THE BOOK OF JUDGES DATING AND MEANING Yairah Amit Tel Aviv University I. Introduction Dating any biblical book is a complex task, involving assumptions by now axiomatic in research or at least enjoying widespread recognition. Th e assumptions underlying my research are as follows: 1. Th e early book of Deuteronomy and the subsequent Deuterono- mistic school that edited the historiography according to its ide- ology emerged in the second half of the 7th century B.C.E. Th e activities of this school continued even in the post-Exilic era.1 2. Historiographic materials in the Bible written aft er the Deute- ronomistic school coalesced, and dealing with the same periods and topics, are infl uenced by this school or argue against it, but are not indiff erent to it.2 3. In Judah outside the establishment, namely royal circles, temples, and schools for scribes, literacy spread in the second half of the 8th century B.C.E. and the ensuing periods.3 1 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), pp. 1–9. Weinfeld diff erentiates “the author of the book of Deuteronomy” from “the Deuteronomic redactor”, who could be “the Deuteronomist” (Dtr.), i.e., the editor of the historical books, or the editor of prose segments in the book of Jeremiah (ibid., p. 4, n. 1). I use “Deuteronomic” to describe the early edition of the book of Deuteronomy and “Deuteronomistic” for literary materials written under the infl uence of the earlier composition and including all the materials that the Deuteronomistic school edited. 2 See, for example, the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, and see below, p. 308. 3 D. W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio- Archaeological Approach (JSOTSup 109; Sheffi eld, 1991); also N. Na’aman, Th e Past that Shapes the Present – Th e Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late First Temple Period and Aft er the Downfall(Jerusalem, 2002, Hebrew), pp. 19–29. 298 y. amit 4. Our book of Judges, which is included in the “Deuteronomistic history”, underwent editing and the diff erence between the early layers and materials added in later editing is evident.4 In the light of these assumptions, any decision about the dating of the book of Judges demands that a relationship be shown between it and the Deuteronomistic school. So fi rst we must ask if such a relationship exists, and if it does, in what strata of the book it appears and what we can learn from this about their times. II. Does the Book of Judges Have Deuteronomistic Characteristics? Th e widespread acceptance of Martin Noth’s revolutionary theory in the second half of the 20th century resulted in identifi cation of the book of Judges as Deuteronomistic, part of more comprehensive, longer Deuteronomistic composition.5 According to Noth’s method- ology, this composition includes several books: from Deuteronomy, with its account of the end of the wanderings in the desert, to the end of the book of Kings, that is, the destruction of the fi rst Temple and the exile from Judah. Noth even claimed that the underlying stra- tum of this composition was written and edited by one person, who resided in Mizpah aft er the destruction of the first Temple.6 Th e view 4 Th e term “Deuteronomistic history” is taken from the research of Noth (Th e Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 15; Sheffi eld, 1981]), who was the fi rst to treat the book of Deuteronomy along with the Former Prophets as an independent composi- tion written by one editor. On the editing of the book of Judges see the introductions and the critical commentaries on this book from the end of the 19th century. With respect to the latter part of the 19th century, I mention only the commentary of Moore (Judges [ICC; Edinburgh, 1966]), published as early as 1895. Following Wellhausen, he argued that someone from the Deuteronomistic school edited Judg 2:6–16:31 as early as the beginning of the 6th century B.C.E. In the context of the end of the 20th century, I mention my commentary: Y. Amit, Judges – Introduction and Commentary (Mikra Leyisra’el; Tel Aviv – Jerusalem, 1999, Hebrew), pp. 6–15. 5 Noth’s book (Th e Deuteronomistic History) was written during WWII, in 1943, but his theory became infl uential only with appearance of the second edition in 1957. See Th . C. Römer, Th e So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London, 2005), p. 26. 6 For a summary of Noth’s theory, its research implications, reservations about it, corrections made to it, and current thinking about it, see Römer, ibid., pp. 21–43. While few disagree with Noth’s theory about the extent of the composition, many have reservations about the conclusions regarding its character and believe that it is the product of an entire school of thought, not the work of one hand..