47

Response
Robert G. Boling

McCormick Theological Seminary

800 W. Belden Avenue

Chicago,

IL

60614,

U.S.A.

to welcome this new journal which will meet a And it is a distinct honor to contribute to While each of the reviewers has raised its first issue in this way. do any two focus on the same issue. seldom It challenging questions, will be best to respond to them individually, in the order in which I first read them. most

It is a pleasure important need.

I to the literary substantial work which appeared His review is a masterful application to my later in the same year. work of the same methods used in his analysis of the material found Therein reside at the end of Joshua and the beginning of Judges. both strengths and weaknesses.

Professor Aulds paper is

vigorous challenge

analysis, in the wake of his

own

Auld objects to what M. Noth would have considered to be an extended use of the terminology coined by him and refined in my usage largely under the influence of F.M. Crosss recent work /1/. The justification for coding the late framework of Judges (chs. 1 and 1921) as &dquo;Deuteronomistic&dquo; is that here the final redactor was content largely to supplement an earlier work (&dquo;Deuteronomic&dquo;) without any extensive

rewriting.

Auld has nevertheless persuaded me that the use of the word &dquo;Schematic&dquo; was not adequate qualification for introducing the compact one-page outline of the Judges-book. That outline will of

necessity become

more

detailed

(or

different

diagram devised)

for

any future edition.

By the

same

token, however, the logic of the method applied

so

vigorously by

conclusion that the &dquo;Schematic Outline&dquo; and the &dquo;Notes&dquo; and &dquo;Comment&dquo; were not all from The recklessness of such a conclusion, of course, the same hand: Aulds raises a serious question about the adequacy of the method. use of the word &dquo;strata&dquo; involves an over-precise analogy where the processes of literary formation must have included a variety of Auld

ought

to have forced him to

48
His transformations (oral to written, poetry to prose, etc.). paper in fact shows clearly how the literary analysis of such limited blocks of material as the framework chapters can go either way, if it does not pay strict attention to questions of the redactors own life situation.
A

may well have For it 6-10.

prime example is the notice of Joshuas death and burial. Auld 2: a point that the older form of the notice is Judg
can

be shown that the contributions of the final (or were far more extensive in Joshua than they were in Judges. The reason for the repetition may have been simply that, with the additions, Judg 1:1 had to be the beginning

&dquo;Deuteronomistic&dquo;) redactor

of

new

scroll.

Regarding the Smend-Auld comparison of Josh 23 and Judg 2: 20-23 former the passage falls on my ears as a far more severe statement than the latter.
It is, however, questions of sponsorship and affirmation that most seriously begged by the traditional approach of literary In light of recent breakthroughs tracing criticism to this material. the history of the Levites (notably in the works of F.M. Cross, Jr., /2/ Baruch Halpern /3/, and Jacob Milgrom /4/, I suspect that a solution is bound up with the fluctuating fortunes of various levitare

ical families,
Dtn Dtr 1 Dtr 2

yielding

the

following literary progression:

pre-Josiah (northern and non-royal) pro-Josiah (&dquo;Deuteronomic&dquo;)

.

post- Josiah (&dquo;Deuteronomistic&dquo;)

If the nuclear Deuteronomy (Dtn) took shape among those levitical circles which were disillusioned and alienated by the policies and programs of Solomon and Jeroboam I, nevertheless that old book was appropriated by other levitical circles close to the southern throne; and one result was the definitive formation of the great historical work (Dtr 1). It was not the last time in history that a radical reform document would be taken over and exploited by a political and/ or ecclesiastical establishment. On this view, the final redactor (Dtr 2) might very well have been found among those alienated and dispossessed levites whose families had fled south more than a century earlier, only to learn that Dtns promise of employment at the central sanctuary would not be fulfilled.

rescue

This fluctuation of contrasting levitical fortunes is enough to the stories of Judg 19-21 from any condescending devaluation

49
by
old-fashioned literary criticism (pace Moore). What the latter called &dquo;absurd&dquo; turns out to be quite profound. For it is comic and the comedy is of the essence. In Judges, what has virtually fallen apart by the end of ch. 1 is not again united (except briefly at Gideons ephod in 8:27, probably another touch of Dtr 2) until the
an

repeatedly

Professor Auld has not responded to this pivotal very last chapters! If it is merely the purpose of these element in the discussion. chapters to establish Judahs preeminence, then indeed there is an In that case the material ethical question which will not go away. can claim no kinship with Mosaic Yahwism.
I
a

argue,

on

the contrary,

that the ancient believers carried

on

sort of

dialogue in the very process of cultivating and expanding

the tradition. It is a humbling process and one which reminds us how unreasonable it is to expect that any one person will have all the truth all the timeo
But if our analysis is anywhere near the mark, there is very little of the Dtr 1 introduction to Judges that survives, as Auld has correctly noted, Rather, it has been largely displaced by a tragicomic framework that at last brings to center-stage the old general assembly of the pre-monarchy period (ledah), In Dtr 2 (Judg 19-21) this word clusters with another root, one that was a favorite of Dtn but was largely avoided by Dtr 1, That root is In all of Samuel and Kings we clearly find the assemble&dquo;. Cedah only in I Kings 16:20 where the cedah elects Jeroboam as king Mention of the ~edah in I over the secessionist northern tribes: Kings 8:5, at the installation of the ark in the Jerusalem temple, Its presence in other witnesses may be the is lacking in LXXB (L). secondary influence of the later account in II Chron 5, which also shows other signs of influence on the I Kings version.

,~hl &dquo;to

The distribution of ~hl (noun and verb) in Samuel and Kings is It occurs only in the account of Shebas almost as striking. rebellion (II Sam 20:14), repeatedly in Solomons prayer (I Kings 8), and in the rejection of Rehoboam in the north followed by his accession in the south (I Kings 12:3, 21).
In other words, the (~d~/q~h~l was the pre-monarchic assembly, largely suppressed after the split, only to blossom again as the post-monarchial &dquo;congregation&dquo;. This analysis is clearly supported by the distribution in Joshua as well, where the ~edah abruptly appears for the first time in 9:15-22, which uses the word five times: That unit offers a corrective to the preceding one, which had effectively diverted attention away from Joshuas responsibility

50
in the Gibeon negotiations. Similarly the presence of the Edh in 22 is Josh one of a number of points which make of the altar-story it a companion piece to Judges 19-21. Finally the tedah figures again in description of the asylum-towns (Josh 20), bringing the number of references to the (edah in Joshua to a total of 12, in three contributions from the same redactor--Dtr 2.
II

questions a variety of historical conclusions, syllable-count analysis of Hebrew poetry, registering serious doubt about what he chooses to characterize as a sociological approach to ancient literature. Shortly after the appearance of G.E. Mendenhalls provocative essay on the Hebrew conquest, I had occasion to ask a prominent American scholar for his opinion of it. The answer was not substantive criticism but plain lament &dquo;He has landed squarely in the German camp.&dquo; Martin, on the other hand, In my judgfavours M. Weipperts defense of the earlier hypothesis. ment, that defense does not penetrate to the heart of the Habiru issue. It does not adequately reflect the plight of the Late Bronze Age populations in Canaan, to which the wider Shechem Valley since the Amarna age seems to have been a major exception (similarly, on a
Professor Martin
to the

objects

smaller scale Gibeon). Nor does the older version offer any firm evidence that the early Israelites were nomads.

The proper place for a discussion of these matters, of course, will be in a commentary on Joshua which is in preparation.
It is not clear that Prof.

Martin has understood my argument

on

Judg 1, where verse 2 is translated as past perfect and the entire chapter is treated as a flashback on the generation that outlived its leader, with a nearly disastrous outcome. I argued that the late redactor used the units of ch. 1 rhetorically and didactically; and I made no claims for the chronological accuracy of the line-up, which in fact looks far too systematic.
The same is true of major sections of the book, where I have observed that the stories of Deborah and Abimelech seem to be out of phase with the archaeological evidence. There too I proposed a didactic motivation for the sequence (see esp. pp. 184-85). It would indeed be reckless to claim that the book &dquo;faithfully records the chronology of the period&dquo; in detail. But it was an ancient redactor who placed the first of the minor judges notices &dquo;after It is his assertions and affirmations we were trying Abimelech.&dquo; to understand.

51
Regarding Jabin, King of Hazor, what was said above about a &dquo;stratum&dquo; of narrative holds here also for a &dquo;strand&dquo;. These helpful analogies are never more than approximations to the reality. If I have not tried to &dquo;go behind the present form of the book&dquo; it is because I think there is an alternative explanation.
Regarding Gideon/Jerubbaal, I stop short of positing &dquo;two quite separate figures&dquo;. I would now argue that here essentially two blocks of material speak to each other regarding Jerubbaal (Dtr 1) and Gideon (Dtr 2), with contrasting views of a great and controversial figure.
it is not at all clear how a location in the far distance from the sea (and across the rift, east of the mountains in northern Galilee) provides more intelligible access to shipping than a location where Dan was trying to secure a piece of coastal plain, precisely from one of the &dquo;Sea Peoples&dquo;. They were not successful. Some went to sea and others moved north. According to the results of recent excavations at Tell Dan, the latter happened about the beginning of the eleventh century.

Regarding Dan,
some

north,

Deborah, Martin questions the relkey to structure. I can only answer that the method, where it has been used extensively by Freedman and others, allows precious few emendations. This is what commends it as a very cautious approach, in striking contrast to every older approach to Hebrew meter known to this writer. If the symmetry thus disclosed yields rhetorical organization that is obscured by the onedimensional scrutiny of &dquo;content&dquo;, the problem may be as much an old
a

In dealing with the Song iability of syllable-count as

of

method as a new one. In any case, I do not believe for a minute that the reviewers fears about a &dquo;gulf of the Atlantic&dquo; are justified. The present exchange of views would suggest precisely the opposite.
III

Professor Craigie expresses considerable sympathy for the general reader of my book. And he raises a serious question about the wider aim of writing &dquo;for layman and scholar alike&dquo;.
To make the

point

he does indeed lead

us

to

something

of

thicket--Notes and Comment on ch. 1. The complexity of the treatment has been noted by other reviewers as well. In the companion volume on Joshua there will be an entirely separate section of strictly
text-critical notes for the specialist. But if the first chapter of commentary appears to be top-heavy with annotation and description, one might hope for agreement that there are many matters of history,
a

52

literature and research methods, which and for the first time in such a book.

suddenly converge all

at

once

&dquo;Meristic&dquo;,

to be correct,

on.p. xvii as well). with its elative use

&dquo;Hiphil&dquo; likewise explained there.

should be &dquo;merismic&dquo; (n the glossary appears in the glossary,

But clearly it is the larger question of the unconventional He fears treatment of a whole framework that most troubles Craigie. that, for the general reader, &dquo;this relatively new theoretical I can only testify to a different material is difficult to grasp&dquo;. with whom I have worked--students, For many persons experience. in lay study groups--have found the approach pastors, participants to be interesting and provocative. And increasingly they find the biblical material itself to be persuasive and liberating. In any case whether or not I have been successful in writing for the general The aim, I reader will be for someone in that category to say. believe, must be here to stay. That the truth is its own best witness is what sustains both the academic enterprise and biblical In view of the Bibles formative influence in so many faith. aspects of culture and so many forms of expression it would be quite arrogant to suggest that &dquo;the contemporary message emerges entirely I am quite confident, from the historical investigation ....&dquo; however, that a contemporary message does so emerge, one that is as pertinent and needed today as it was at the close of the Late Bronze Age. A significant difference is that the message no longer includes the institution of the herem. That has been consigned by ancient Israels own historians to the tragicomic past.

Footnotes

1.

See

especially

Frank M. Cross,

Jr.

Epic. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1973, pp. 274-289.

2.

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Harvard University Press,

., pp. 195-215 Op. cit

Baruch

3.

Halpern, "Sectionalism and Schism", JBL 93 (1974), "Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of 519-532; pp. Jeroboam I," JBL 95 (1976), pp. 31-42.
Jacob Milgrom, "The Shared Hittite Analogy", JAOS 90

4.

Custody of the Tabernacle (1970), pp. 204-209.

and