A fresh literary analysis of political polemic in the Bible

The Book of Judges ends with a bizarre narrative of sex and violence that starts with a domestic tiff and ends with the decimation of a tribe that is restored by means of abduction and rape. Cynthia Edenburg applies a fresh literary analysis, recent understandings of historical linguistics, and historical geography in her exploration of the origin of the anti-Benjamin polemic found in Judges 19–21, the growth and provenance of the book of Judges, and the shape of the Deuteronomistic History. Her study exposes how Judges 19–21 function as political polemic reflecting not the pre-monarchic period but instead the historical realities of the settlement of Benjamin during the Babylonian and Persian period.

Features:

• Methodological discussions that open each chapter
• Charts and tables
• Engagement with current research produced by scholars from around the world

The book of Samuel tells the story of the origins of kingship in Israel in what seems to be an artistically structured, flowing narrative. Yet it is also marked by an inconsistent outlook, divergent styles, and breaks in the narrative. According to Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, the Deuteronomistic historian constructed the narrative by piecing together early sources and generally refrained from commenting in his own voice. Recent studies have called into question the extent of Samuel’s sources and their redaction history, as well as the textual growth of the book as a whole. The essays in this book, representing the latest scholarship on this subject, reexamine whether the book of Samuel was ever part of a Deuteronomistic History. The contributors are A. Graeme Auld, Hannes Bezzel, Philip R. Davies, Walter Dietrich, Cynthia Edenburg, Jeremy M. Hutton, Jürg Hutzli, Ernst Axel Knauf, Reinhard Müller, Richard D. Nelson, Christophe Nihan, K. L. Noll, Juha Pakkala, and Jacques Vermeylen.