¹ On the ode's integrity, see Coogan, M. D., “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,” CBQ 40 (1978) 143–66Google Scholar; Globe, A., “The Literary Unity and Structure of the Song of Deborah,” JBL 93 (1974) 493–512.Google Scholar Cf. 2 Sam 23:1–5; Psalms 1 and 50 on the peroration. Note further the remarks of Freedman, D. N. in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 152Google Scholar n. 63. Note that the close of the song, on Sisera's mother, represents a return to the exordium's accosting of kings and princes (5:3) and to Yhwh's marching forth (vs 4—Sisera by contrast does not march back). All this against Richter, W., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB 18; Bonn: Hanstein, 1963; 2d ed., 1966) 65–69.Google Scholar See further Gerleman, G., “The Song of Deborah in the Light of Stylistics,” VT 1 (1951) 168–80Google Scholar; Weiser, A., “Das Debora-Lied,” ZAW 71 (1959) 67–97Google Scholar; Müller, H.-P., “Der Aufbau des Deboraliedes,” VT 16 (1966) 446–59.Google Scholar

² See Cross, F. M. and Freedman, D. N., Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (SBLDS 23; Missoula: Scholars, 1975)Google Scholar; Robertson, D. A., Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1972)Google Scholar; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 77–129. For argument to a late dating of the song, Prof. J. H. Hayes calls to my attention Vernes, M., “Le cantique de Débora,” REJ 24 (1892) 52–67Google Scholar, 225–55, unfortunately unavailable to me at this time.

³ See Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 145–66 for a balanced and appropriate treatment from this viewpoint.

⁴ The other is Exodus 15, on which see Cross, F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 77–144Google Scholar, and below.

⁵ Williamson, H. G. M., Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 88, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: Meridian, 1957) 171–227, esp. 181.Google Scholar

⁷ For this issue as it affects Chronicles, see provisionally my “Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles' Thematic Structure—Indications of an Earlier Source,” in Friedman, R. E., ed., The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (Near Eastern Studies 22; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981) 35–55.Google Scholar

⁸ See now Friedman, R. E., The Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM 22; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981) 44–132.Google Scholar

⁹ But provisionally, see Friedman, “Sacred History and Theology: The Redaction of Torah,” in Creation of Sacred Literature, 25–34.

¹⁰ E.g., RV, RSV, NEB.

¹¹ See also recently de Vaux, R., The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 729–30, 748–49, 804–5.Google Scholar

¹² The stich is ʿm yhwh yrd l- bgbwrym, “the people of Yhwh came down to (me/him) with warriors.” Cf. Coogan, “Analysis,” 148 (taking yrd horn rdh with misdivided MT). Note further Israel in parallel with ʿm in 5:2, 9.

¹³ On Judah's absence, see Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 152 and Zobel, H.-J., “Beiträge zur Geschichte Gross-Judas in früh- und vordavidischer Zeit,” in Congress Volume. Edinburgh, 1974 (SVT 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 253–77.Google Scholar Cf. Mayes, A. D., Israel in the Period of the Judges (SBT 2/29; London: SCM, 1974) 92, 99–100.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Gaster, T., Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1969) 419, 530 for suggestions on the line.Google Scholar

¹⁵ On the benefices and covenant, see McCarthy, D. J., Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21; Rome: P.B.I., 1963)Google Scholar; Baltzer, K., The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).Google Scholar There is a possibility that these verses speak of heralding Baraq's victory, but it seems remote given the conjunctive and consecutive ʾ āz of vs 11d. At any rate, the treatment of Meroz implies some sort of contractual obligation, which is a problem for standard translations (see below): tribes who are there said not to have fulfilled their obligations should by rights be treated alongside Meroz in a special segment.

¹⁶ See Miller, P. D., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 95–103Google Scholar for this point. It is worth setting out in full, with a few details not adduced by Miller. On the poems generally, see Robertson, , Linguistic Evidence; Zobel, Stammesspruch und Geschichte (BZAW 95; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1965)Google Scholar; Cross and Freedman, , “The Blessing of Moses,” JBL 67 (1948) 191–210Google Scholar; Vawter, B., “The Canaanite Background of Gen. 49,” CBQ 17 (1955) 1–18Google Scholar; esp. Lindblom, J., “The Political Background of the Shiloh Oracle,” in Congress Volume. Copenhagen, 1953 (SVT 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953) 78–87Google Scholar, most with generous bibliographies. Note that O. Eissenfeldt bases the early dating of his L source very heavily on material from Genesis 49 (The Old Testament: An Introduction [New York: Harper & Row, 1965] 196–98).Google Scholar

¹⁷ To Judg 5:9 (ḥwqqy yśrʾ l hmtndbym bʿm), compare Num 21:18 (bʾr ḥprwh śrym krwh ndyby ʿm bmḥqq bmšʿntm). The lexical coincidence is at any rate of interest. Perhaps one should render mtndbym as “take the lead.” Outside SongDeb, the verb is restricted to P, Chronicles, Nehemiah and Ezra.

¹⁸ Original m- has dropped probably because of a paleo-Hebrew resemblance to the succeeding shin.

¹⁹ Note further that apart from Deut 28:57, where it means “womb,” the expression byn rglym is peculiar to Gen 49:10; Judg 5:27.

²⁰ See Gen 22:5; Lev 14:8; 1 Sam 1:23 bis; 20:19; 25:13; 30:24; 2 Kgs 7:4; perhaps Num 35:25.

²¹ Reading MT ʾ nywr with de Vaux (Early History, 779–80 apud J. Gray). “In ships” is possible, but unlikely. Note Gen 49:13. Cf. ʾ nh in Isa 3:26; 19:8; 29:2; Lam 2:5; 3:39; Num 11:1.

²² See Jepsen, A., “Warum? Eine lexikalische und theologische Studie,” in Maas, F., ed., Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost (BZAW 105; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967) 106–13Google Scholar; and note also esp. Isa 1:11; CTA 14. 1:53 (and parallels), where the term means “It's not for …,” “who needs … ?” Gen 27:46; 25:32; Jer 6:20; Amos 5:18; Prov 17:16; Job 30:2 may all use the word in this way. Barring the instances cited in the succeeding note, I count at least fifty-one other instances of querulous lmh in the Hebrew Bible.

²³ As Gen 27:45; Exod 32:11, 12, esp. after vss 1–9; Num 27:4, perhaps; 1 Sam 2:29; 19:17 (2°); 2 Sam 2:22; 13:26; 19:13, 36, 37; 2 Kgs 14:10; Jer 27:13, 17; 40:15; Ezek 18:31; 33:11; Joel 2:17; Prov 22:27; Eccl 5:5; 7:16, 17; 1 Chr 21:3; 2 Chr 25:16, 19; probably Cant 1:7.

²⁴ Canaanite Myth, 235 n. 74; Miller, Divine Warrior, 96: so, “Dan indeed dwells at ease.”

²⁵ G^A's longer text (‘Wake, wake Deborah! Wake the myriads of the people! Wake, wake, sing a song! Be strong, rise Baraq! And strengthen, Deborah, Baraq! Capture your captives, son of Abinoam!”) is suspect. The process one must posit in order to derive MT from G^A is harrowing (though a series of successive haplographies due to homoioarcton and homoioteleuton can be constructed to do so). Read MT.

²⁶ G^AB are no help, śrydcannot be “remnant” here (cf. Coogan, “Analysis,” 148) but is in parallel with “people of Yhwh.” Noting the similarity to vs 11d and the resemblance of daleth and resh I here take a leap of faith. Close juxtaposition of a lamed with an ʾ aleph might have led a copyist to read daleth (so *yśrʾ; l' ysŕd' sŕyd by scribal correction). But the mechanism is terribly speculative.

²⁷ G^A drops the -m of MT gbwrym, but otherwise reflects MT. G^B reads “to him (lw)” for MT “to me (ly),” possibly preferable (vs 23c-d).

²⁸ G^B reads šršm as piel and renders “uprooted them,” with initial mny as “from me.” G^A reads, “the people of Ephraim avenged themselves of them”(?) and moves Amaleq, emended to “valley” (ʿ mq < ʿ mlj), into the next stich. Read lectio difficilior, MT. Cf. Judg 12:15 for Amaleq in Mt. Ephraim; note further Judg 3:26–27 for a Seir in the same region.

²⁹ G^A's emendation from “Amaleq” to “valley,” along with that from ʾḥryk ta ʾ ḥyk, is probably the translator's own. Hos 5:8 attests the text's early form. I find the only unforced explanation of it is as an apostrophe to Ephraim, after whom Benjamin is to rally, and among whom the Benjaminite contingents at the muster are stationed.

³⁰ See also n. 36. The term has to do with inscription, sometimes of laws, and with law-giving generally. But apart from carving (as 1 Kgs 6:35; Ezek 8:10; 23:14; Isa 22:16; Job 13:27), it denotes command (esp. Isa 33:22; also Gen 49:10; Deut 33:21; Ps 60:9; 108:9; note the wedding of carving and authority in Num 21:18).

³¹ This is a difficult line. G^A introduces a fresh version of vs 13b. G^B reads MT spr twice, as “scribe”and “lead(er)” (?śr). G^A reads only “lead(er)” and omits śty from 5:15a. In 14d mškym bšbṭ and šbṭ are unparalleled. Cf. Amos 1:5, 8 twmk šbṭ; Isa 14:5; Ezek 19:11 šbṭ mwšlym. mḥqq as “inscriber” might be parallel with spr, with implications of authority for the latter. But one cannot equate MT spr and Akk. šapāru (“command”) on the basis of standard phonetic transformations (as Tsevat, M., “Some Biblical Notes,” HUCA 24 [1952/1953] 107).Google Scholar Cf. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 78.

³² Read MT, G^B against G^A; see Boling, Judges, 112. This stich may still be governed by “they came down” (vs 14c): “And the officers … (came down). …” Similar flexibility obtains below.

³³ Is “in force” a possibility? Cf. Akk. emūqu.

³⁴ Omit “And Issachar” with G^AB (dittography). There is no ground for inserting Naphtali in its place, either. On brglyw, cf. Exod 11:8; Judg 8:5; 2 Sam 15:16–18; 1 Kgs 20:10; lrgl in Gen 30:30; 33:14; Deut 11:6; 1 Sam 25:42; Hab 3:5; 2 Kgs 3:9.

³⁵ “They came down” (vs 14c) may still be operative in this stich. Alternately, this may be an apostrophe: “To your divisions. …” Or, one may read, “In Reuben's divisions was great resolution.”

³⁶ Or, “inscribings of heart.” G^A has caught the sense; AV misses the positive nuance. Cf. Isa 10:lff. ḥqqy lb is a deliberate allusion to vs 9, lby lḥqqy yśrʾl, which tends to confirm that the nuance is positive.

³⁷ On lm(h), “not,” see above. Alternatively, “Why do you tarry?” as an exhortation. This is possible in that vs 16b-c breaks the sequence of stichs potentially governing “they came down” for the first time (including 14b). If vs 16a is apostrophic, this seems the best recourse. But if vs 16a and 16d are a sort of epanalepsis governing “they came down,” 16b-c may be paratactic. Verses 17–18 would then also govern “they came down.”

³⁸ The expression is positive here. Cf. Jer 17:10; Prov 25:3, perhaps; note also 1 Sam 20:12. It doesn't imply internalization. See Deut 20:lff. On the syntax, see above, 5:15c-d, and n. 35.

³⁹ Lit., “taunted itself (/its life) to die.”

⁴⁰ Since this is a victory in the field, not at siege (vss 18, 21–22, 28–30 ), the chronology of Megiddo and Taanach has no bearing on the date. Cf. Mayes, Period, 94–97; Aharoni, Y., “New Aspects of the Israelite Occupation in the North” in Sanders, J. A., ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 254–67.Google Scholar

⁴¹ E.g., for the song, de Vaux, Early History, 729–30; Mayes, Period, 84–100; for the prose, Noth, M., The History of Israel (2d ed.; New York: Harper, 1960) 150–51.Google Scholar

⁴² Weiser, “Debora-Lied,” 67–97.

⁴³ The most important have been Richter's (Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 33–88). The argument on Judges 4 there requires detailed rebuttal, only some of which can be undertaken in passing below. Generally, except in excising Judg 4:1–3, 4b; 5:31 and perhaps 4:5, Richter skates on thin ice throughout. On the prose, cf. Murray, D. F., “Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Baraq Story (Judges IV 4–22),” in Emerton, J. A., ed., Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (SVT 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 153–89.Google Scholar The argument to the growth of SongDeb hangs on the reification of form-critical categories (cult song, victory ode) and oppositions, and their imposition on the Israelite poet. Cf. Craigie, P. C., “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,” JBL 88 (1969) 253–65.Google Scholar Most important, Richter fails to account fully for the divergent details in the chapters, a lacuna this study will try to fill.

⁴⁴ Esp. Boling, Judges, 98. Cf. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 62: Richter affirms the antiquity of 4:17a, 18–22 and denies that there is any connection between them and the poetic parallel.

⁴⁵ Cf. Hos 6:9, and below.

⁴⁶ The sense is “of the women of the tent.” The substantive and prepositional adjectival phrase has the semantic sense of a construct, a common feature in the more antique poetry of the Hebrew Bible. Cf., perhaps, Judg 5:2a, 7c, 8d, 9b 15a; esp. 2 Sam 1:21 hry bglb'; Ps 68:5.

⁴⁷ Or perhaps a bowl with heroic scenes painted on it.

⁴⁸ On rqtw, see Boling, Judges, 98; cf. rqq, “expectorate.” Etymologically, yrq(rq), “yellow, green,” probably belongs to the same constellation. Apart from Judg 4:21–22; 5:26, the term occurs only in Cant 4:3; 6:7. The prose writer has taken it from the poem.

⁴⁹ Cf. G^A, omitting vs 27b krʿ npl and attaching škb to that stich. Cf. škb ʿm ʿbwt and the parallel šdwd of vs 27c.

⁵⁰ Judges, 98.

⁵¹ Judg 4:6. The suggestion is that of my student, K. Nelson. On Baraq as Issacharite, see already J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und judäische Geschichte (Berlin: Reimer, 1894) 20. For the selection of Qedesh as Baraq's base, see below, n. 53.

⁵² For the history, see Malamat, A., “Hazor,’ ‘The Head of All Those Kingdoms,’” JBL 79 (1960) 12–19Google Scholar; idem, “The Period of the Judges,” in Mazar, B., ed., Judges (WHJP 1/3; Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1971) 135–40, esp. 136, which presents the best formulation of the problem here addressed to date.Google Scholar

⁵³ The term śārîd also occurs in Josh 11:8. Though it is common enough in such bearings, it may be that the association with Judg 5:13 (already corrupted) had a further influence on the author of Judges 4. On 5:13, see above. Note further that Qedesh is closely associated with Hazor in Josh 19:36–37; 2 Kgs 15:29, and, in Judah (!), in Josh 15:23: herein may lie the reason for Baraq's location in the prose. The evidence suggests to me that Joshua 11 has been shaped partly by Judges 5 and the traditions about Baraq's victory; subsequently both SongDeb and Joshua 11 shaped Judges 4.

⁵⁴ Richter (Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 33–88) removes a Tabor-Hazor source; but he does not establish that this is secondary to the work of the initial proseauthor. On his argument against there having been a political entity called Canaan, cf. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 143, 147 n. 49, 128; 1 Sam 12:9; Ps 83:9; EA 30:1; 109:44–46. There were “kings of Canaan” (Judg 5:19), and occasionally one king who dominated them. Note that the identification of Sisera makes argument to the inaccuracy of Gideon's identification with Jerubbaal more difficult. The historian here, at least, does not equate Sisera with Jabin, but instead assumes that the presence of two different names implies the existence of two different people. We must presume that the author who identified Gideon with Jerubbaal, therefore, had good reason to do so rather than treat them as two distinct, but related, individuals.

⁵⁵ The scene about Sisera's mother (5:28–30) is irrelevant to the prose plot-line and is therefore omitted. Otherwise, see below. The song could not have been based on the prose data; but the prose can have been based on the song. In view of this circumstance, it is also less economical (and less realistic) to seek the origin of the differences in “independent” traditions.

⁵⁶ See above, n. 45, and note, e.g., the name Hebron, “the one of the ḥbr/-bond(ed community)” for Qiryath Arba, “the city of four,” and the use of the same term to describe the Second Commonwealth. Possibly, Qen, Caleb, and other southern groups used the term in self-description. See esp. Malamat, A., “Mari and the Bible,” JAOS 82 (1962) 144–46.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Baraq is from Qedesh (4:6). Deborah and Baraq and then the muster go to Qedesh (4:9–10 ), though they mean to be at Tabor (4:7, 10b, 12–14 ). And Sisera flees to Qedesh (4:17 with 4:11). Qedesh may have been leveled through by scribal error. Cf. Ishbaal in 2 Samuel 4.

⁵⁸ For Baraq's call and the issue of his “glory,” see my Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981) 118–22.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Obviously, I am telescoping traditional interpretations and those of the historian responsible for Judges 4. In a sense, therefore, my “historian” is a fiction, a composite of traditional and individual understanding. The point remains, though, that the text under analysis reflects a process of historical reconstruction. While most of it very probably belongs to the author of the chapter, what doesn't falls into much the same category anyway. On Haroshet Goyim, see Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible (London: Burns and Oates, 1979) 221.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ 5:21 may have summoned to the author's mind Exodus 15 and the J version of the Reed Sea “event”; see esp. Exod 14:24–25. Note that outside of Judg 4:15; Exod 14:24 (in both of which it takes the enemy's camp as an object), the verb hmm occurs only 11 times. In Isa 28:28, it affects chariot (or wagon) wheels; and, in the related passages Ps 18:15–17//2 Sam 22:15; and Ps 144:6, the verb is juxtaposed to the word “lightning” (brq = Baraq) in the vicinity of the word mrwm (“height[s]”; see above), and in connection with “mighty waters”! Psalm 18 seems to play both on Baraq's and on Moses' (ymšny—vs 17) victories by the waters. What the direction of influence is here seems impossible to sort out.

⁶¹ The phrase “the chariots of Pharaoh and his host” (15:4) has probably influenced 14:9, 17, 28 (P). wmbr šlšyw (15:4) has crept into 14:7 (J) rkb bḥwr … wšlšm. 15:5 (thmt yksymw), 10 (ksmw ym) have influenced P (14:28, wyšbw hmym wyksw …). 15:8a, 10a have influenced 14:21b-c (J); 15:13, nhlt bʿ;zk may have influenced 14:21b (J), wywlk … ʿzh. Possibly, 15:12 has helped form 14:27–28 and 14:26, 21a, 16 (P sections), hyd hgdwlh in 14:31 (P) probably stems from 15:16b (bgdl zrwʿk). Note that the command that Israel be silent (14:14, J), observed until 15:1 (J, after victory), may derive from 15:16b-c. Other correlations are of course possible. Note 15:9a with 14:9a; 14:8 rmh by association with 15:1 (which uses it in an unusual sense), 2; 15:2 wyhy ly lyšwʿh with 14:13, 30, etc. These examples should suffice for the present.

⁶² See Exod 14:9b, 17, 18, 23, 26, 28; Mowinckel, S., “Drive and/or Ride in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962) 278–99.Google Scholar On P generally here, see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 77–144.

⁶³ See Sarna, N., “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Altmann, A., ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Studies and Texts 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963) 29–46.Google Scholar This is a showcase for the hermeneutical characteristics of biblical authors.

⁶⁴ The Tribes of Yahweh (New York: Orbis, 1979) 164–65.Google Scholar Cf. Kearney, P., “The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History,” CBQ 35 (1973) 1–19Google Scholar for the observation that Judg 2:1–5 refers to Joshua 9. This is probably the Josianic editor of the Deteronomistic History. But it is at variance with the view of Joshua 9 and 2 Samuel 21.

⁶⁵ A parallel is being drawn here between Joshua's and Joseph's deaths (the latter now P in Gen 50:26) at the same age—they are the first two figures to be buried in the new land (Josh 24:32; cf. Gen 50:25; Exod 13:19; Judg 2:9). Cf. the “rise” of a new “another” king in Exod 1:8, “who didn't know” Joseph, and Exod 3:13–14; 6:2–3 on Israel's ignorance of Yhwh in Egypt.

⁶⁶ See further my Constitution, 111–18.

⁶⁷ When I was eleven or twelve years old, I read in Richard Lupoff's Edgar Rice Burroughs: Master of Adventure some statement such as, “I would gladly trade ten copies of The Mucker for one of A Princess of Mars.” Never having seen The Mucker, let alone having read it, I fired off a letter accepting this offer immediately. But Lupoff replied, very indulgently, that he had been writing figuratively and had no real intention to swap. What I did to Lupoff is what Matthew does to Zechariah; and Zechariah's response to Matthew would have resembled Lupoff's to me. The same is true of the relationship between Judges 4 and Judges 5.

⁶⁸ The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth's Amphictyony Hypothesis (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 18; Assen: van Gorcum, 1976) 147–48.Google Scholar Note, in view of what succeeds, de Geus's citation of Judg 8:31.

⁶⁹ “The Rise of Abimelek ben-Jerubbaal,” HAR 2 (1978) 90 n. 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ As Noth, M., A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972) 65–71Google Scholar, esp. 69 n. 201; cf. Childs, B. S., The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 130–41.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid.

⁷² Exile, 92–95; see “Sacred History and Theology,” 25–34.

⁷³ This study was supported by funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities administered through the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and from the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University.