The Book of Judges: A Study in Prophetic History

By Martin Sicker

The subject of this book is the prophetic history of the political-military leaders, called judges, that succeeded Joshua and led the tribes of Israel during the tumultuous anarchic period between the death of Joshua and the transformation of the Israelite confederation of tribes into a nation-state (as subsequently described in the biblical book of Samuel, presented in the Masoretic text of the biblical book of Judges.)

The term prophetic history is employed to describe the subject because prophecy in biblical thought is not fatalistic and does not predict future events. What it does do is assert that the moral course that a society chooses to follow in the present can determine its probable but not inevitable future. The purpose of the biblical book is to inform the reader of the historical consequences of the failure to observe the terms of the divine covenant entered into between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai following the exodus from Egypt. Although the biblical narrative is based on events that were believed to have taken place, the primary focus of prophetic history is on the moral implications of the decisions taken by men rather than the factual accuracy of the details of the events described, which have been studied exhaustively by archaeologists and historians of the ancient world.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Aug 29, 2016
• ISBN: 9781524538644

Martin Sicker

Dr. Martin Sicker is a writer and lecturer on the Middle East and Jewish history and religion. His is the author of 42 previous books including Reading Genesis Politically; The Trials of Abraham; The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob; Aspects of Jewish Metarational Thought; The Exodus and the Reluctant Prophet; The Convocation at Sinai; The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses; and Pondering the Imponderable.

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 by Martin Sicker.

ISBN:      Softcover         978-1-5245-3865-1

                eBook             978-1-5245-3864-4

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Quotes are from the (old) Jewish Publication Society version printed in Joshua-Judges, (London: Soncino Press, 1950)

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the Holy Bible, King James Version (Authorized Version). First published in 1611. Quoted from the KJV Classic Reference Bible, Copyright © 1983 by The Zondervan Corporation

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 08/30/2016

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

748987

Contents

Preface

1. The Post-Joshua Geopolitical State of the Israelite Confederacy

2. The Post-Joshua Spiritual State of the Israelite Confederacy

3. The First Three Judges

4. The Judgeship of Deborah

5. The Song of Deborah

6. The Saga of Gideon (1)

7. The Saga of Gideon (2)

8. The Saga of Gideon (3)

9. Abimelech King of Shechem

10. The Ammonite Threat to Gilead

11. The Saga of Jephthah (1)

12. The Saga of Jephthah (2)

13. The Birth of Samson

14. Samson’s Disastrous Marriage

15. Samson Goes on a Rampage

16. Samson’s Final Days

17. Micah’s Sanctuary

18. Relocation of Dan

19. The Concubine at Gibeah

20. Destruction of Benjamin

21. Resurrection of Benjamin

References

Notes

Preface

The subject of this study is the story of the political-military leaders, called Judges, that succeeded Joshua and led the tribes of Israel during the tumultuous anarchic period between the death of Joshua and the transformation of the Israelite confederation of tribes into a nation-state, as subsequently described in the biblical book of Samuel. The term story rather than history of the period of the Judges is employed to describe the subject because the biblical book is a history only in the very special sense of prophetic history, which bears little relationship to history in the modern sense of the term.

It should be noted that prophecy in biblical thought is not fatalistic and does not predict future events. What it does do is assert that the moral course that a society chooses to follow in the present can determine its probable but not inevitable future. In the biblical view, man is divinely endowed with free will and will individually be held accountable by both God and society for his choices. However, the fate of a society is a rather different matter, its future is entirely dependent on whether it is divinely considered morally eufunctional or dysfunctional, and if the latter whether there are sufficient numbers of righteous people in it to constitute a critical mass capable of arresting its moral decline. The prophet’s task is to alert the members of the society that it is on the slippery downward moral slope to oblivion that can be aborted if they so choose.

The distinguishing feature of prophetic history is that it is history written from a prophetic perspective with a particular purpose in mind, namely, to illustrate to later generations of the children of Israel the historical consequences of failure by its political and religious leaders to observe and comply with the terms of the divine covenant entered into between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai, following the exodus from Egypt.

The stories in the Book of Judges as well as the later narratives in the other biblical works commonly but misleadingly designated as the historical books of the Bible are based on historical events that clearly were believed to have taken place. However, the story of those events is presented as viewed through a prophetic prism. It is noteworthy in this regard that the so-called historical books of the Bible are referred to in Judaic tradition as the books of the early prophets. Accordingly, the primary focus of these prophetic narratives is on the moral implications of the decisions and actions taken by men rather than the factual historical accuracy of the details of the events described.

The focus in this study is primarily on what the authors and editors of the Masoretic text of the Book of Judges are purporting to teach us in their own special way. It is only peripherally concerned with many of the issues of primary interest to the modern academic studies of biblical texts such as when the text was finalized and by whom, literary analysis of the language employed, comparative analysis of the text and other ancient literature, and other such topics. A particularly vexing problem with the text is the chronology of the judges, which the author (s) clearly suggest is necessarily sequential because the numerous judges are described as being over the children of Israel, even though it is reasonably clear from the text that their actual scope of engagement was quite limited, rarely exceeding two or three tribes. This approach leads to the dubious conclusion that the period of the judges lasted for some 410 years, which seems rather unlikely; a synchronous approach to the narratives could reduce the period by as much as half. All of these issues are of valid intellectual concern but, with some notable exceptions contribute little to understanding what the authors and editors of the Hebrew text are trying to convey to us, which are the political and moral consequences of their repeated assertion that in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes (21:25).

The translation of the Hebrew text employed in this study, with some minor modifications for further clarity, is that of the old Jewish Publication Society version of the Scriptures. Although there are many modern translations available, I have demurred from using them because every translation is also an interpretation and, unfortunately, some translations take a bit too much liberty with the ancient Hebrew text. I have found the old JPS version, with all its archaisms and other difficulties, many of which will be discussed in the body of this work, to best reflect the language of the Masoretic Hebrew version, making it easier to analyze and hopefully to comprehend some of the subtleties of the ancient text.

1

The Post-Joshua Geopolitical State of the Israelite Confederacy

The defeat of the armies of the Canaanite/Amorite confederacies, described in the preceding Book of Joshua, effectively mitigated any immediate existential threat to the security of the Israelite tribal confederacy, and opened a window of opportunity for completion of the conquest of the Promised Land. That is, there were still substantial portions of the individual tribal allotments of the Land that remained in alien hands. While several of the tribes were more or less capable of completing the conquest of their allotted territories without additional assistance, this clearly was not the case for others. In a number of instances, some of the tribes were severely limited in their ability to project the degree of effective control of their tribal territorial allotments essential to establishing politically and economically viable settlement.

As the present narrative unfolds, it appears that such fledgling national institutions as councils of elders and tribal leaders, created by Moses and Joshua, were still functioning. Accordingly, following the death of Joshua, a national assembly was convened to consider how to deal with the situations faced by some of the tribes with regard to overcoming the obstacles impeding their conclusion of the conquest of the Promised Land. It seems reasonable to assume that the impetus for convening such an assembly came from those tribes that needed help in this regard from their fellow members of the Israelite tribal confederacy.

¹.¹ And it came to pass after the death of Joshua that the children of Israel asked of the Lord, saying: ‘Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them?’

For reasons about which one can only speculate, Joshua evidently failed to designate a successor to his national leadership position. This was in stark contrast to what Moses did when he was told that his end was near. He pleaded: Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shepherd (Num. 27:16-17). The divine choice fell on Joshua, who Moses promptly began to publicly acknowledge as his successor, thereby ensuring a smooth transition of authority. Joshua did no such thing and thus left behind not only a yet to be completed conquest of the Promised Land but also a national leadership vacuum.

Because both previous national leaders, Moses and Joshua, were granted a divine imprimatur, the statement that the children of Israel asked of the Lord could only mean that the tribal leaders wanted to ascertain the divine will in regard to the matter of national leadership of the Israelite confederacy. However, we are not told how they proposed to do that. Presumably, this determination of the divine will could only be achieved on behalf of the assembly by the intervention of the high priest, who at the time was Phinehas the grandson of Aaron. According to the biblically-established procedure, it was the high priest alone who, in response to a proper request, was authorized to inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord (Num. 27:21).

The judgment of the Urim refers to use of the Urim and Thummim, the device mounted on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex. 28:30) that yielded binary divine responses to specific inquiries. It appears that the use of the device by the high priest as the means of direct communication with the Lord had become increasingly necessary because there is no indication that following Joshua there was any longer direct verbal communication between God and the nation’s leader. It has been suggested that this fact presumably points to more ominous prospects. Perhaps the text is emphasizing that the distance between God and the people has increased and therefore their lines of communication are correspondingly less direct, an estrangement the consequences of which are depicted in the ensuing narratives.¹

In effect, it was the high priest who alone was deemed competent to employ the Urim and Thummim as the only direct means of interactive communication with God. Accordingly, the tribal leaders pleaded with him to inquire of the Lord who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them? Confronted by the uncertainties attending the desire and need to finish the conquest of the Promised Land, they were indeed as sheep which have no shepherd. They were sorely in need of what Joshua neglected to provide for them, and therefore appealed to the Lord to fill the national leadership vacuum.

It is noteworthy that this verse also has widely been understood in a rather different manner. Dwelling on the use of the term first in the query, it has been proposed that what was being asked was not about which person should assume the leadership role, but rather which tribe should be the first to renew the war of conquest with regard to the territories that remained in Canaanite hands. That is, although the tribes were aware that they were each individually responsible for completing the conquest of its allotted territories, it was deemed critical to assure that the first tribe to renew the struggle would be successful. Were this to be the case, it would send a strong signal that the tribes were fully capable of completing the conquest even in the absence of a national successor to Joshua. Were the first attack of the renewed attempt to complete the conquest to fail, it would embolden the enemy and make the task more difficult for the rest of the tribes.²

The difficulty with this understanding of the text is that the individual tribes had already demonstrated their inability to completely drive out the Canaanites and were compelled to co-exist with them in the territories that were nominally allotted to them. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that the situation of the individual tribes improved in this regard following the death of Joshua. What was needed was the reconstitution of a national army under central leadership, the aggregate power of which could be applied sequentially until the conquest and settlement of the entire land was achieved. As for the use of the term first in the query, it could simply mean that the chosen leader should first be tested in his ability to campaign successfully before committing all the tribes to his leadership in a renewal of the war of conquest.

¹.² And the Lord said: ‘Judah shall go up; behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.’

The divine response, as delivered through the Urim and Thummim, singled out the tribe of Judah for the leadership role, a logical choice given that Judah was the largest and most powerful and, perhaps under the leadership of Caleb, as indicated below, also the most aggressive of the tribes. It might be recalled that Judah’s primacy among the tribes had already been forecast by the patriarch Jacob who proclaimed: Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise; thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies… The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be (Gen. 49:8, 10). It would appear that the patriarch’s prediction was about to be realized.

Judah’s success in the leadership role with regard to completing the conquest of the Promised Land was guaranteed by the purported additional divine assurance that behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. Once again, in the absence of an identified recipient of the divine word, it must be assumed that it came through the Urim and Thummim in response to a second but unrecorded inquiry as to whether the renewed campaign against the Canaanites would be successful. It is noteworthy that, grammatically, the purported divine assurance is stated in the perfect tense, suggesting that in the purpose of God even the future is already an accomplished fact.³

¹.³ And Judah said unto Simeon his brother: ‘Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot.’ So Simeon went with him.

As noted above, at the outset of the present narrative the children of Israel, many if not most of them found their tribes still lacking full control of the territories previously allotted to them. By their inquiry, they clearly indicated their collective need for a national leader to oversee the completion of the conquest of the land. The purported divine response to their plea was that Judah would assume that leadership role and would succeed in liberating the lands still in control of the various peoples that came under the rubric of Canaanites. However, notwithstanding the divine pronouncement, the present text subtly indicates that the national role of Judah would not be realized until centuries later. How is this to be explained? It would seem that the tribal leaders did not consider the divine message responsive to their query. They pleaded for a national leader to replace Joshua; they did not ask for God to accord primacy to a particular tribe. The tribes might have accepted that the venerable Caleb of Judah assume the role of national leader, just as they previously accepted Joshua of Ephraim, but there was no possibility that they, and especially the Rachel tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, would accept the tribal preeminence of the Leah tribe of Judah, as discussed further below.

One might speculate that the inquiry by means of the Urim and Thummim could have solved this problem had the high priest asked the additional question of who of the tribe of Judah was to be Joshua’s successor as national leader. Since the text does not indicate that such a question was asked, the inquiry and response resolved nothing, and at this point in the narrative, the leaders of Judah were concerned with more limited parochial goals, namely, the conquest of those portions of their allotted territories still in Canaanite hands.

For the latter purpose, Judah sought an exclusive bilateral mutual assistance alliance with the tribe of Simeon. Why exclusively with Simeon, whose land was on Judah’s southern border, and not with either of the tribes of Benjamin and Dan on Judah’s northern border? It would seem that the narrator may have provided a subtle clue to the reason for this with his pointing out that Judah proposed the alliance to Simeon his brother. This may be understood as suggesting that the personalization of the inter-tribal relationship between Judah and Simeon reflected an emphasis on their maternal linkage, both of their eponymous ancestors being the sons of the same matriarch, Leah, whereas Benjamin’s ancestral matriarch was Rachel, and Dan’s ancestral mother was Bilhah, the maidservant of Rachel.

The implication of this is that in the tribal world of the children of Israel suppression of the ages-old antagonism between the Leah and Rachel tribes in the interest of the nation as a whole required the strong central leadership of a Moses or Joshua, a role that was now vacant. Although Judah was singled out as the tribe to take the lead on behalf of all the tribes, at the time its leaders evidently had little interest in taking on that role, which involved committing themselves to go to war to oust the Canaanites from non-Leah tribe territories. They evidently preferred to pursue common cause with their brother Leah tribe, the only one of the Leah tribes with which a mutual assistance accord was practicable. Although there were six Leah tribes, Reuben was settled in Transjordan, Levi was spread throughout the country having no tribal territory of its own, and the remaining Leah tribes of Issachar and Zebulun were domiciled far to the north of the country and separated from Judah by the Rachel tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh. This left Simeon as Judah’s only natural tribal ally. And, as indicated, Simeon joined forces with Judah to drive the Canaanites out of their allotted territories.

The Judah/Simeon Northern Campaigns

¹.⁴ And Judah went up; and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they smote of them in Bezek ten thousand men. ¹.⁵ And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek; and they fought against him, and they smote the Canaanites and the Perizzites. ¹.⁶ But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. ¹.⁷ And Adoni-zedek said: ‘Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered food under my table; as I have done, so God hath requited me.’ And they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there.

Judah, as the leading partner in the Judah-Simeon alliance, launched the campaign to complete the conquest of its allotted territory with an attack on a large concentration of Canaanites and Perizzites at Bezek, an as yet unidentified site presumed to be in the northern part of Judah in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Judah’s victory was decisive as they smote of them in Bezek ten thousand men, a round number not to be taken literally that probably indicates the complete destruction of the enemy.⁴ It would appear that Adoni-bezek, the ruler of Bezek, retreated into the city itself with a remnant of the Canaanite-Perizzite force that was wiped out when the Israelites broke into the city. Adoni-bezek fled for his life but was soon captured and degraded by the victors who cut off his thumbs and his great toes.

This is the only recorded instance where the Israelites engaged in the deliberate mutilation of a captive ruler, a practice rather common in the ancient world among other nations. It has been suggested by traditional commentary that this particular atrocity was inflicted for two reasons, to serve as a warning to other rulers as to what awaited them should they choose not to capitulate, and as a divinely inspired punishment of Adoni-bezek, measure for measure, for the similar atrocities that he carried out, as he claimed in the following verse of the text: Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered food under my table; as I have done, so God hath requited me.⁵ Alternatively, it has been proposed that the mutilation of the captured prince was not simply an act of savagery; it was designed to prevent his ever again taking up arms or marching to war.⁶ In this regard it has been pointed out that the Athenians are said to have decreed that the right thumb of every Aeginetan taken prisoner should be cut off ‘that they may be incapable of carrying a spear, but not incapable of working an oar.’⁷ The phrase gathered food under my table reflects the further indignity inflicted on his captive rulers, forcing them to grovel on the ground for scraps of food dropped from his table.

The text further indicates that, in contrast to what happened to other kings and rulers conquered by the Israelites, Adoni-bezek was not executed but taken with them on their assault on Jerusalem, where he apparently died, presumably of natural causes. It has been suggested that he was not executed because he contritely confessed his crimes and accepted the judgment upon himself, the narrative thus emphasizing how much Judaism values sincere confession of sin, even buy its non-Jewish enemies.⁸ However, this does not really explain why he was taken to Jerusalem. It has been suggested, in a critical assessment of this text, that when inscribing this passage centuries later the author simply forgot that at the time this event took place the Ark of the Covenant was in Shiloh and not in Jerusalem, as it was at the time of the composition of the text. Accordingly the author assumed that Adoni-bebek was brought to Jerusalem to be executed ‘before the Lord,’ that is, before the enclosure containing the ark, as an expression of gratitude for divine support for Judah’s victory.⁹

¹.⁸ And the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.

This text concerning Jerusalem needs to be read in conjunction with the statement regarding the city in the text of the Book of Joshua: And as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem, unto this day (Josh. 15:63). In effect, although first attacked by the men of Judah who, as the present text asserts, smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire, but evidently did not completely destroy it or make it uninhabitable. According to an ancient historian, the reference appears to relate only to the conquest of the lower city. The upper city or citadel, which effectively dominated Jerusalem, was not to be taken without great difficulty, through the strength of its walls, and the nature of the place.¹⁰ As the text indicates, the stronghold of Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Jebusites and the children of Judah could not drive them out. As a result, we are told that the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem.

It should be noted, however, that Jerusalem actually came within the territorial allotment to the tribe of Benjamin, making Judah’s assault on the city an act of encroachment, perhaps warranted to some extent by the threat it posed by its proximity to Judah’s northern border. As will be seen shortly, Benjamin sought to actuate its claim to the city but found itself limited to sharing the lower city with Judah, also being unable to drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem (1:21). The Jebusites thus remained in effective control of the city from the seemingly impenetrable citadel that they occupied until its conquest by David.

Caleb’s Conquest of Hebron

¹.⁹ And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites that dwelt in the hill-country, and in the Negev, and in the Shephelah. ¹.¹⁰ And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron—now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiriath-arba—and they smote Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai. ¹.¹¹ And from thence he went against the inhabitants of Debir—now the name of Debir beforetime was Kiriath-sepher.

Having secured full control of Judah’s allotted northern territory, the tribal forces marched southward across a front stretching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, engaging and defeating the Canaanites that dwelt in the hill-country, and in the Negev, and in the Shephelah or Lowland, which included the foothills and coastal plain between Jaffa and Gaza. In the course of this southward sweep, a contingent under the command of Caleb marched against the ancient city of Hebron, formerly known as Kiriath-arba. It should be noted that the present text assumes that the reader is familiar with the special relationship between Caleb, a prince of the tribe of Judah, and Hebron, without which this part of the narrative is not fully comprehendible.

Caleb had a claim to Hebron that dated back to the episode of the dozen spies that Moses dispatched to reconnoiter the land of Canaan, from which only Caleb and Joshua returned with a positive report, as recorded in the biblical Book of Numbers. Forty-five years later Caleb reminded Joshua of that event: Forty years old was I when Moses sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land; and I brought him back word as it was in my heart… And Moses swore on that day, saying: Surely the land whereon thy foot hath trodden shall be an inheritance to thee and to thy children forever, because thou hast wholly followed the Lord my God (Josh. 14:7, 9). On what basis did Caleb make a specific claim to Hebron? The biblical text describing the surveillance mission of the spies states that they went up into the South, and came unto Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were there (Num. 13:22). However, the Hebrew text, vayavo ad hevron, translated as and came unto Hebron, actually states and he came unto Hebron, suggesting that he alone went into the city, the pronoun presumably referring to Caleb.

Notwithstanding his advanced age for a field command, Joshua honored his claim and he gave Hebron unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance (Josh. 14:13). As the present text indicates, Caleb attacked and took the city, decisively defeating the much feared Canaanite clans of Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai that previously dominated the city-state of Hebron.

¹.¹² And Caleb said: ‘He that smiteth Kiriath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.’ ¹.¹³ And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. ¹.¹⁴ And it came to pass, when she came unto him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her: ‘What wouldest thou?’ ¹.¹⁵ And she said unto him: ‘Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the Negev, give me therefore springs of water.’ And Caleb gave her the Upper Springs and the Nether Springs.

Following his conquest of Hebron, Caleb proceeded to Debir, previously known as Kiriath-sepher, some eleven miles southwest of Hebron. From what follows in the passage it would appear that Caleb considered the conquest of Debir to be of such importance as to merit the award he offered to anyone who could take the city. What was especially important about Debir? It would appear that the city had already been taken by Joshua during his southern campaign. And Joshua turned back, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it. And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof (Josh. 10:38-39). These cities, although conquered by Joshua, apparently had not been occupied by the Israelites and were subsequently recaptured by the Canaanites. Caleb now considered it imperative that they be retaken, and thereby send a warning to other city-states that the Israelite conquest of the land was irreversible.

Accordingly, Caleb said: He that smiteth Kiriath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. In effect, he was prepared to consider the conquest of Kiriath-sepher as equivalent to a bride-price. Why didn’t Caleb undertake the conquest himself, as he did in regard to Hebron? The text provides no clue other than his age of eighty-five at the time. It is possible that following the re-conquest of Hebron he was too exhausted to immediately undertake another campaign, but nonetheless wanted it done to facilitate the unchallenged settlement of the tribe of Judah in the area. It is noteworthy that a similar offer was made later by Saul to anyone who managed to defeat the Philistine giant Goliath, a challenge accepted and fulfilled by the young David (1 Sam. 17:25).

In this instance the challenge was accepted by Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother.¹¹ Othniel succeeded in taking Debir, and received Caleb’s daughter, his niece, as his wife. And it came to pass, when she came unto him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her: What wouldest thou? This text is as unclear in the Hebrew as it is in translation. It has been suggested that what the narrator seems to be saying is that when Achsah, accompanied by her father, was being escorted by her husband to her new home, she persuaded her husband to allow her to request of her father, presumably as a dowry, that he give her a field in close proximity to her new home. With Othniel’s permission, she alighted from off her ass, that is, she assumed the position of a supplicant before her father, who inquired as to what was troubling her.

The Hebrew term vatsitehu, translated as that she moved him, is usually used in the sense of enticing someone to do something they would not normally do. Why would Othniel need to be enticed to grant Achsah’s request? Surely he was well aware that, with the exception of Joshua’s direct grant of the city-state of Hebron to Caleb, the remaining territory allocated to the tribe of Judah was to be divided equitably among the tribal clans and households according to their population. Therefore, the critical question is whether the homestead allocated to Othniel was within or external to the borders of the city-state of Hebron. If Othniel’s homestead was outside the borders of Hebron, considering that Othniel most likely had already received his equitable allocation of tribal land, a request that Caleb, as the apparently de facto leader of the tribe, allocate an additional field to his allotment seemed inappropriate. If Othniel’s homestead was inside the borders of Hebron, it might also have seemed inappropriate for him to appear to have conspired with his new bride to extract such a concession from Caleb. In either case, it would seem that Othniel might have been cajoled into allowing his bride to make such a request of her father, possibly because he did not think that Caleb would respond favorably to her request.

The present text indicates that her intention was not to request a sadeh or a field, as the earlier version of this story has it (Josh. 15:18), but rather hasadeh or the field, that is, a specific field. Thus, when Caleb asked her What wouldest thou? She demanded: Give me a blessing, that is, a gift; for that thou hast set me in the Negev. By giving her in marriage to a man whose homestead was located in the Negev, Caleb had sent her from the verdant Jordan valley to live in a virtual desert. Accordingly she demanded that her father give me therefore springs of water, perhaps as part of her dowry. That is, she wanted the addition to her estate to consist of a plot of ground containing abundant sources of fresh water, without which the land given to her would remain barren.

It seems reasonable to assume that the plot of land requested was within the bounds of Hebron and therefore a grant Caleb could make; were it outside the area he claimed and received, Caleb would have been guilty of abusing his authority as a tribal leader. In any case, as a doting father he granted his daughter’s request and gave her the Upper Springs and the Nether Springs. Although the location of Debir, at Khirbet Rabud according to some, remains to be firmly established, excavations at that site have revealed rock-cut cisterns and, about 2.2 km. (1.25 mi.) to the north, two wells on which Debir was dependent for water.¹² Alternatively, it has been argued that there remains little doubt about the identity of Debir with Tell Beit Mersim, especially as this site proves to have had an important status in the period of the monarchy, such as no other city than Debir can claim.¹³

With regard to the Upper Springs and the Nether Springs, it has been pointed out that two large reservoirs of the type peculiar to the region are to be seen in the immediate vicinity, and in the positions indicated, the one at a distance of three kilometers above the mound, and the other one kilometer below it.¹⁴ In either case, it has been suggested that, considering the prominence given to the story by its appearance in the Book of Joshua and its repetition in the Book of Judges, it may be concluded that the possession of these springs was regarded as a matter of great importance. The attention given to it in the narrative may have been intended to take note of the possible claim of Achsah’s descendants to the springs because they were given to her as a part of her dowry, and therefore did not accrue to the inheritance of Caleb’s other descendants.¹⁵

The Kenites Affiliate with Judah

¹.¹⁶ And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the people.

The Kenites appear to have been an ancient indigenous clan of the Midianites closely associated with the children of Israel since the days of Moses, whose father-in-law Jethro the Kenite, also known as Hobab, was a Midianite priest. Following the exodus from Egypt, Moses asked Jethro, who was familiar with the problems of surviving in wildernesses, to assist him in leading the people through the wilderness toward the land of Canaan (Num. 10:29-32). Jethro demurred but some of his sons apparently stayed with the Israelites and assisted them in navigating the inhospitable region, as recalled centuries later by King Saul when prior to an attack on the Amalekites he forewarned the Kenites to distance themselves from them so as to come to no harm, for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt (1 Sam. 15:6). Having been domiciled at the city of palm-trees, the Kenites now chose to relocate to the wilderness region of Judah south of the ancient site of Arad, about sixteen miles south of Hebron, where they lived