmb.10 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Society of Biblical Literature, Brown Judaic Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:28:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms The Evolution of the Gideon Narrative JACOB L. WRIGHT Emory University he introduction to the Gideon account in the book of Judges portrays TYhwh sending a prophet to the nation to remind them that he brought them up from Egyptian bondage, drove out their enemies from the prom- ised land, and therefore expects their undivided loyalty (6:7–10). Julius Wellhausen claimed in his Prolegemona (1878) that these five verses were added to the narrative “in its final redaction,” and many commentators throughout the twentieth century came to similar conclusions.1 As Frank Moore Cross and other scholars studied Qumran manuscripts related to Judges (4QJudga), they found precisely this passage to be missing, with the narrative running seamlessly from the preceding passage to the one that follows it.2 The external evidence from Qumran is not the focus of this paper. But, aside from offering us a firsthand material glimpse of textual growth, it raises a basic question: What other portions of the Gideon account might also represent supplements? My contribution to this volume addresses this question as well as some of the difficulties that narrative texts in general present for diachronic analysis. My aim is to demonstrate that, although one cannot always confidently reconstruct the first editions of biblical narratives, it is still possible to isolate supplements to them. 1. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Scholars Press Reprints and Translations (1878; repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 234. George Foot Moore ascribed the passage to E; see A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, ICC (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1903; first published 1895 ), 181. 2. Robert G. Boling wrote his Anchor Bible commentary on Judges before the pub- lication of the Qumran evidence (Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, AB 6A [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975], 40), yet he cites at length what he learned about it from Frank Moore Cross. 105 This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:28:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 106 Deuteronomistic Historical Narrative Two Approaches: A posteriori versus a priori When reconstructing the composition history of a narrative text, we have a choice between two diachronic approaches. The first is the process of elimination: we subtract parts of the story that, with the help of various criteria, we can determine to be supplements. To return to the example of Judg 6:7–10, this passage severs the connection between 6:6b and 6:11, runs counter to an established narrative pattern in Judges, employs differ- ent expressions, and introduces new ideas.3 The external evidence found at Qumran confirms that such criteria are not unreasonable or hypercrit- ical (as they are often deemed to be) and that the passage is indeed a late supplement. When employing this a posteriori approach, we first eliminate the questionable parts; what remains should correspond, more or less, to the original text. The problem with this approach is that it rarely produces a smooth story line. The alternative is to adopt an a priori approach. The latter proceeds by identifying those parts of the story that its other parts presuppose. With these presupposed parts as the point of departure, we attempt to retrace the older story line from beginning to end. While the a priori option may be the ideal method for reconstructing texts, it is not always practicable. The problem is that authors/editors may have incorporated and recast older materials. Consequently, the earliest versions of their narrative often will not conform to our expectations for a smooth story line. Further compli- cating the a priori approach is the possibility that early generations of readers/redactors sought to harmonize the text by supplementing it with new lines. In sum, a smooth story line may be the product of multiple hands. Reinhard Kratz’s astute analysis of the Gideon narrative illustrates the tensions between these two approaches.4 Kratz isolates the framework of a narrative that corresponds, in a stripped-down version, to the form that we find in the MT: 6:11a, 19, 21, 24; 7:1b–8b, 13–15a, 16–21, 22b; 8:4, 10–12, 18–21ba. Gideon is introduced with his father’s name and his place of ori- gin; an angel approaches him; he builds an altar for Yhwh; he marches to battle against the Midianites; his men fight “for Yhwh and Gideon”; they triumph with the help of a cunning scheme; and, in the end, Gideon takes revenge on two Midianite kings named Zebah and Zalmunna. Kratz 3. To quote Richard D. Nelson on this point: “Judg. 6:7–10 is isolated from its context. While vv. 2–6 and 11–24 are connected together by the movement from crisis to salvation, they neither prepare for nor follow up on 7–10. Literary seams are visible at both ends. V. 7a picks up and repeats 6b, while after v. 10 the expected announcement of judgment does not occur and the oracle breaks off abruptly. In fact, the subject of foreign gods from 7–10 does not come up again until 6:25–32. Judg. 6:7–10 could drop out and not be missed” (The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 18 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981], 47). 4. Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: T&T Clark, 2005; German original 2000), 203–4. This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:28:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms The Evolution of the Gideon Narrative 107 shows how the remaining episodes presuppose themes from Judges and other parts of the Enneateuch. His guiding assumption, one that he shares with many others who have written on Judges, is that the first version of the Gideon account was not conceived for the narrative of the book. Kratz’s analysis is insightful at many points, but it also has its short- comings. The most obvious one is evident in the episode in which Gideon captures, and later slays, Zebah and Zalmunna (8:4–21). The episode appears to be an alternative to the battle reported in the preceding chapter. The narrator tells how these kings and their armies were in Karkor, and how Gideon went up “by the caravan route east of Nobah and Jog- behah” (8:11), routed their armies, captured the kings, and then executed them. Not only does this episode not presuppose the earlier battle in chapter 7; it also alludes to events (e.g., the execution of Gideon’s brothers) that chapter 7 does not report. How, then, are we to explain the inclusion of this strange episode? Perhaps we must reckon, as Wellhausen did many years ago, with the authors’ use of older materials. But can we isolate these sources along with possible later supplements? If so, can we still reconstruct a coherent story line that provided the infrastructure for generations of early readers to compose these supplements? And finally, was this story line originally created for the narrative of Judges?5 Analysis of the Gideon Account: Judges 6:1–8:35 What follows is a section-by-section analysis of the narrative. The dis- cussion treats the kinds of considerations and criteria that inform both the a priori and a posteriori approaches. In this first stage, however, the weight will fall on the latter approach. After subtracting what we can determine to be supplements, I will briefly synthesize the results and postulate how the narrative achieved its present form. It will become apparent that this kind of analysis promises a substantial payoff for the interpretation of biblical narratives in their canonical forms. The Introduction: 6:1–10 The account is prefaced with an unusually lengthy introduction, which resembles the prologue to the Jephthah account in chapter 10. I already noted that the passage in vv. 7–10 likely forms a supplement and 5. For recent research on the Gideon account and a sensitive treatment of the diachronic issues, see Kelly Murphy, “Mapping Gideon: An Exploration of Judges 6–8” (PhD diss., Emory University, 2011). This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:28:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 108 Deuteronomistic Historical Narrative that it is missing from a Qumran manuscript. The statement in v. 6b that the Israelites cried out to Yhwh would have originally continued with the introduction to Gideon in v.

Load more