Judges
Liber JudicumIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
The book of the Bible that relates the memories of this epoch and speaks of such judges can be divided into five parts:
1. A general introduction (1, 1-2, 5), in which are related events of the occupation of Canaan, in part probably prior to the death of Joshua, and the beginning of the "period of the judges" — 2. A special introduction (2, 6-3, 6), in which is given the historico-theocratic interpretation of the age of the judges — 3. The history of the judges (3, 7-16, 31). — 4. A first appendix (chaps. 17-18) on the religious events that led to the founding of the Sanctuary of Dan. — 5. A second appendix (chaps. 19-
Haydock
This Book is called Judges, because it contains the history of what passed under the government of the judges, who ruled Israel before they had kings. The writer of it, according to the more general opinion, was the prophet Samuel. (Challoner) --- Some are of opinion, that the judges might have each left records of their respective administrations, (Menochius) which might be put in order by Samuel. The author of this book seems to have lived under the reign of Saul, before David had expelled the Jebusites, chap. 18:31. (Du Hamel) --- The captivity, which is mentioned [in] ver. 30, must be understood of that when the ark of God, as well as the idol Micha, and many of the people were taken by the Philistines. (Huet) --- Many passages of the Psalms, etc., are taken from this book, which shew its antiquity, Psalm 67:8.; 2 Kings 11:21. The divine Providence is here displayed in a very striking manner. (Du Hamel) --- The theocracy still subsisted and God generally chose these judges to be his ministers, and to deliver the people, on their repentance, from some dreadful calamity. (Haydock) --- They exercised a supreme power, yet without bearing the insignia of regal authority, or imposing taxes, or making any alteration in the established laws. The Suffetes, who were Carthaginian magistrates, seem to have taken their name from these Ssuptim. (Du Hamel) --- When God did not raise up judges, in an extraordinary manner, a kind of anarchy prevailed. (Haydock) --- Each of the tribes regarded only their own affairs, and the republic was dissolved. (Grotius) --- Prosperous and unfortunate days succeeded each other, in proportion as the people gave themselves up to repentance or to dissolution. Sicut se habebant peccata populi et misericordia Dei, alternaverunt prospera et adversa bellorum. (St. Augustine, City of God XVIII. 23.) St. Jerome (ep. ad Eust. et ad Paulin.) exhorts us to penetrate the spiritual sense of the historical books, and he regards "the judges as so many figures" of the apostles, who established the church of Christ. Though some of them had been noted for their misconduct, they were reclaimed by the grace of God. Then all the judges, every one by name, whose heart was not corrupted, who turned not away from the Lord, that their memory might be blessed, etc., Ecclesiasticus 46:13-14. (Worthington) --- St. Paul mentions four of them, though the conduct of Jephte and of Samson might have been regarded as more exceptionable than that of Othoniel, who is said to have been filled with the spirit of the Lord, chap. 3:10. Serarius doubts not but they are all in heaven. Salien (in the year of the world 2640,) supposes that the transactions recorded in the five last chapters, took place before this 40th year from the death of Josue, which was the last of Othoniel. With respect to the chronology of these times, there are many opinions. Houbigant endeavours to shew that the system of Usher is inadmissible, as well as that of Petau. Marsham maintains that many of the captivities, and of the Judges, related only to some tribes, so that the different years which are specified, must be referred to the same period of time. Thus while Jephte ruled over those on the east side of the Jordan, and fought against the Ammonites, other judges endeavoured to repel the armies of the Philistines on the west. See 3 Kings 6:1., and Judges 11:16. By this expedient, he finds no difficulty in shewing that 480 years elapsed from the departure out of Egypt till the building of the temple, and that the Israelites had occupied the country of the Ammonites during the space of 300 years. (Haydock) --- Houbigant seems to adopt this system in some respects, and he thinks that errors have crept into some of the numbers, so that Aod procured a peace of only 20 instead of 80 years, etc. He observes that the name of judge here designates, 1. A warrior, like Samson; 2. a person who passes sentence according to the law, which was the office of Heli; 3. one divinely commissioned to exercise the sovereign authority, as Samuel did, even after Saul had been elected king. (Proleg. Chronol.) Others have compared the power of these judges with that of the Roman Dictators, or the Archontes of Athens. (Serarius) --- They were properly God's lieutenants. Their revenue seems to have been very precarious, and their exterior deportment modest and unassuming. They were guided by the declarations of the high priests, when arrayed with the Urim and Thummim; and their business was to promote the observance of the true religion, and to defend the people of God. This book concludes with the history of Samson, describing the transactions of 317 years, (Calmet) according to the calculation of Usher, which has met with the approbation of many of the learned, and is therefore chiefly inserted in this edition, as it was in that which was published in 1791, at Dublin, by the care of the Rev. B. Mac Mahon, who seems to have made some alterations. It is not indeed free from many serious difficulties. But we have not leisure to examine them at present. See chap. 3:11, 30. We shall only subjoin the chronological table of Houbigant, which is not very common, that the reader may perceive where they are chiefly at variance. Moses governed 40 years, Josue 20, the Ancients 20, king of Mesopotamia 8, Othoniel 40, Moabites 18, Aod 20, Samgar 0, the Chanaanites 20, Debora and Barac 40, Madianites 7, Gedeon 40, Abimelech 3, Thola 23, Ammonites 0, Jair 22, Jephte 6, Abesan 7, Ahialon 10, Abdon 8, Philistines 0, Samson 20, and with Heli 20, Heli and Samuel 25, Samuel and Saul 20, David 40, Solomon 3. In the 4th year of his reign the temple was begun, 480 years after the liberation from Egypt. Those to whom no years are assigned, lived at the same time with others whose years enter into the calculation. Thus Samgar gained a victory over the Philistines, while the Chanaanites held the Israelites in subjection, chap. 3:31. For other particulars we must refer to the author. (Chron. sacra.) (Haydock)
Douay 1582/1609
SAINCT Hierom geuing this general rule (Epist. ad Eustoch. virg.) that A rule for reading historical bookes. in reading historical bookes of holie Scripture, the historie, as fundation of veritie, is to be loued, but the spiritual vnderstanding rather to be folowed: agreably therto teacheth (Epist ad Paulin.) that in this booke of Iudges there be as manie figures, as princes of the people. Neither doth he meane that there were no more, but for example sake affirmeth that these Iudges, raised vp after Iosue, and sent of God The Iudges of Israel figures of Christs Apostles. to deliuer the people fallen for their sinnes into afflictions, were types and figures of the Apostles and Apostolical men, sent by Christ to propagate and defend his Church of the new Testament. For albeit diuers of these Iudges were sometimes great offenders, yet they were reclamed by Gods special grace, and so amending their errors did great thinges, to the singular honour of God: and are renowmed among the holie Patriarces and Prophetes, particularly praysed in bolie Scipture, saying: And the Iudges, euerie one by his name, They were al finally holie men. E••li. 4•. whose hart was not corrupt: Who were not auerted from our Lord, that their memorie may be blessed, and their bones spring out from their place, and their name remaine for euer, the glorie of holie men remaining to their children. After Iosue therfore, who it semeth guided and ruled the people 32. yeares, this booke, written (as is The Contents of this booke. most probable) by Samuel, shewing the famouse Actes of these Iudges of Israel, prosecuteth the historie of the Church the space of 288. yeares more. And may be diuided into three partes. First, is described in general the state of the people, Diuided into three partes. sometimes wel and sincerly seruing God, other times falling to great sinnes. in the two first chapters. Secondly, their offences, afflictions, repentance, and deliuerie from their enemies are more particularly reported from the third chap. to the 17. Thirdly, other special accidents, which happened within the same time, are recorded. in the last fiue chapters.
Cornely
61. — Iudices (*gvezt , GQ'GETO) in saera historia viri illi appellantur, qui inde a losuae morte usque ad Saulis primi regis electionem vempublicam israeliticam gubernabant; hebraicum enim vocabulum scAaphat (iudicavit) latiore etiam sensu de supremo reipublicae magistratu adhibetur!. Attamen Israelitarum ScAophetrm non ordinario quodam munere fungebantur nec continua successione sese excipiebant, sed pro rerum necessitate certis temporibus extraordinario modo immediate a Deo vocabantur, ut contribules ab iniusta hostium oppressione liberurent eosque ad Legis divinae observantiam reducerent ; dictatores igitur quidam erant divinitus constituti , dum toto illo tempore ordinaria regendi administrandique potestas penes familiarum tribuumque principes erat. Inter losuen et Saulem quatuordecim vel sedecim, immo forte septemdecim Iudices numerantur hoc ordine : Othniel , Aod, Samgar, (lahel), Debbora, (Barac), Gedeon, (Abimelech), Thola, lair, lephte, Abesan, Ahialon, Abdon, Samson, Heli, Samuel?. Inter quos una invenitur mulier (Debbora), omnes autem ex variis tribubus erant assumti : bini ex tribubus luda (Othniel et Abesan?), Ephraim (Debbora et Abdon), Manasse, (Gedeon, Abimelech), Gad vel Gilead (lair et Iephte), Levi (Heli et Samuel), singuli ex tribubus Dan (Samson), Beniamin (Aod), lssachar (Thola), Nephtali (Barac), Zabulon (Ahialon); duorum (Samgar et Ilahel) patria non nominatur. Ex illis autem omnibus soli tres (Othniel, Heli, Samuel) totum populum videntur iudicasse, reliqui uni soli aut nonnullis dumtaxat tribubus praefuisse *,
Ab hisee igitur Iudicibus liber, qui in iudaici canonis parte secunda secundum locum occupat, nomen suum traxit, quia « eorum, inquit Ps. Athanasius , ves gestas et vitae tempus describit »5. Erraret aulem, qui in eo continuam historiam populi israelitici inde a Iosuac morie usque ad Saulem tradi censeret. Namque duorum ultimorum Iudicum, Heli et Samuelis, ne nomina quidem in eo commemorantur; unius, laliel (5,6), nudum nomen ponitur; sex aliorum, Samgar (3,31), Thola et lair (10,1-5), Abesan, Ahialon, Abdon (12,8-5), qui per septuaginta annos populum iudicabant, res gestae nullae narrantur; interregnorum, quae satis longum temporis spatium complecti videntur, historia silentio praetermittitur; illorum demum Iudicum, de quibus fusior fit sermo, tantum abest, ut completa historia narretur, ut admodum paucae eorum res gestae tradantur. Libro losue et duobus primis nostri lihri capitibus edocemur, tempore mortis losuae magnam, immo maiorem terrae promissae partem Israelitis nondum plene fuisse subieclam; in omnium enim fere tribuum territoriis Chananaeus . cuin filiis Israel habitasse dicitur, atque Aser et Nephtali « habitabant in medio Chananaei » (1,32. 33). Sed tempore Samuelis et Saulis Israel a finitimis quidem populis impugnabatur, terra palaestinensis ipsa vero omnibus paene Chananaeis exterminatis in quieta ludacorum possessione fuit. lam vero de completa hac territoriorum expugnatione non magis sermo est, quam de interna reipublicae per totum illud tempus conditione. ARGUMENTUM igitur libri nostri non satis recte dicitur historia reipublicae isracliticae sub ludicibus, quum paucas dumtaxat res a nonnullis Iudicibus gestas complectatur.
Continue reading 81 paragraphs
1. Radix v5u proxime significat iudicavit; quia vero iudicia ad summos magistratiis perlinent, facilc transiit in sensum gubernandi, regendi (1 Heg. 8,5; 4 Reg. 15,5; Deut. 17,0; 19,17 ctce.), atque participium Schophet significavit gubernatorem vel summum magistratum (Ps. 2,10; 1s. 40,23; Am. 2,3 etc.). Idem uomen penes Carthaginicnscs teste Livio (XXVIII. 37 ; XXX. 7) eodem sensu usurpabatur : « Sufetes... qui summus Pocnis est magistratus », atque Tyrii quoque per aliquod tempus a Iudicibus (212312) regebantur teste Fl. Iosepho (c. App. I. 21). Attamen IHIebracorum Iudicibus alio quoque sensu nomen competit. Iudicum enim est iura oppressorum cet miserorum tucri ct vindicare, atque hoc sensu non raro usurpatur (5v? (Is. 1,17. 23; Ps. 25 (26), 1; 71 (72), 4 ete); viri autem illi, quibus in hoc libro nomen schophet tribuitur, filios Israel ab iniusta hostium oppressione vindicabant et liberabant, populum liberatum iuitem iusto suo regimine in divinae Legis observantia retinebant.
3. Abesan ex Bethlehem fuisse dicitur; utrum intelligendum sit Bethlehem Iuda, an Bethlehem Zabulon, incertum est. Eius successor Ahialon diserle appcllatur Zabulonites, unde plerique concludunt, Abesan non fuisse Zabuloniteim; sed conclusio, ut patet, necessaria non est; quare forte duo ponendi sunt ex tribu Zabulon, et unus ex tribu Iuda.
4. Debbora et Barac in suo exercitu sex dumtaxat tribuum cisiordanicarum milites habebant, Gedeon solos milites quatuor tribuum septemtrionalium; Iephte solos transiordanicos duxit contra hostes et Ephraimitas debellare coactus est.
68. — Argumentum autem libri accuratius definiemus, si ad /inem, quem auctor in eo conscribendo sibi proposuit, animos adverterimus. Fidelitatem divinam in libro Iosue praecipue celebrari ostendimus (53; p- 175 sqq.) at aliam viam iniit auctor noster, ut populum ad fidelem Legis observationem reduceret. Divinam zustitiam enim ei ob oculos ponit, una ex parte gravissimis poenis indicatis, quas idololatria sua suisque vitiis sibi ipsi attraxerat, altera ex parte indicato auxilio divino, quod nunquam defuit, quamprimum sincera poenitentia ad Deum suum reversus est. In eo igitur totus est, ut ostendat tota Iudicum aetate « alternavisse apud Iudaeos et humilitates laborum pro eorum peccatis et prosperitates consolationum propter miserationem Dei » !. Hunc enim riNEM AUCTORIS nostri fuisse, clare iam prooemium indicat atque tota libri dispositio et ordo non minus, quam rerum narratarum selectio confirmant.
Quamnam enim rerum israeliticarum vicissitudinem describere voluerit, his verbis in exordio monet : « Fecerunt filii Israel malum in conspectu Domini et servierunt Baalim ac dimiserunt Dominum Deum patrum suorum..., iratusque Dominus contra Israel (radidit eos in manus diripientium..., nec potuerunt resistere adversariis suis... Suscitavitque Dominus Iudices, qui liberarent eos de vastantium manibus... ; quumque Dominus Iudices suscitaret, in diebus eorum flectebatur misericordia et audiebat afflictorum geinitus et liberabat eos de caede vastantium. Postquam autem mortuus esset ludex, revertebantur et multo faciebant peiora, quam fecerant patres eorum sequentes deos alienos... Iratusque est furor Domini in Israel » (2,11 sqq.). Cui thematis, quod tractare vult, descriptioni plane consonat narrationis methodus. Quoniam enim factis illustrare vult, quomodo inobedientia et idololatria sua populus divinam iram provocaverit et hostium oppressionem sibi ipse attraxerit neque divinam misericordiam et liberationem ab hostium incursibus obtinuerit nisi fideli Legis observantia, ideo rerum a singulis iudicibus gestarum narrationem hac vel simili formula incipit : « Fecerunt malum (filii Israel) in conspectu Domini... servienles Baalim et Astaroth; iratusque Dominus tradidit eos in manus » hostium ?; deinde conversione eorum indicata ? refert Deum [Iudice aliquo suscitato eos ab oppressoribus liberasse. lure merito igitur dicimus auctorem , ut Israelitas ab omni idololatria efficaciter absterreret atque ad divinam Legem observandam exhortaretur, ex aetate Iudicum nonnulla elegisse facta, quae luce clarius demonsteabant, quanta cum sollicitudine Dominus foederi suo invigilarct omnem Legis trausgressionem severe puniens, ad meliorem autem frugem redeuntes palerna eum caritate excipiens !.
69. — Ad libri pwvisioxEM. transeuntes monemus duo priora capita (1,1-3,5) satis longum constituere exordium, in quo auctor, ut narranda facilius intelligantur, statum rerum politicum et religiosum, qui aetate Iudicum, fuit, generali quodam mo:lo describit fineinque operis indicat. ultima autem quinque capita duabus constare appendicibus (17.1-18,31; 19,1-21,95), quae, etsi illustrando fini auctoris quam maxime inserviant, seriei chronologicae reliquorum factorum non sunt inseríae, quia non de hostium exterorum oppressione et repulsione, sed de interno reipublicae statu agunt atque populi ad idololatriam et. vitia inclinatione demonstrata perieulum ostendunt, quod reipublicae ex tribuum dissidiis imminebat. Priorem autem narrationem de Danifarum expeditione contra civitatem Lais supra iam diximus ad ultimos losuae annos pertinere (62. p. 196); alteram autem de filiorum Beniamin flagitio et punitione eliam ad initium aetatis ladicum esse referendam, ex eo solo iam evidenter. elucet, quod eo tempore Phinees, filius Eleazari ae nepos Aaron, siummum sacerdotium tenuit (30,28). Exordio autem et appendicibus scpositis reliquus liber secundum sex Iudices, quorum res gestae magis minusve fuse et accurate narrantur, haud inepte in sex partes distribuitur, quae satis diversae quidem sunt longitudinis, sed eodem fere, uti iam innuimus, modo inchoautur similique ratione procedunt. Aplior tamen concinniorque evadet divisio, si ad libri chronologiam simul attenderimus, de qus infra (75 p. 224 sqq.) erit agendum. Nonnullos enim ludices coaevos fuisse eodemque fere tempore in diversis tribubus principatum supremum tenuisse, iure admittimus, quare nonnullas quoque ex sex illis sectionibus arctiore inter se vinculo colligari apparet; quibus attentis tres aetatis Tudicum pertodos iisque correspondentes tres libri partes recte distinguimus. Etenim, ut ab ultima inchoemus, eodem tempore ab Ammonitis tribus transiordanicas, cisiordanicas autem a Philisthaeis esse vexatas, diserte docet auctor noster (10,7); quare evidens est res gestas lephte et Samsonis ad eandem periodum pertinere et una parte àb auctore esse comprehensas (10,5-16,31). Gedeon vero Iudicem coaevum non videtur habuisse; eius igitur filiique eius res gestae ad alteram pertinent periodum alteraque libri parte narrantur (6,1 - 10,5). Demum Debbora et Barac tribus septemtrionales a regis labin oppressione liberaverunt illo tempore, quo reliqua terra post Moabitarum cladem octoginta annis quievit, ita ut illa, quae 3,7-5,32 narrantur, eadem periodo sint gesta eademque libri parte apte absolvantur. Porro non inepte monent nonnulli moderni interpretes, tres illas periodos vel partes tribus illis comminationibus correspondere, quibus Deus populum a Legis violatione absterruit. Primam comminationem, quae quidem utpote sollemnior ipsi exordio inserta est totumque libri characterem quodam modo definit (2,1 sqq.), secutae sunt invasio Chusan, regis Mesopotamiae (3,8), dominatio Moabitarum (3,12), durum iugum Tabin, regis Chanaan (5,1), eique igitur respondet prima periodus aetatis Iudicum atque przma pars libri (3,1-5,31). Aliis minis propheta tempore oppressionis madianicitae (6,1) populum ad conversionem provocavit, illisque respondet a/tera periodus et libri secunda pars (6,1-10,5). Tertia demum comminatio (10,10 sqq.), quae Ammonitarum in terra transiordanica et Philisthaeorum in cisiordanica dominationem respexit, ad tert«m periodum referatur necesse est alque /ertiae parti (10,5 -16,31) congruit. Totius igitur Linnr iUbDI- CUM ANALYsiS haec erit!.
(17-21) sex partes facit, quas Keil (Ios. Iticht. Ruth. 0874. p. 120. 191) in tres rectius contrahit ad tres comminationes respiciens; a quo de Jummrlauer (Comm. in Iudic. 1885. p. 9. 56) in co tantum discedit, quod pro exordio solum ep. 1. habet.
ExoupriuM (1,1-3,6) ea tradit, quae ut narratio intelligatur, de Israelitarum statu politico et religioso et de auctoris fine cognitu sunt necessaria. -
1. /n priore particula conditio politica reipublicae describitur, qualis immediate post losuae mortem fuit (1,1 - 36).
2.) Bellum contra Chananaeos lIosua duce inchoatum post eius morlem Israelitae praeeunte tribu Iuda per aliquod tempus continuant
(4,1- 1), qua occasione ea repetuntur, quae antea tribus Iuda. iam gesserat (1,8- 20); b.) at desides factae reliquae tribus Beniamin (1,91), Ephraim et Manasse (1,22-29), Zabulon, Aser, Nephtali (1,30- 33) et Dan (1,34-360? Chananaeos non exterminarunt.
2. [n altera particula religiosus rerum status describitur et finis libri indicatur (2,4 - 23).
a. Transit auctor ad hanc particulam narratione apparitionis Angeli Dei, qui populum ob inobedientiam, quia Chananaeos non exterminaverit et idola eorum non destruxcerit, graviter vituperat minisque suis ad pium fletum commovet (2,1 - 5).
b.) Indicato dein felici statu religioso qui immediate post losuae mortem fuit, viventibus adhuc senioribus, qui magnalia Dci ipsi conspexerant (2,6-10)*, continuam illam, quae postca exorta est, idololatriae el poenitentiae allernationem atque utriusque sequelas depingit (2,11-23).
3. Utramque particulam paucis verbis comprehendens gentes ab Israelitis relictas enumerat, atque periculum ab illis populo imminens indicat (3,1 - 6).
PruNA rans (3,7-5,31) enarrat aftlictiones et liberationes, quae primam comminationem al Angelo factam consecutae sunt.
1. Chusan regis Mesopotamiae invasio. Dominus ob Israelitarum idololalriain iratus eos tradidit in manus Chusan, conversos autem post octo annos liberavit per OTuwiEL (3,8-10), et quievit terra per quadraginta annos (3,11).
.à) Diflicultatem quandam relate ad. contextum. ereant 2,6 - 10, quum iisdem fere verbis, «quibus Jos. 24,28 - 31, mortem [osuae eaque, quae proxime secuta sunt, iterum narrent; quare fon Gantum « critici », uti. Reuss (Gesch. des A. T. p. 343), Wellhausen (in. Bleek Einl. Ed. 4. p. 183 54.) etc., nihil nisi framnenta inepte consuta in toto exordio vident, sed alii quo- «que protestantici interpretes, uti Hervey( in The Speaker's Bible H. p. £23) omnic, quae pracvedunt, ante Iosuae mortem gesta putant ideoque f,1 non « post mortem Josue », sed « post mortem. Moysis » legere volunt. At non attendunt, verbis 2,6 - 10 increpationem Angeli cet poenitentiam populi explicari, quum velut allegatio ex l. Josue sint desuimta. Clarior fit conextus, 8i separatas phrases hebraicas in unam periodum coniungimus et particulas hebraico more omissas suppleimnus hac fere ratione : e Etenim postquam fosue filios Israel dimiserat,... -ervierant. quidem Domino.. ; mortuo autem 1osua... el fota illa generatione congregata ad patres suos, surrexerant alii, qui non noverant Dominum et opera, quae fecerat. cuim Israel. Fecerunt igitur filii Israel malum in conspectu Doniini » etc.
2. Oppressio moubitica. Propter ileratam idololatriam traduntur Izraelitae in manus'Eglon per octodecim annos (3,12-14); conversi liberantur per Aop, qui regem occidit, Moabilas fugat (3,15-90), et quievit terra octoginta annis (3,30).
3. SAuGam occidit sexcentos PAilisthaeos (3.31).
a.) Israelitae post mortem Aod denuo peccantes traduntur in servitulem Iabin, regis Chanaan, a quo graviter afflicti ad Deum se conver- Unt (4,4 - 3).
p.) Conversos exaudiens Deus per DEBmsonax, prophetissam et hudicem, mandat Banac, ut filios Israel ducat contra Sisaram, regis lIabin principem exercitus (4,4-9j; c.) Qui accilis militibus tribuum Zabulon et Nephtali una cum Debbora maguami cladein. hostibus infert (4,10- 16); Sisara autem ab lahel, muliere cinaca, dolose iuterficitur ( 5,17-31).
d.) Magnifico carmine Debbora et Barac hanc victoriun (5,1-22) et inulieris cinacae fortitudinem celebrant (5,23- 31).
e.) Quievil autem terra per quadraginta annos (5,31).
AttEnA rAnS (0,1 - 10,5) madianiticam oppressionem a GEbpEoNE repulsam narrat, et in oppositione ad. patrem filium eius Abimelech, qui sibi ipse gubernium arrogaverat, misere pereuntem ostendit. —
|. Madianitae oppressores a Gedeone sunt repulsi (6,1 -8,32).
a.) Post nova peccata Esraelitae per septem annos a Madianitis opprimuntur (6,4 -6) et ad Deuin clanantes ob continuam suam ingratiludinem per prophetam increpantur (6,7 - 10).
b.) Nihilominus Deus populi sui iniseratus Gedeonem vocal, ut filios Israel a Madianilis liberet (6,11-16), atque variis signis se ei in hoe bello adfuturum esse ostendit (6,17-34. 935-32. 33- 40).
c.) Quibus confortatus et a Deo edoctus Gedeon ex toto suo exercitii trecentos dumtaxat milites retinet (7,1-8), quibuscum copias madianiticas fugat (7,9 - 3:3).
d.; Ephraimitas tardius in auxilium vocatos ideoque conquerentes lenibus verbis placat (7,24-8,3); viros autem Succoth et Phanucel, quia militibus suis panes negassent, post victoriam castigat (8,4-17) principesque Madianitarum interficit (8,18 - 21).
e.; Viclor regressus Gedeon ab Israelitis invitatus, ut eorum esset rex, abnuit quidem (8,22. 23), sed sibi ex praeda postulataureas Madianitarum inaures, ex quibus Ephod fecit, quod populo et ipsi factum esl in ruinam (8.21-27..
f. Devietis Madianilis « quievit. terrà. per quadrazinta. annos, quibus Gedeon practfuil » (8.28).
2. Gedeonis filius Abimelech, qui regnum. usurparit, misere. periit. (8.28-
3.) Ex sepluaginta Gedeonis. filiis (8,29-32) post eius morlem, quuin Israelitae denuo idololatriae se tradidissent (8,33- 33) unus, Abimelech, a Sichemilis adiutus occisis fratribus omnibus praeter Iuatham minimum natu (9,1 - 5) regnum usurpavit, frustra dissuadente loatbam (9,6 - 21).
b.) Mox aulem rebellantibus Sicheinilis exortum est bellum cum Abimelech, qui civitatem cepit et destruxit (9,22- 45) turremque quoque Sichimorum igne delevit (9,46- 49. At Abimelech ipse, quum oppidum "Thebes obsideret, a muliere occisus est, alque ita Deus malum punivit, quod ille et Sichemitae fecerant (9,50 -57).
3. Post Abimelech iudicaverunt filios Israel 'l'itora. viginti tribus annis (10,1-2) et Ii viginti duobus annis (10,3 - 3).
'ERTIA PARS (10,6- 16,31) de dominatione Ammonitarun in orientales ct
1. Israelitae, quum peccatis veteribus iungerenl nova, in manus PAilisthiim et Ammonitarum traduntur; poenitentibus Dominus ingratitudinem opprobrat quidem, sed misericordia commotus iterum eos adiuvat (10,6 - 16).
3. Bellum contra Ammonitas a Igpurg feliciter gestum (10,17 - 19,6).
a.) Novam expeditionem contra Israel parantibus Ammonilis (40,17.18) Galaaditae ducem sibi eligunt lephte, quem antea eiecerant (11 , 1-10). Qui primo quidem, postquam Dominum interrogaverat, legatione missa cum Ammonitis rem componere conatur (11,11 - 21); deinde vero, quum audire nollent, a Spiritu Domini confortatus magnam illis infert cladem (11,28 - 33). Victor autem regressus filiam suam, quae prima ei occurrit, secundum votum emissum Deo (perpetua virginitate) consecrat (11,34-40).
b.) Ephraimitae, eo quod ad hoc bellum evocati non essent, contra Iephtem iniuste insurgunt, sed devicti quadraginta millia hominum proelio amittunt (12,1 - 6).
3. lephte, qui sex annis Israelitas iudicavit (19,7), secuti sunt. Judices AnESAN septem annis, AtutALoN decem. annis, AnpoN oclo annis (12, 8-13).
4. Israelitae, quum peccare pergerent, per quadraginta annos (radit? sunt in manus Philisthaeorum, quibus SaMsoN multas magnasque clades tntulit (13,1 - 16,31).
3.) Samsonis nativitas matri (13,1-7) ac deinde patri eius praedicitur ab Angelo Dci (43,8- 23); nato autem benedixit Dominus et Spiritus Domini erat cum co (13,24. 23).
h.) Quum uxorem philisthacam duxisset (44,1- 9) et in convivio problema de dulcedine, quae egressa esset de forti, proposuisset (14,10-14), triginta Philisthaeos occidit, ut eorum vestes daret iuvenibus, qui ab uxore eius adiuti problema solverant (10,15-19).
c.) Iratus eo quod eius uxor alteri nupserat , segetes Philisthaeorum incendit magnamque cladem eis intulit (44,290-15,8), atque maiorem - paullo post, quum a tribu Iuda vinctus Philisthaeis esset traditus (15,9-10). Iudicavit autem Israel in dicbus Philisthiim viginti annis (15,90).
d.) In oppido Gaza a Philisthaeis inclusus porlam urbis trausfert in niontem (16,1 -3), tandem autem a Dalila, altera uxore sua philisthaea, detonsus atque hostibus traditus oculis privatur ludibrioque ab illis habetur (16,4-21); sed postquam una cum coma pristinae. eius vires redierunt, tria. millia Philisthaeorum secum occidit (46,22 - 31).
AvPENDICES DUAE docent, quomodo etiam internus reipublicae israeliticae slatus idolokuria (17,4- 18,31) et morum corruptione (19,1- 21.24) sit pessumdatus.
T. Idoluleteia Michae et Danitariim 31,4 -18,310j.
a.) Ultimo Iosuae tempore, quum rex in Israel non esset et unusquisque quod rectum ipsi videbatur faceret) Ephraimila quidam, Micha nomine, impulsus a matre fecit sibi idolum in domo sua (17,1-3) el praetereuntem levitam pretio conduxit, ut sibi essel sacerdos (41,6- 13).
b., Danitae auteui aliqui, qui alias sedes sibi quaerebaut, idolum. una cum sacerdote vi abstulerunt (18,4 -26), civitatem Lais expugnaverunt et destruxerunt eiusque in loco novam exstruxerunt, quam ex uouiine patris sui vocaverunt Dan, et in qua idololatriam exercueruut toto. illo tempore, quo domus Dei erat in Silo (18,27-31*.
2. Ob mnorum eorruptionem integra fere tribus Beniamin e«terminatur (19, a.; Gravissimo facinore in uxorem alicuius levitae connnisso incolae. Gabaa dustam excitaverunt reliquarum. tribuum | indignationem (19,1-30); quae convenientes a tribu Benianiin postulaverunt, ut *ibi vei traderentur (20,4 - 13); abnuentibus autem Beuniamninilis intulerint. bellum, quod non terminatum est nisi integra fere tribu Beniamin deleta (20,11- 48.
b. seseentis autem. Beniaminitis, ne una ex duodeciin tribubus. prorsus interiret, permissum est, ut ex aliarum tribuum virginibus uxores sibi raperent (21,43 - 214.
S do. — De libre Iudicum ornyine. 70. — Autequam inquirainus, quonam tempore et a quo liber ludieum si seriptus, illam solvamus oportet quaestionem, utrum uni an pluribus auctoribus sit attribuendus. Antiquitus enim jam de hac re disceptatum est atque hodie de eadem disceptatur.
Oli Dorotheus Tyr. scribas saeros, quos prope tabernaculum foederis coustitutos [uisse censet, res singulas eo tempore, quo gestae sunt, literis consignasse dixit, C«rd. Hugo vero « unumquemque Iudicem tempus suum, i. e. facta temporis sui, in scriptis redegisse atque regem Ezechiam omnia seripta in unum volumen compezisse » coniecit!, Eandem sententiam cum P/aeda tenuerunt nonnulli recentiores interpretes ea maxime permoti ratione, quod S. Matthaeum (2,23) textum ex nostro libro desumtum velut « per Prophe/as dictum » referre putarent?. At nemo, opinor, hodie Evangcelistam eo in loco ad nostrum librum respexisse dixerit?; unitas autem libri, quae in analysi supra tradita conspicitur, exorta non esset, si co, quo isti volunt, modo multi auctores per tria fere saecula in illo scribendo operam suam collocassent. Quamquam igitur res a ludicibus gestas a coaevis esse mandatas literis non negamus, immo libentissime concedimus, eorum tamen commentarios auctori nostro pro fontibus dumtaxat fuisse, arbitramur, ex quibus. hausit quaecunque ad finem suum facere iudicabat.
T1. — Alias ob rationes moderni « critici » varios esse libri nostri auctores statuunt; ob contradictiones enim, diversas sententias religiosas diversamque dictionem, quas sibi videntur invenisse, alii introductionem et appendices alteri auctori attribuunt, alii ipsum libri corpus miro modo discerpunt , singulosque eius versus theocratico, prophetico, deuteronomico scriptoribus suis vindicant, alii librum nescio a quo et quo tempore scriptum a nescio quo iuniore auctore auctum el relractatum esse dicunt!. Inanem caperemus laborem, si omnia haec systemata explicaremus omnesque 'cavillationes et ratiunculas, quibus nituntur, refutaremus; eas solas afferemus, quae speciem saltem difficultatis videntur habere, ut ex iis, quid ceterae valeant, diiudicet lector.
Mirum profecto prudens lector esse censebit, quod nonnulli interpretes exordium a reliquo libro separatum alteri scriptori dare voluerint ?. Demto enim exordio truncum habebis acephalum vel potius lacera et disiecta membra, quae nec quid sibi velint nec cur sint in unum volumen coniuncta quisquam dixerit. In exordio theatrum nobis depingitur, in quo res narratae acciderunt, atque vinculum indicatur, quo ad unitatem rediguntur. Omnes enim narrationes atque etiam appendices co tendunt, ut iustitiam et misericordiam, qua Deus suo populo invigilavit, ob oculos ponentes thesin illam explicent et demonstrent, quam exordium /2,14 sqq.) proponit.
Attamen ipsum hoc prooemium ex variis scriptis coagulatum esse asserunt, quia non tantum 1,18 contradicat 3,3, atque 4,27 sqq., si ad 3,3 attenderis, saltem abundet, sed etiam quia satis magna sit styli differentia inter 4,1-2,5 et 2,6-3,6 atque iterum inter 2,6-3,6 et 13,9-16,31. — Contradictionem aulem inter 4,18 et 3,3 is solus inveuict, qui urbes semel occupatas iterum amitti posse ignorat, atque 1,27 abundare is solus contendet, qui auctori ius denegat paucis verbis ca comprehendendi, quae fusius iam narravit. Differentiam vero dictionis eam adesse fatemur, quae quum ex diversorum fontium usu (um ex diverso parlium argumento suo quasi sponte exoritur; alio quippe sermone. in narratione (£,1-2,5 et 13,2-16,31, vel polius 3,7- 21,25), alio in expositione vel meditalione (2,6-3,0) utimur.
Appendices (17,-21,23) quidem tam arclo nexu, quam exordium, cum reliquo libro non cohaerent ; quapropter facilius a iuniore auctore libro terminato additae dici possunt. Ut autem a libro nostro, cui toto fine suo alligantur, eas avellamus, fortiora arguinenta requiruntur, quam quae hucus- «que sunt prolata?, 'Theocratico enim. spiritu. destitutum fuisse auctorem appendicum asserunt adversarii, quia niinirum qualer conqueralur regem eo tempore in [rae] non adfuisse; ac si regia potestas theocratiae repugnet (cfr Deut. 11,14 sqq. et supra 28 p. 94), neque in appendicibus quidquam reperiatur, quod Legen mosaicam cognitam et aguitam supponat (17,7 sqq. ; 19,48; 20,27; 20,47 ete.j. ln appendicibus « mythologiam » quoque desiderari aiunt, quo nomine probabililer miracula designant; quae non pauca in praecedentibus pericopis narrantur. Si vero omnes illas partes, in quibus miracula non leguntur, alteri scriptori sunt tribuendae, etiam ullimas parles historiae Gedeonis el lephteatque totam historiam Abimelech (8,1-9,37; 12,1-18) ex libro nostro exscindamus.. At profecto. pericopae istae, aeque atque appendices, licet miracula non narrent, fini auctoris mirifice inserviunt; quomodo enim respublica israelitica continua sua. idololatria, frequentibus suis vitiis perpetuisque dissidiis internis necessario fuisset perilura , nisi exterorum populorum oppressione ad poenitentia adducta Dei misericordiam efllagitasset, luce clarius ostendunt. Demum iterum styli differentiam exaggerant atque. vocabula nonnulla &xa£ 26246 afferunt, ut lingna et sermone appendices a veliquo libro differre demonstrent. Sed quia istis vocabulis demonstretur, non videmus, quum nemo ignoret sua quamque nostri libri pericopen habere &n«£ Jeyóusva; ex variis enim fontibus narrationes suas hausit auctor noster, et satis varia sunt argumenta , quae tractat.
Etiam in corpore libri contradictiones non paucas inveniri obiiciunt adversarii. Inter alia plura canticum Debborae (c. $) cum praecedente narratione (c. 1) multifarie pugnare dicitur : in cantico omnia ab hominibus et humano modo geruntur, in narralione. omnia Deo attribuuntur; in cantico multi reges Chanaan cum supremo suo rege Sisara contra Israel pugnant, in narratione unus rex labin commemoratur et Sisara non est nisi belli dux; in cantico Sisara ab lahel occiditur, dum ante eam stans bibit, in narratione autem occiditur, dum profundo somno sopitus iacel, item pugnare 4.5.10 eL 3,6. 4 sqq. 23*. Qui integra duo capita (4.3.) inter se conferre voluerit, procnl dubio duas relationes inveniet, quae se mutuo complent, at alias differentias non. inveniet, nisi eas, quae inter prosaicain rei narralionem el poeticam einsdem rei descriplionem intercedere solent. Quacnam enim est pugna, si 5.5 [sraelitae ad Debboram venisse dicuntur, et 5,6 additur, eos per calles devios ivisse? Aut si 4,10 duae tantum tribus, Zabulon et Nephtali, nominantur, quae maxiimatn exercitus partem miserant
(efr 5,48), in carmine autem aliae quoque tribus celebrantur, ex quibus saltem aliqui in auxilium venerant? Aut si in narratione de solo rege Iabin sermo est, qui solus populum oppresserat, in carmine autem multi reges Chanaan adfuisse dicuntur, quippe quos labin , quum bellum contra Israelitas immincret, in auxilium vocaverat? Sisara autem etiam in carmine non voca- Lur rex, nec ullo verbulo regia cius dignitas commemoratur; num vero in carmine omnia a solis hominibus gerantur, facile videbit, quicunque 5,20-22 legere voluerit, et carmen (3,3 sqq. 8. 13 etc.) non tninus,, quam narratio, victoriam miraculoso Dei interventui adscribil. Qui demum pugnam invenit inter 4,18-21 et 5,24-27, abstineat a legendis carminibus; eorum enim intel. ligendorum incapacem se esse prodit evidentissimoe.
Pugna quoque invenitur inter 6,10-21 et 6,23-32, quia Gedeon duo altaria exstruere et duo sacriflcia offerre non potuerit; inter 7,27-8,3 et 8,4 sqq., quia idem, postquam cis lordanem Madianitas devicit et Ephraimitae duos eorum principes occiderunt, fluvium transire Madianitarumque terram ipsam aggredi et duos alios principes capere non potuerit; intcr 8,21 ct 8,24 sqq., quia eidem, postquam ornamenta et bullas regalium camelorum tulit, aureas inaures Madianitarum sutnere non licuerit ?. Si hisce immoraremur, lempus nostrum perderemus, quemadmodum « critici » integrum tempus perdiderunt, quod cavillationibus istis conquirendis impenderunt.
Neque magis illi obiectioni inhaeremus, quae ex diversa narrandi ratione desumitur; alia enim paucissimis verbis absolvi (10,1-5; 12,8-15), alia fuse narrari et describi (4,4-26; 6-8; 9; 13-16; 17-21) conqueruntur adversarii nostri. Quomodo enim ex diversitate hac, quam adesse evidens est, ad diversos libri auctores concludatur, non intelligimus. Quod si auctor tempore eorum fudicum, quorum nomina fere sola affert, nihil gestum esse vidit, quod suo themati explicando inserviebat, eorum profecto historiam iure suo omisit; nomina tamen eorum tacere noluit, quia etiam illo tempore Deum populo suo providisse demonstrabant.
12. — Quoniam igitur contra libri nostri unitatem, quae ex eius fine, ordine, dispositione satis elucet, seria obieetio nulla profertur, unum solum eius auctorem esse admittendum necessario sequitur. Quis vero ille sit et quo tempore vixerit, antiquitus iam inter interpretes catholicos quaestio erat controversa, neque maior modernorum interpretum est consensus. Nihil de ea statui posse censuit A/pA. Tostatus; Masius vero « Esdram divino spiritu afflatum... Iudicum librum... ex diversis annalibus apud Ecclesiam Dei conservatis coinpilasse » pulavit; neque ab eo dissensit. Rich. Simon, quum Esdram operi ultimam manum admovisse diceret nonnullis narrationibus additis. Pauci quidam cum Card. Hugone regi Ezechiae collectionem variarum narrationum , quibus liber constet, attribuere voluerunt, illo argumento nixi, «quod Ezechiae amici proverbiorum salomonicorum partem collegerint (Prov. 25,1). Moderni quidam Salomonis aetati librum attribuunt , quia auctoris finis praecipuus fuerit, ut filios Israel ab idololatria absterveret, maximum autem salomonico tempore [fuerit periculum, ne in idololatriam delaberentur. Alii primis Davidis annis opus exortum esse credunt; denique antiquorun fudaeorum fuit traditio Samuelem esse libri auctorem; eam recepit S. £sidorus Hisp., quem seculi sunt plerique interpretes saec, 16. et 17. et satis mulli moderni, qui hanc sententiam non certam quidein sed. probabilem esse tenent!; eadem ralione nos eam tuemur.
01] Afph. Tostat. in 1. DIudic. qu. 4 (atten velut. probabile nabet. Ziunuclenm ese auctorem, Lud. 4. qu. 22. 295; 15. qu. 11; 17. qu. 4.35 consentit Bonfrerius Prolegom. VI. sect. 3 et Praef. Comm. in hulic, — Masius iu Tos. Praef. (Migne Curs, 5. Script. 7, 853), el Hich. Simon Mist. crit. du. Vieux Tost. p. 53. — Card. Hugo Post. in Ios. Prol. : « Quis[eas] in unum volumen eompegerit, dubium est ; quidam dicunt, quil Samuel, alii quod Esdras, alii quod Ieremias, sed verisimilius est, quod Ezechias, qui parabolas salemonis et libros Regum collegit in unum ». — Herbst Einl. p. 120 icontradicente Welte, operis editore) salomonieum tempus statuit, — De Iudaeorum traditione eir Taba. Baba. bathra f. 14. « S:iunucl scripsit librum suum, Librum Iudicum et Ruth». THisdem fere verbis S. Isidor. Hisp. De oftic. eccl. I. 12 (M. 83,7 17), atquo pro eder sententia. Serarius. (in Tudie. Proleg. 1) allegat Driedonem, Ariam. Mont., Ioan. Bened. aliosque; ex iunioribus eaudcin sententiam velut. probabiliorem tenent Calnet, (Prelez. in Iud.), Goldiagen (Introd. H. 96). laha (Einl. p. 1900), Welte (Ein. p. 121 sq Kauten (Einl. Ed. 3. p. 217j, Vigour. (Manuel II. p. 46), Zschokke (Histor. sacr. p. 173), Schanz (Eiul. p. 102), Clair (Les Juges ct Btuth. 1878. p. 8), de Humnmelauer (Comin, in Iud. 1858. p. 22 s4.). — Ex veteribus acatholicis pro eadem nonnulli allezantur à Carpzor. (Introd. I, p. 175); ex modernis eam adoptarunt Kk. E.
Keil (Elnl. p. 195; Comm. p. 197), Thornton (The O. T. 1877.), Lez mosaíca (1891. p. 190), Rupprecht (Des Ráts. Losgz. II. 2. 1890. p. 370) ctc. — Primis quidem Saulis annis librum adscribunt sod. Samuelem esse auctorem neant ex catholicis Scholz (Einl. 1I. p. 282), ex acatholicis Cassel (Lange's Bibelwerk V. p. X).
13. — ltevera enim sententiam, quae Samueli auctori librum nostrum altribuit, esse probabilem apparebit, si tempus, quo conscriptus est, definiverimus.
lam a.) quuim non semel auctor, quod ea aetate, quam describit , regem in Israel non fuerit, conqueratur, non immerito concludere nobis videmur, librum non esse esaratum, antequam regem sibi constituerant filii Israel! Ante Saulis igitur aetatem scribi non potuit. Attamen auctor ex hoc regii imperii defectu omnia mala, quae aetatc Iudieum rempublicam israeliticam devastabant, maxime vero idololatriam Danitarum atque dissidium inter tribum Beniamin reliquasque tribus derivat. Nondum igitur viderat reges, qui aut ipsi idololatriam in regnum introduxerant (uti leroboam) aut ei aperte favcbant (uti Salomon ultimis regni sui annis), neque etiam viderat scissionem regnorum luda et Israel, quae imperio regio non obstante effecta erat. Ergo ante ultimos Salomonis annos opus suum videtur conscripsisse.
b.) Arctioribus autem limitibus tempus illud cireumscribere licet. si attenderimus lebusaeum ea aetate, qua auctor vixit, parlem urbis Ierusa]lem: occupasse et consuetum urbis nomen fuisse Iebus. Atqui David 7. regui sui anno « cepit arcem Sion » eamque integram potestati Israelitarum subiectam fecit regui sui sedem. Tota autem occupalionis historia ila est comparata, ut Davidem lebusaeos extermninasse appareat, etsi poslea unus alterve in civitate habitaverit; atque ab eo tempore, quo area foederis iu. montem Sion est (ranslata , antiquum nomen lebus prorsus disparet?. Ante 7. igilur. Davidis annum liber videtur esse scriptus.
c.) Ex fine demum operis magna cum verisimilitudine coneludimus, nec primis illis septem Davidis nec ultimis Saulis annis eum esse compositum. Absterrere enim vult filios Israel ab idololatria. maximis poenis propositis, quas Deus propter eam populo inflixerat; iam vero idololatriae periculum nec ultimis Saulis nee primis Davidis annis magnum erat; quamvis enim peuilus exslinefa non. esset, Saul tamen tanta cum sollicitudine et severitate Legein in. Israel restituere conalus erat, ut versus finem vitae eius vix magus aut hariolus in. tota terra. repertus sit (1 Heg. 28,9. Immo vero ultimis Saulis ct primis Davidis annis auctor etiam vidisset. inlerna tribuum dissidia imperio regio non esse sublata.
Omnia ergo conspirant, ut primis Saulis annis librum nostrum compositum esse dicamus. Quando nimirum Samuele senescente filiisque eius a recta via declinantibus Israelitae sibi regem postulaverant atque Samuel a Deo iussus votis eorum obtemperans Saulem regem constituerat, quam maxime opportunum erat, ut novo bello imminente Israelitis, qui semper ad idololatriam. inclinabant, clare ob oculos poneretur, « prospera et adversa bellorum alternasse, sicut se habebant et peccata populi et misericordia Dei ». Ideo Samuel in ultima sua concione, quam Iudex de munere suo gesto ad integrum populum habuit, integri libri nostri consilium et argumentum quodam modo explicat : « Nunc erzo slate, ut iudicio contendam adversum vos coram Domino de omnibus misericordiis Domini , quas fecit vobiscum et cum patribus vestris », et paucis verbis oppressionem Cliananacorum, Moabitarum, Philisthaeorum miraculosamque liberationem per Gedeon, Barac, lcphte prosecutus in hunc modum concludit: « Nunc ergo praeslo est rex vester, quem elegistis et petistis; ecce dedit Dominus vobis regem. Si timueritis Dominum et servieritis ei et audieritis vocem eius et non exasperaveritis os Domini : eritis et vos et rex, qui imperat vobis, sequentes Dominum Deum vestrum. Si autem non aud'eritis vocem Domini, sed exasperaveritis sermones eius : erit manus Domini super vos, (sicut erat) super patres vestros »?.
Quoniam igitur primis Saulis annis liber videntur esse attribuendus, cui auctori melius illum attribuemus, quam Samueli, qui argumentum et finem eius in ultima sua concione tam accurate nobis descripsit?
Quae contra hanc sententiam obiiciuntur, non admodum videntur esse gravia. Si enim ultimis Salomonis annis magnum idololatriae periculum populo imininuisse urgent adversarii, id quidem adfuisse fatemur. sed quidquam ex hoc solo periculo ad libri originem explicandam deduci negamus; inulta enim alia erant tempora, in quibus periculum istud non erat minus. Immo vero num Salomonis tempore filii Israel nostro libro ab idololatria absterreri potuerint, valde est dubium. Quamquam enim ultimis eius annis hostes nonnulli contra eum surrexerunt , regni tamen status satis erat florens alque idololatriae sequelae pessimae latebant; quapropter parum est probabile regem aut populum descriptis illis sequelis, quas non experiebantur, ex falsa sua securitate excitari potuisse, siquidem nc ipsa quidem Dei verba Salomonem permovere potuerant ^. Aliter se res habebat primis Saulis annis, quando dominationis philisthaeae recens erat memoria atque regnum vix fundatum hostibus undique cingcbatur.
Paullo maioris momenti est eorum obiectio, qui ullimis regum Iuda annis, postquam regni Israel incolae iam ab Assyriis in captivitatem abducti erant. librum nostrum scriptum asserunt, propterea quod Danitlae. idolum apud se « usque ad diein captivitatis suae » (hebr. et gr. « usque ad diem captivitatis terrae ») habuisse dicantur?*. Verum animadverte, ab auctore duobus modis tempus, quo mansit idolum in civitale Dan, definiri : « usque ad diem captivitatis suae » (vel terrae), et « omni tempore, quo fuit domus Dei in Silo ». Atqui arca foederis iam tempore Heli summi sacerdotis a Silo ablata nec unquam eo reversa est; tabernaculum foederis autem iam Samuelis tempore aut primis regis Saul annis ex Silo in Nobe el postea in Gabaon translatum est*. Evidens igitur cst « diem captivitatis » de assyriaca caplivitale non posse intelligi, nisi auctorem in cadem phrasi sibi contradixisse statuamus. Adde, Samuelem, Saulem, Davidem, atque primis regni annis etiam Salomonem omni vi et conatu idololatriam ex Israel abolevisse ; num igitur credi potest, eos idolum, quod publico cultu in una ex praecipuis civitatibus colebatur non abstulisse? leroboam demum in Dan novum idolum posuisse refertur, ut. post regni scissionem subditos suos a puro cultu Iahve averteret? ; id autem superfluum fuisset, si ab antiquo iam alterum idolum in Dan fuisset superstes. Quomodocunque ergo res consideratur, de assyriaca caplivitate auctorem non loqui inanifestum est. Quapropter aut cuin Caietano verba de captivitate quadam intelligamus oportet, in quam ultimo Iudicum tempore tribus Dan sit abducta*, aut. cum plerisque antiquis et modernis ea explicemus de arca foederis per Philisthaeos capta ?. Utra ex his explicationibus sit praeferenda, aliis deficientibus fontibus diflicile est dictu.
8. Caietan, i. h. L., qui vix habuit sequacem; perperam enim Calmnetus hanc sententiain Estio, Serario, Corn. a lap. attribuit.
9. Haec sententia inde a Lyrano (n Iud. 15.30), qui pro ea (Ps.) Hieronymum (in | Paral. 23,15. 16. M. 23,11221 allezavit, communis est inter interpretes catholicos et illos protestanticos, qui inspirationem admittunt, Seraríus (in Iud. 18. qu. 7.) pro ea allegat. Tostat., Vatabl., Ariam Mont., Hiberam in Os. 10, Genebr. Chron., Mouceium etc., atque inoderni plerique allezari possunt. In explicatione lamen dissentiunt. Alii enim traditum textum vwn ni Qi 72 retinentes monent, eum ad literam signilicare « ad diem. nudationis terrae à, sed « ablata est (n5z) gloria ab Isracl » ac proin nudala est terra, « quum capta esset arca Domini » (1 Heg. 4,21 cfr Ps. 77,59- 61), sedes et symbolun Dei inter populum suum commorantis. Alii vero levissima textus. hebr. mutatione TYN71 pro VONT post Houbigant legere malunt niu yuan « usque ad diem captivitatis arcae ». Cír interpretes.
S 16. — De libre LIudicum auctoritate.
15. — libri Iudicum, etsi circiter trium saeculorum spatium coinpleetatur ideoque non eadem ratione, qua quatuor ultimi libri mosaici et 1. Josue, auctorem habeat, qui omnium rerum narratarum testis ocularis fucrit, summam tamen esse AUCTORITATEM HisTORICAM hisce argumentis demonstramus.
1. Praeprimis librum initioregnisaulici conscriptum esse demonstravimus, quo nimirum tempore auctori, quicumque ille fuerit, fontes non defuerunt, ex quibus totius illius tempestatis certam scientiam hauriret. Quod si euim Moysis et losuae aetate, immo iam ante Moysen, praeclara facinora filiorum Israel summa cum fidelitate literis mandari solebant , ilem sub ludicibus obtinuisse non mera videtur esse coniectura sed. certum conseetarium. Atque profecto tota libri nostri indoles id confirmat. Leze enim narrationes de Aod, de Gedeon, de Abimelech, de lephie, de Samuel, de Micha ct matre eius, de levita in Gabaa : innumeras res tam accurate. propositas, tam dilucide depielas, tanta cum veritate expressas invenies, ut ubique testem oeularem tibi audire videaris !: atqui Sainuel ipse (vel quieunque Saulis tempore librum composuit) rerum illaruin testis ocularis non fuerat; erzo nisi ei incredibile fere fingendi ingenium attribuere velis, eum has narrationes ex fontibus eoaevis hausisse fatendum tibi. erit. Porro Deliborae canticum, doalhami parabolae, lephtae. legationem: ad. Amiuonitas *. ex antiquis fontibus scriptis desumta esse vix quisquam addubitaverit. Lingua praeterea in singulis pericopis non parum variat, neque apte explicalur lanta varialio, nisi auctor ea, quae in fontibus invenit, fideliter transeripsisse dicatur.
Praeter libros seriptos autem auctori traditio quoque oralis pracsto fuit; ad quam puram et sinceram conservandam non tantum quam plurimum iuvabant nomina ob certos eventus locis nonnullis aut personis indita?, sed praecipue rerum ipsarum gravitas. Neque enim diuturnas illas et molestissimas hostium oppressiones, neque praeclaras ducum suorum victorias, neque insignia illa divinae misericordiae specimina populus oblivioni dare potuit. Accedit, quod nonnulla narrantur, quorum auctor ipse aut testis ocularis fuit aut quae saltem a testibus ocularibus audivit, lephte enim et Samson coaevi fuerunt summi sacerdotis Ileli atque ipsius Samuel (75. p. 22* sqq.).
2. Tola igitur quaestio in eo verlitur, utrum auclor fontibus suis arbitrario modo sit usus, an magna cum fidelitate ex iis narrationem suam hauserit. Cui quaestioni sine ulla haesitatione respondebit, qui iterum ad totius libri indolem attentionem suam converterit. Quapropter etiam in « critica schola » non desunt, qui « fidelem historicam traditionem » in plerisque saltem narrationibus nostris inveniant, licet simul, quoniam miracula atque ipsam divinam providentiam negant, aliis in pericopis populi fabellas, mythos mythologicumque characterem delegant*, Quam longe autem auctor noster abfuerit ab avbitrario fontium usu, ex eo iam elucet, quod facta nonnulla maximi momenti paucissimis verbis absolvat. Othniel, primus ludex, victoria sua de Chusan Mesopotamiae rege reportata populo suo quadraginta annorum requiem procuravit; si auctor noster fictis fabulis narrationem suam ornare voluisset, latissimus ei hac occasione patuisset evagandi campus ; tempore, remotissima erat victoria, rex et populus devictus prorsus ignoti, pro libitu igitur phantasiae indulgere potuisset, si voluisset, at quatuor versibus oppressio, liberatio, quies absolvuutur nec ullum singulare factum attingitur. Num hac ratione narrant mythologi? Porro ea, «quae de Israelitarum idololatria morumque corruptione deque tribuum dissidiis et invidiis narrat, scriptorem produnt, qui lectoribus suis blandiri noluit. Multo magis autem veracitas clarescit, si ad finem, quem sibi proposuerat, animos adverterimus. Populum enim ab idololatria revocare et ad fidelem Legis observantiam adducere fictis fabulis aut incerlis rumoribus non potuit. Ea sola facta, quae omnibus nota dubitationi non relinquebant locum, in mcdium ei afferre licuit, ut divinis idololatriae poenis in memoriam revocatis saluarem terrorem mentibus iniiceret atque divinae misericordiae exemplis eas ad spem et fiduciam erigeret. Quae quum ita sint, prudens criticus libro nostro plenam auctoritatem. historicam attribuere non duhitabit.
Cornelius a Lapide
Argument 24 paragraphs
This Book is called the Book of Judges, of the people of Israel, who indeed delivered that people, afflicted and oppressed in servitude by the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, etc., and vindicated them from their injuries and restored them to liberty. For God, on account of idolatry and other crimes, delivered the people to these nations for chastisement, so that they might return to their senses and to God: and whenever they did so, He raised up for them a Judge who would free them from tyranny and from the tyrants oppressing them. Whence in chapter III, 9, it is said: "He raised up a saviour for them, and delivered them, namely Othniel." For this reason to judge in this book, as also elsewhere often, signifies to punish, to defend, to vindicate. In Hebrew this book is called שופטים Sophetim, that is, Judges. From this the highest magistrate among the Carthaginians took his name, who is called Suffetes, as Livy says in book VIII, Decade 3. For St. Augustine teaches in his book Against the Epistle of Petilian, chapter civ, that the Carthaginians and Phoenicians received many words from the Hebrews.
There was indeed a difference between Judges and Kings, which Lactantius assigns, in book IV On Wisdom, chapter x: "First," he says, "the Jews were not subject to the dominion of kings, but civil Judges presided over the people and the law. Yet they were not constituted for a year, as the Roman consuls were, but were supported by perpetual jurisdiction."
This book therefore pursues the deeds of these Judges of the people, that is, avengers, and does so to this end, that the liberality of God toward the faithful and pious may be evident, and likewise His vengeance upon the unfaithful and impious. Whence Procopius notes that from this book it is clearly seen that all the safety and greatness of republics depends upon true faith and religion being retained and diligently cultivated: on the contrary, how from that being abandoned and neglected there follows a foul destruction, ruin and disgrace of the same.
St. Augustine, in book XVI On the City of God, chapter xliii: "In the times," he says, "of the Judges, according as the sins of the people were, from the mercy of God, there alternated prosperity and adversity of wars." And in book XVIII, chapter XIII: "After the death of Joshua the people of God had judges, in whose times there alternated among them both humiliations of labors on account of their sins, and prosperities of consolations on account of the mercy of God."
St. Celestine, in his epistle to the Emperor Theodosius: "The cause of faith," he says, "ought to be of greater importance to you than that of the kingdom, and your clemency ought to be more solicitous for the peace of the Churches than for the security of all lands. For all prosperous things follow, if first those things which are more dear to God are preserved."
You will ask first, what were the duties of these Judges? I answer, the first was to free the people from servitude, as I have already said. The second was to preside over wars; for these Judges were as it were commanders and emperors of war. Whence Josephus calls them στρατηγούς, that is, Emperors, and ὑποστρατηγούς, that is, sub-commanders, under God namely the supreme commander of the people and of war. The third was properly to judge, that is to declare the law to the people, and to settle their disputes by just sentence, as Samuel and Eli did. Whence some Judges, such as Tola, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, are read to have waged no wars, but only to have presided over the people and declared justice. Hence although they themselves did not have absolute power of life and death, yet they adjudged the guilty according to the law to death and punished them.
You will ask secondly, what was the form of government of these Judges? It is known that there are three forms of government of a republic, namely Democratic, when δῆμος, that is, the people governs itself, in which the plurality of votes prevails and decides a doubtful matter, as happens among the Swiss; Aristocratic, in which ἄριστοι, that is, the optimates rule, as once at Rome the Consuls and Senators did, and still are at Venice, Genoa and other places; Monarchic, in which μόνος, that is, one alone rules, as Monarchs in their kingdoms are Kings and absolute Princes, and Caesars.
I say therefore that these Judges had a form of government not Democratic, nor Aristocratic, but Monarchic. For one Judge alone presided over the people in his time: he therefore held a monarchy, but not a royal monarchy of kings; for he could neither make new laws, nor impose tributes upon the people, as kings can, nor did he use a diadem and scepter, nor did he use a royal retinue, nor was he anointed, as kings are anointed, nor did he succeed by hereditary right, as the sons of kings do, but was created by the election of God or the people. Yet once elected, he remained Judge throughout his whole life, that is, prince; wherefore he was not a lord, but merely a conservator and curator of the republic. Thus Abulensis. The power of the Judges was therefore very limited and restricted.
This magistracy was therefore among the Hebrews similar to the magistracy of the Dictators among the Romans; yet in this respect different, that this was temporary, that one perpetual. Moreover this monarchy of Judges was mixed with Aristocracy. For the Judges in more difficult matters had to seek the opinion of the supreme council, which was called the Sanhedrin, and to abide by its decrees, but in other matters to follow the law of God and to govern the people according to it: whence not so much they themselves as God, and the law of God, governed the people. This is what God said to Samuel the Judge: "They have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them," I Kings viii. Similar to the Judges were the ἄρχοντες among the Athenians, and now are the Dukes among the Venetians.
You ask thirdly, how many Judges were there, and for how many years did they reign? I answer that there were fifteen, and they ruled for 356 years, if we grant Samuel only eighteen years, according to the chronology which I prefixed to the Pentateuch; but if you give Samuel twenty-two years with Salian and others, the years of the Judges will be 360. For the first Judge was Othoniel, who ruled for forty years; the second Aod for eighty years; the third Samgar for a few months; the fourth Barac with Deborah for forty years; the fifth Gedeon likewise forty; the sixth Abimelech three years; the seventh Thola twenty-three years; the eighth Jair twenty-two years; the ninth Jephte six years; the tenth Abesan seven years; the eleventh Ahialon ten years; the twelfth Abdon eight years; the thirteenth Samson twenty years; the fourteenth Heli forty years; the fifteenth Samuel twenty-two years. Samuel was therefore the last Judge; for after him the people asked for a king, and by God's command Samuel made Saul king for them, yet the deeds of these two last, namely Heli and Samuel, are not narrated in this book, but in the first book of Kings, because the sons of Heli by their wickedness gave the people occasion to ask for a king and a kingdom, and Samuel actually gave them a king. Wherefore there remain thirteen earlier ones whose deeds are narrated in this book.
This book therefore contains the chronology of their deeds through 298 years, namely from the year of the world 2512, when Josue died, and Othoniel, the first of the Judges, immediately succeeded him, until the year of the world 2810, when Samson died, to whom Heli and Samuel succeeded, whose deeds are recorded not in this book, but in the first book of Kings.
You ask fourthly, whether all these Judges were holy. I answer that they were, except Abimelech, who was not a Judge, but a tyrant; for he seized power by force, having slain all his brothers who were the sons of Gedeon. For a Judge was appointed by God; and if this did not happen, the people chose and made a Judge for themselves: sometimes from one tribe, sometimes from another. Moreover, that these Judges were holy is evident from St. Paul, who celebrates them as holy in Hebrews XI: "Time would fail me, he says, to tell of Gedeon, Barac, Samson, Jephte, David, Samuel and the Prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong from weakness, became mighty in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens." And Ecclesiasticus, chapter 46, verse 13: "And the Judges, he says, each one by his name, whose heart was not corrupted: who turned not away from the Lord, that their memory might be in blessing, and their bones may bud forth out of their place, and their name may remain for ever, the glory of them remaining to their children, men that are holy."
You ask fifthly, who wrote this book? I answer that it is uncertain. It is likely that Esdras, or some later Prophet, or rather Samuel himself, collected it from ancient diaries and annals, which each Judge or another of his time wrote, and reduced it into this book by writing; thus Theodoretus here, Question I. I say the same of the book of Ruth, and I said something similar of the book of Josue.
Finally, the authors who wrote commentaries on the book of Judges are these: Origen, St. Augustine, Theodoretus, Procopius, Isidore, Hugh of St. Victor, Lyran, Cardinal Hugh, Dionysius the Carthusian, Abulensis, Cajetan, John Ferus, Arias Montanus, and from our Society Nicholas Serarius and Cosmas Magalianus, and James Bonfrerius.
Canons Proper to the Book of Judges
First. Here are frequently numbered at various times the various years of servitude and oppression of the Hebrews, namely those in which they were vexed and oppressed by Eglon, Jabin, the Midianites, the Philistines and other kings and nations. But all these years are not to be placed and reckoned separately in the chronology, but are to be included within the times and years of the Judges immediately preceding or following. I shall show that this is so in chapter IV, verse 3.
Second. Holy Scripture, in assigning the number of years, sometimes means their terminus, not that they are fully completed in such a place or action, but that the action is terminated there. Thus in Exodus XII, 40, it is said: "The sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years," that is, terminated in the 430th year, as St. Augustine says, book XVI of The City of God, chapter XXIV; for they dwelt in Egypt only 215 years. Thus in Judith, last chapter, verse 28, it is said that she remained in the house of her husband 105 years, that is, until the 105th year of her life: for she spent her girlish years in the house of her parents, not of her husband. Thus in Judges XIV, 17, it is said that Dalila wept for seven days of the feast, that is, until the seventh day; for she began to weep after the third day of the feast.
Third. The commonwealth of the Hebrews (as also many others) after every 400 years changed its state and form from Aristocracy into Monarchy or Democracy; for this is the period of many commonwealths. This is evident from the chronological table which I prefixed to the Pentateuch.
Fourth. In this book certain things are narrated which were not done by the Judges, but happened during the time of the Judges. Wherefore this book has two parts. In the former part the deeds of the Judges are narrated, with their preambles added at the beginning. This is done from chapter I to chapter XVI, inclusive. In the latter part certain histories are recounted which occurred under some Judge who is not named. This is done from chapter XVI to the end of the book. For in chapters XVII and XVIII, the history of Micah and the idol placed in Dan is narrated; and in the last three chapters the history of the Levite's wife is recounted, on account of whose violation the entire tribe of Benjamin was almost destroyed to the point of annihilation.
Fifth. All these Judges were types and figures of Christ. For just as they themselves were saviors of Israel, so Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, concerning which more is said in chapter III, 9.
Sixth. The Spirit of the Lord is said to have clothed Gideon and to have rushed upon Samson whenever he was about to undertake something difficult: by which phrase is signified first that the spirit of God went before him and impelled him to so great a work; second it is signified that an abundance and fullness of spirit and strength was given to him, by which he easily and happily accomplished the whole matter beyond the powers of nature.
Seventh. There are in this book certain notable symbols and hieroglyphics, such as the dew upon Gideon's fleece in chapter VI, and the stratagem of Gideon's soldiers breaking pitchers with flaming torches, by which the Midianites were struck down and prostrated in chapter VII, and the seven locks of Samson's hair in chapter XVI.
Likewise Fables, such as that of the trees choosing the Bramble as king for themselves in chapter IX, verse 8.
Likewise Riddles, such as that of Samson concerning the lion having a honeycomb: "Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness," chapter XIV, verse 14.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.