book in its earlier shape is that it was compiled in the reign of Saul; and if there was any recorder (mazkir) in his primitive court, as there subsequently was at the court of David (2 Sam. viii. 16), these histories might have been drawn up from older sources by such an officer; or possibly even by the Prophet Samuel (see below). With this would agree very well the almost unbroken silence respecting Judah (which would otherwise be inexplicable); the prominence of Gibeah and of Benjamin, with the narrative which explained why it was "the smallest of the tribes" (1 Sam. ix. 21), and the tone of hostility towards Ephraim (chaps. viii., xi., xii.). With this hypothesis would also agree the absolutely unsacerdotal character of the book. In David's reign the priesthood rose into great prominence and activity, whereas in the days of the judges and of Saul it seems to have sunk to the very nadir of inefficiency and neglect. Not once in the main narrative of the Book of Judges are priests appealed to. After Phinehas, they did not furnish one national hero from their ranks; nor did they once strike a blow for freedom or religion. The Levites shared in their decadence. The name of the wandering Levite of BethlehemJudah (chap. xix.) has already been forgotten; and the other Levite, though no less a person than a grandson of Moses himself (see note on chap. xviii. 30), is content to serve a shrine of private idolatry for the reward of a few shillings a year.

The Author. We have already seen sufficient to dispose of the fancy that the book was written by Ezra, although it is quite possible that he or his school may have added some trivial explanatory touches here and there. De Wette has entirely refuted* the conjecture of Stähelin that it is by the same author as the Book of Deuteronomy. Nor could it have been written by the author of the Book of Joshua, because it differs from that book not only in style, but in the two marked particulars that it barely makes any allusion to the Mosaic law, and that it abounds in moral utterances of a character which are not found in the previous book. The Rabbis generally follow the conjecture of the Talmud (Baba Bathra, f. 14, b) that it was written by the prophet Samuel. That is a sufficiently obvious conjecture; and though it can neither be proved nor disproved, it accords with many of the facts. From what we know of the character of Samuel, even in what seem to us to be its more dubious or less enlightened features, we see that there is a moral affinity between his views and those expressed in the Book of Judges. The man who so greatly disliked the establishment of royalty (1 Sam. viii.) may well have written the story of Abimelech. The man who commanded the extermination of the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 3) was in that stage of as yet imperfect enlightenment (Matt. v. 38) which would have viewed without reprobation the vengeance inflicted by Israel on his enemies. The man who hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal (1 Sam. xv. 33) would have felt no difficulty in commending the deeds of Ehud, of Jael, and of Gideon. The book may have been drawn up by him, or in the school of the prophets of which he was the founder. That he was well acquainted with the incidents of this period we see from his appeal to them in his speech to the people (1 Sam. xii. 11). The mention of Bedan" with Jerubbaal, Jephthah, and Samson in this verse has always been a source of

66

perplexity. The notion that Bedan can mean Samson, as though it were" in Dan," is now abandoned. Perhaps Barak" (as in the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic) is the true reading; but if Bedan" be a corruption for "Abdon," it would point to the possession on Samuel's part of many particulars respecting the judges which are now quite lost to us.

There are other allusions to the judges in 2 Sam. xi. 21; Pss. lxxviii. 56-64, lxxxiii. 7-11, cvi. 34-45; Isa. ix. 4, x. 26; Hosea x. 9; Neh. ix. 25-31.

Chronology.-The chronology of the Book of Judges offers immense difficulties, and the difficulties are increased by the uncertainties which affect both the reading and interpretation of the passages which bear upon it.

The elements of decision are briefly as follows:

I. If the stories of the judges are taken to be consecutive, and the periods of forty or eighty years' rest (chaps. iii. 11, 30, v. 31, viii. 28) are supposed to be stated accurately, and not in round numbers, then, adding up the separate totals, we get :

Servitude under Cushan Rest under Othniel Servitude under Moab

Rest under Ehud

Servitude under Jabin

:

Rest under Deborah and Barak.
Oppression of the Midianites
Rest under Gideon
Tyranny of Abimelech
Judgeship of Tola
Judgeship of Jair

Oppression of the Ammonites
Judgeship of Jephthah

of Ibzan

20 40

7

40

3

ix. 22

23

x. 2

99

x. 3

18

x. 8

6

7

xii. 9

If to this 410 years we add 40 years for Saul's reign, and 40 years for David's, we get 490 years; and as (on this principle of consecutiveness) we must allow about 10 years for the events before Cushan's tyranny (chap. iii. 10) began, and 20 for the judgeship of Samuel, and 1 for Shamgar (chap. iii. 31), we get at once at the traditional Jewish reckonings, which is the basis of much of our received chronology, and which assigns to the epoch between Joshua and Solomon a period of five centuries, in round numbers twelve generations.

II. In 1 Kings vi. 1 we find that Solomon built the Temple" in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt." It is doubtful whether the words are genuine, since they are omitted by Origen and other Fathers, were unknown to Josephus, and furnish the only Old Testament passage in which an era is taken as a starting-point. If genuine, there is no obvious way of reconciling them with the previous computation, though it has been suggested that "after the children of Israel came out of Egypt" may mean "after their settlement in Canaan."

III. In Acts xiii. 20 St. Paul says that "the judges unto Samuel the prophet" occupied a period of 450 years. But here, again, the reading is not certain, and the order of the words seems to have been tampered with.

IV. In chap. xi. 20 Jephthah says that Israel had lived in Heshbon and the coasts of Arnon 300 years. Now, doubtless, by a certain amount of ingenuity and manipulation, and by lengthening or curtailing those elements in the reckoning which are not specified-such as the length of Samuel's judgeship, the interval between Joshua's death and Cushan's tyranny, &c.-we may give to these different data sufficient semblance of accordance to look plausible. But it is quite obvious that we can arrive at no certainty, and, in point of fact, scarcely two of the authors who have elaborately gone into the question come to the same conclusion. Further than this, these scattered data have to be reconciled with those which we gather from no less than ten genealogies-those of David, Zadok, Abiathar, Saul, Heman, Ahimoth, Asaph, Etham, Zabad, and the kings of Edom, which are found scattered chiefly in the Books of Chronicles, and of which some are repeated two, three, and even four times. Now it appears from every one of these genealogies, as they have been thoroughly examined by the present Bishop of Bath and Wells,* that seven and eight generations are assigned to the period between the conquest of Canaan and the accession of David. The time allowed for a generation is usually thirty years, and this seems to show conclusively that the period covered by the judges was much shorter than that demanded by the received reckoning. For allowing even eight generations, this gives us 240 years, from which we have to subtract for the actual period covered in the Book of Judges, the reign of Saul, the judgeships of Eli and Samuel, and the latter years of Joshua. Now this curtailment of the period, though impossible to reconcile exactly and literally with 1 Kings vi. 1, Judges xi. 20. and Acts xiii. 20 (in which, as we have seen, the reading may be wrong), does coincide remarkably with many indications of the Book of Judges itself. There is not the least warrant for supposing that the numbers 40 and 80 are meant to be stated with precision, nor is there anything to bar the very reasonable hypothesis that parts both of the servitudes and the deliverances may have been synchronous in different parts of Israel: so that, for instance, the movements of Ehud, of Barak, and of Gideon may have taken place in the same fifty years. Thus no high priest is recorded in any genealogy or historical references between Phinehas and Eli, and Jewish legend says that Phinehas was deposed for having sanctioned the offering of Jephthah's daughter. Similarly Boaz, in the Book of Ruth, is the son of Rahab, and the Levite of Judges xvii., xviii. is a grandson of Moses. By thus curtailing the period of the judges many serious difficulties are avoided, and the uncertain meaning and reading of the passages on which the received chronology is founded cannot for a moment be set against the distinct information derived from such a multitude of genealogies. The subject is, however, still involved in obscurity, as may be seen in the notes on chaps. iii. 10, iv. 2. &c. It is clear that many of the fifty schemes of chronology which have been proposed must be completely mistaken, and we must be content with the general conclusion that the whole period covered some 250 years.

* Lord Arthur Hervey, On the Genealogies.

+ There are five generations between Moses and David in Ruth iv. 18; and we may be sure that when there are so many genealogies, and so often repeated, there are no omissions.

Reuss points out the curious circumstance that these round numbers added together-Othniel, 40; Ehud, 80; Jabin, 20; Barak, 10; Gideon, 40; Philistines, 40; Samson, 20-make 280, which is exactly the number required to make 480, if we add the Wanderings, 40: Joshua, 40; Eli, 40; Samuel and Saul, 40; David, 40200 (1 Kings vi. 1).

Characteristics of the Epoch.-The Book of Judges gives us an insight into a definite and wellmarked epoch of Israelitish history, and we shall understand the book and its object better if we summarise the peculiarities of that age. We mark

I. The deepening disunion between the tribes. While some of them pursued that agricultural mode of life which was specially fostered by the Mosaic institutions, others of them-as Dan, Asher, and the northern tribes -began to engage in navigation and commerce. This may have been one of the tendencies which led each tribe to act more and more as an independent body, while the fierce claim to the leading position advanced by Ephraim (chaps. viii., xii.) was only partially conceded, and at last entirely rejected. There were even separate towns-like Shechem-that could successfully assert their independence of the body of the nation, and choose their own rulers. Shechem thus stood at the head of a confederacy, like those of the German and Italian towns in the Middle Ages, under the protection of Baal-berith-the lord of the covenant-whose temple also served as a strong fortress (chap. ix.).

II. This civil disunion resulted in part from the religious disintegration. There was, indeed, a central sanctuary at Shiloh, but the ark itself was at Bethel; and since in these wild times it became all but impossible to carry out the regulations of the Levitic lawwhich seems, indeed, to have fallen into absolute abeyance-all sorts of local sanctuaries and high places sprang up. Altars were freely raised at any place hallowed by Divine messages or providences, and the irregular and reprehensible, if not directly idolatrous, cult of ephods and teraphim (chaps. viii. 27, xviii. 18) proved to be an irresistible temptation. A nation which had gone so far would be hardly likely to hold out against the manifold seductions and fascinations of the wild forms of nature-worship by which they were on every side surrounded. The sensual temptations of

these

"Gay religions, full of pomp and gold,"

could only be effectually resisted by the influence of one religion, firmly established and faithfully obeyed.

III. Another element of degeneracy lay in the extreme depression of the priesthood and Levite-hood. The only priest of whom we hear is Phinehas (chap. xx. 28). The grandson of Aaron towers immeasurably above the dreadful degeneracy of Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (chap. xviii. 30). It is with a positive sense of pity that we witness the pauperism and homelessness into which the near descendant of the great lawgiver had fallen (chap. xvii. 8-10). If for a mere pittance he could be induced to give his office and his life to the service of a private and semi-idolatrous chapel, we cannot but see that the salt of his order must have lost its savour. The splendid zeal which Phinehas had shown on former occasions (Num. xxv. 11, xxxi. 6; Ps. cvi. 30; Josh. xxii. 13) would have led us to expect from him the exertion of an influence which should have rendered impossible the state of degradation which marks the whole story of "the deed of Gibeah." It is clear, however, that he had sunk into impotence or into apathy. We never hear of him after this time; and it is a mysterious and unexplained circumstance that the next high priest who is mentionedEli-does not even belong to the line of Eleazar and Phinehas, but to the younger line of Ithamar. The elder line was only restored to its rights in the reign of David, and in the person of Zadok.

IV. "Like people, like priest." If the priests and

Levites had not abnegated their true functions, the people could hardly have sunk to a moral standpoint so low as that which is involved in the conduct of the tribe of Benjamin, or in Jephthah's vow; much less into the condition which left unpunished the hideous massacre by Abimelech of his father's sons. Even Ehud and Samson, though they were redeemed into nobleness by the faith and patriotism which animated their deeds, adopted methods which are regarded by purer ages as deeply reprehensible.

V. Sin is weakness, and the spiritual degeneracy of the people reduced them to that state of feebleness which made them the easy prey of the Canaanites in the north, the Ammonites in the west, the Midianites and Amalekites whose hordes overran the Plain of Jezreel, and the Philistines in the south, who in course of time extended their authority beyond the confines of the tribe of Judah.

VI. And yet, amid all this distress and degeneracy, the sacred fire did not wholly die out from the hearts of the Israelites. Had it been otherwise, these herofigures could hardly have risen among them, nor could such a burning song as the song of Deborah have been poured forth from the nation's heart. So many lessons of Divine education could hardly have been in vain. Ten times over in the Book of Judges are repeated the formulæ, "the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord," and each repetition is like the sound of a bell which tolls some approaching ruin. Ten times over recurs the formulæ," the children of Israel cried unto the Lord," and each time of its recurrence introduces a breathing-space of deliverance and of hope. As the years sped on, such lessons sank more and more deeply into the hearts of the people, until at last the time was ripe for reunion, the moral guidance of prophets, and the restoration of the national religious life.* In the hour of its worst peril and weakness Israel was preserved by the memory of its past, and was being prepared by a loving and guiding Providence for the grandeur of its future.

Moral Characteristics. In considering the moral characteristics of the Book of Judges, we must distinguish between its general purport and the details of its special narratives.

Its general purport, as the incomplete record of a transitional period, is to illustrate certain broad propositions, which are of the utmost importance to mankind. It is meant to prove that righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is the reproach of any people; that evil companionships ruin good dispositions; that moral degeneracy always brings with it national weakness; that the affairs of the chosen people were under the immediate care of Divine Providence; that national sin is never left unpunished; that the punishment which it involves is intended always to be educational, not vindictive; that the retribution is withdrawn when it has produced sincere repentance; that the deliverance never comes from unaided human efforts, but from the strength

* See note on chap. iii. 22.

and enthusiasm inspired by the Spirit of God. These and similar lessons elevate the Book of Judges into the position of a sacred philosophy of history, which clearly explains the laws and the objects of a sacred Nemesis. They are summed up not only in the Book of Judges. (especially in chap. ii. 11-22), but also in other passages. which have been suggested or deeply influenced by its teachings; such as Ps. cvi. 34-45; 2 Kings xvii., xxiv. 2-4; 2 Chron. xxvi. 11-21; Jer. xi. 2-10; Neh. ix. 16-38. The whole book may be regarded as an historical comment on the promises and threatenings of the Book of Deuteronomy.

But when we look from the general lessons to the special deeds even of heroes who were summoned by God's calling to the work of deliverance, we see abundant traces of the imperfection of that moral enlightenment which God vouchsafed to the chosen people only by slow degrees as the result of everdeepening experiences. Both in its pathos and in its. passion, the book is intensely human, and its heroes are the children of their own day, alike in their wrath and their tenderness, their laxity and their superstition. It must be now clear to every Christian that the exterminating wars of Joshua, the fearful and indiscriminate vengeance inflicted by Israel on the offending tribe of Benjamin, the treachery of Ehud and of Jael, the wild revenge of Samson, the blood-vengeance of Gideon, and other events herein narrated, are not to be quoted as examples for modern times. They are entirely alien to the whole drift of all that is best and highest in the moral teaching even of the Old Testament. Scriptures, and still more alien to all the teachings of Christ. The view which we take of these actions will be found in the notes; and it will be seen that while no attempt is made to gild with imaginary sanction deeds. which in themselves were due to times of ignorance and the passions of men on whose minds the full light had not yet dawned, yet, on the other hand, the faith and the courage by which these old heroes were animated receive their full recognition, and they are judged solely by the standard prevalent in their own age and country. In adopting this line of judgment we follow the example set us by Christ Himself (Matt. v. 38, xix. 8, &c.). We recognise the nobleness and courage of these heroes of faith, while we guard against the dangerous error of admiring their ignorance or consecrating their imperfections.

Among the books consulted in writing the following commentary I may mention Josephus, Antiquities, bk.. v.; Rosenmüller's Scholia; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel; Eisenlohr's Das Volk Israel; Stanley's Jewish Church and Sinai and Palestine; Reuss, Hist. des Israelites; Bertheau, Das Buch der Richter (Kurzgef. Exeget. Handbuch); Keil and Delitsch; Prof. Cassel in Lange's Bibelwerk; Lord Arthur Hervey, On the Genealogies, and in the Speaker's Commentary; Bishop Wordsworth's Commentary; Davidson's Introd. to the Old Testament; articles in Dr. Smith's Bible Dictionary; Kitto's Bible Cyclopædia; Herzog's Real.. Encyclop., &c.

CHAPTER I.-(1) Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that

"And concerning the Judges, every one by name, whose heart went not a whoring, nor departed from the Lord, let their memory be blessed. Let their bones flourish out of their place, and let the name of them that were honouredbe continued upon their children" (Ecelus. xlvi. 11, 12).

"Temporibus Judicum, sicut se habebant peccata populi et misericordia Dei, alternabant prospera et adversa bellorum" (Aug. De Civ. Dei. xvi. 43).

1-8. Wars of Judah and Simeon. Defeat of Adonibezek. Temporary capture of Jerusalem. 9, 10. Judah and Caleb drive the Anakim out of Hebron. 11-13. Debir conquered by Othniel. 14, 15. The request of Achsah. 16. Notice of the Kenites. 17 -20. Further successes of Judah, 21. Partial success of Benjamin at Jerusalem. 22-26. Ephraim gains Bethel by treachery. 27-36. Partial successes of Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulon, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan.

(1) Now. The "now" should rather be rendered And, as in Lev. i. 1, Num. i. 1, Josh. i. 1, 1 Sam. i. 1, 2 Sam. i. 1, 2 Kings i. 1. The word connects this book with the last, "as a link in the chain of books which relate in unbroken connection the sacred history of the world from the Creation to the Exile" (Bertheau).

After the death of Joshua.-In these first words we are met by a difficulty, for there can be little reasonable doubt that most, at any rate, of the events narrated from this verse to chap. ii. 5 took place before the death of Joshua, whose death and burial are accordingly mentioned in chap. ii. 8-9. For (1) the whole passage (chap. i. 1 to chap. ii. 5) evidently describes the first movements of the Israelites after their establishment on the western side of the Jordan. (See Josh. xviii. 1—3, xxi. 43, xxii. 32, xxiv. 28.) (2) It is inconceivable that the Israelites should have remained inactive during the long life of Joshua, who attained the age of 110 years. (3) The events in chap. i. 10-36 are evidently identical with those in Josh. xii. 9—24, xiv., xix. (4) The angel's message (chap. ii. 1—5) and the subsequent notices (6-18) are closely parallel with, and sometimes verbally the same as, those in Josh. xxiv. 24-33. That these should be records of different and yet most closely analogous series of circumstances is all but impossible. Various ways of accounting for the difficulty have been suggested. (1) Some suppose that many events narrated or touched upon in the Book of Joshua (especially chaps. xv. 14—19, xvi., xvii., &c.) are narrated by anticipation. (2) Clericus arbitrarily supplies the words, "After the death of Joshua the Canaanites recovered strength, but in his lifetime the children of Israel." (3) Schmidt renders the verbs as pluperfects: "It came to pass after the death of Joshua, the children of Israel had consulted Jehovah," &c. (4) A more recent conjecture is that the name "Joshua" has here crept in by an error of the scribes.

the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against

If we read, "After the death of Moses," all becomes clear and coherent; and if the book, in its original form, possibly began at chap. iii. 7, with the words, "And it came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord," &c., the clerical error may have been caused by the addition of prefatory matter to the book at the same time that the appendix (chaps. xvii.-xxi.) was added. It is in favour of the possibility of this suggestion that there are close resemblances between the style and the allusions of the preface, or perhaps we may say of the two prefaces (chaps. i. 1-ii. 10; ii. 11-23), and the style and allusions of the last five chapters: e.g., in the references to Judah, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem (chaps. i. 1-21, xix., xx. 18), Dan (chaps. i. 34, xviii. 1-31) and the Twelve Tribes (passim); the consultations of the Lord by Urim (chaps. i. 1, 2, xx. 26-28); the silence as to the existence of Judges; and the recurrence of various phrases, such as "set on fire," and "with the edge of the sword" (chaps. i. 8, xx. 48), "unto this day" (chaps. i. 21, xix. 30), “give his daughter to wife' (chaps. i. 12, xxi. 1, 14, 18), &c. (5) On the other hand, the conjecture can only be regarded as possible, since it is not supported by a single MS. or suggested by any ancient commentator. It is perhaps simpler to suppose that the book originally began with the words, "Now after the death of Joshua," and that this beginning was left unaltered as a general description of the book when the prefatory matter and appendix were attached to it.

The children of Israel.-Mainly, it would seem, the western tribes.

Asked the Lord.-The phrase is peculiar, meaning, literally, enquired in Jehovah (as we find it in the LXX.). The usual construction is "Shaal eth-Jehovah” (“ asked the Lord"). This phrase (shaal be) is only found again in chap. xx. 23-27. Rabbi Tanchum (whose commentary on this book has been edited by Schnurrer and Haarbrücker) says that the phrase implies the consultation of Jehovah through the high priest by means of the Urim and Thummim. "To ask of Elohim" occurs in chaps. xviii. 5, xx. 18. Similarly in Greek, "to ask God" (Xen. Mem. viii. 3) means to consult an oracle. If the narrative of this chapter be retrospective, the high priest must have been Eleazar, the son of Aaron (Josh. xiv. 1); if not, it must have been his son Phinehas (Josh. xxiv. 33), as Josephus seems to imply (Jos. Antt. v. 2, § 1). On this method of inquiring of God, in the absence of any authoritative declaration on the part of a prophet, see Num. xxvii. 21, Josh. ix. 14. On the Urim and Thummim, which was not the jewelled 'breastplate of judgment," but something which was put "in it," see Ex. xxviii. 30. It is probably useless to inquire as to the method by which the will of God was revealed by the Urim and Thummim. The words mean "lights and perfections," or something closely

66

resembling those conceptions. The Rabbis were themselves ignorant as to the exact nature of the Urim and Thummim, and the mode in which they were used. One favourite theory is that adopted by Milton, when he speaks of Aaron's breastplate as having been "ardent with gems oracular." It identifies the Urim with the twelve gems, and supposes that the answers of God were spelt out by a mystic light which gleamed over these gems. But not to dwell on the fact that the names of the tribes did not contain all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, this explanation is not consistent with the distinction made between the breastplate which was on the ephod, and the Urim and Thummim that were placed inside it (Ex. xxviii. 30). Another theory supposes that the mind of the high priest was abstracted from earthly things by gazing on the gems until the will of God was revealed to him. A third regards the Urim and Thummim as cut and uncut gems, kept in the folds of the breastplate, and used almost like lots. These are but theories, and in all probability the exact truth, which has now been forgotten for thousands of years, will never be discovered.

Who shall go up for us...?-At the solemn investiture of Joshua, as the successor of Moses, Moses is directed to "set him before Eleazar the priest," who was "to ask consent for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in " (Num. xxvii. 18-21).

(2) The Lord said.-The answer is given to the priest by the Urim, and he announces it to the people.

66

Judah shall go up.-The phrase "go up" is used in a military sense (Josh. vi. 5). The question had not been, "Who shall be our leader?" but, Which tribe shall fight first?" The reason why Judah is chosen is from the eminence and power of the tribe, which was also the most numerous at both of the censuses taken in the wilderness (Num. i. 26, xxvi. 19-22). Jacob's blessing on the tribe had been, Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies "(Gen. xlix. 8). (Comp. Num. xxxiv. 19; Josh. xv. 1.) In the arrangement of the camp, Judah was stationed at the east, with Issachar and Zebulon, and always started first on the march (Num. ii. 3-9), with its lion-standard, which was a symbol of its lion-courage (Gen. xlix. 9; Rev. v. 5). The same answer is given by Urim in chap. xx. 18.

(3) Unto Simeon his brother. Both Judah and Simeon were sons of Leah. It was natural that the two tribes should help one another, because their lots were conterminous; indeed, the lot of the Simeonites is said to lie "within the inheritance of the children of Judah" (Josh. xix. 1), and was given them "out of the portion of the children of Judah " (ib., verse 9), because a larger territory had been assigned to the tribe of Judah than it required. The tribe of Simeon was remarkable for its fierce valour (1 Chron. iv. 24-37, 38-43), of which we find a trace even in Judith, who belonged to that tribe (Judith ix. 2). It would, however, have been helpless without the assistance of

The Canaanites defeated.

ites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him. (4) And Judah went up; and the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men. (5) And they found Adoni-bezek

Judah; for we see from a comparison of the first with the second census in the Desert that Simeon had decreased in strength from 59,300 to 22,200. This fearful diminution seems to have been due to the plague, which may have fallen most heavily on them from their greater guilt, as we may infer from the shamelessness of their prince Zimri (Num. xxv. 14, i. 23, xxvi. 14). Hence the tribe is omitted in the blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii.). They seem to have melted away among the nomad tribes of the south, but we see them showing a last flash of vitality in the days of Hezekiah (1 Chron. iv. 41).

Into my lot-i.e., into the territory assigned me by lot ("Croesus devasted the lots (klerous) of the Syrians" (Herod. i. 76). The lots of Judah and Simeon fell within two lines drawn to the Mediterranean from the northern and southern extremities of the Dead Sea (Josh. xv.).

(4) And Judah went up.-Under the leadership of Caleb (Josh. xiv. 6).

The Canaanites and the Perizzites. See Gen. xiii. 7, xxxiv. 30. The former seem to have been lowlanders-" by the sea and by the coast of Jordan” (Num. xiii. 29), “ on the east and on the west (Josh. xi. 3, xvii. 16). The Perizzites were the mountain and forest tribes (Josh. xi. 3, xvii. 15). Their antiquity and importance appear from the allusions to them in Gen. xiii. 7, xxxiv. 30; 1 Kings ix. 20; 2 Esdr. i. 21. The name itself seems to imply "open villages (1 Sam. vi. 18; Deut. iii. 5), and may imply that they were agriculturists. The name does not occur in the genealogy of nations in Gen. x.

We

In Bezek.-The name means "lightning." There seems to be no adequate reason to distinguish this town from the one mentioned in 1 Sam. xi. 8. Saul numbered the people there before his expedition to deliver Jabesh Gilead. At first sight the mention of this town is surprising, for we have no information of any Bezek except the two villages of that name referred to by Eusebius and Jerome, which were seventeen miles from Shechem, and therefore in the lot of Ephraim. It is, however, needless to conjecture that there was another Bezek in the lot of Judah. must suppose that the two warlike tribes began their conquest by marching into the centre of Palestine to strike a blow at the main stronghold of Canaanitish power. Ewald conjectures that in this expedition they took Shiloh, and refers Gen. xlix. 8-12 to this fact, rendering till he come to Shiloh" (Hist. Isr. i. 284, E. Tr.). If this chapter does not refer retrospectively to events which occurred before the death of Joshua, it might well be considered strange that this powerful king is not mentioned among those attacked by the Israelites in Joshua's lifetime. It is, however, possible, as Ewald suggests, that a new power may have

sprung up.

66

(5) They found.-The expression perhaps alludes to the suddenness of their march, which enabled them to take the lord of Bezek by surprise.