Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges 17–21

2018; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 28; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/bullbiblrese.28.2.0291

2576-0998

Ryan N. Roberts,

Biblical Studies and Interpretation

The book under review is a revision of a doctoral dissertation completed at Bristol University under the supervision of Gordon Wenham. David Beldman approaches the book of Judges as a synchronic reading, through the lens of the “Canaanization of Israelite society.” In Beldman’s view, this occurred when Israel rejected Yhwh as king, as soon as the second generation after Joshua. Thus, rather than read Judges as the progressive deterioration of Israel, one should rather ask why ancient Israel so quickly became corrupted. Beldman’s answer is that they rejected Yhwh as king and abandoned their respective cultic practices and structures. His exploration of the theory behind narrative and narrative endings is used to validate multiple endings for Judges, including the strategies of closure, circularity, and entrapment.The introduction frames the importance of narrative endings. Beldman surveys scholarship on both the endings to individual books—via a page-length footnote—as well as studies on endings in the OT in general. He strives to show that, while the study of endings has progressed, the theoretical work on endings in biblical studies is still neglected.Chapter one consists of a selective, but lengthy, survey of the composition of Judges. Beldman focuses on comparing and contrasting 15 examples of recent synchronic readings. He notes that these synchronic approaches agree that Judges consists of three parts, that the book shows the progressive deterioration of Israel, and that chs. 17–21 complete the downward spiral. He also argues that great debate remains over the interpretation and function of chs. 17–21.Chapter two provides the theoretical ground work for the rest of the volume. Beldman examines the nature and function of endings as well as narrative theory. Here, his conversation partners include Frank Kermode (The Sense of an Ending [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967/2000), Barbara Hernstein Smith (Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End [Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1968), Paul Ricoeur (Time and Narrative [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]), and Gerard Genette (Narrative Discourse [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980]). Beldman first establishes that endings are necessarily tied to human experience and reality and then that we should look for retrospective patterning in light of the conclusion. Ricoeur’s mimesis2 draws our attention to how human action (mimesis1) is configured and represented. Last, one must reflect on the time of narrative, especially its temporal order and how this can help to perceive the past.A brief interlude raises three strategies of ending at work in Judges: completion, circularity, and entrapment. Beldman is influenced in his thinking of multiple strategies of endings by the work of Marianna Torgovnick (Closure of the Novel [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981]). Since Beldman sees the strategy of completion as more pervasive and obvious, he briefly engages with it. Key themes in Judges that are introduced, developed, and then concluded include leadership, progressive degeneration, the role of women, Israel’s internal relations, and the making of oaths/vows.The next chapter focuses on the strategy of circularity in Judges—links between the beginning (1:1–3:6) and ending (chs. 17–21). Beldman surveys 13 links to show reversal, degradation and/or irony of the behavior and situation of Israel at the end of the book. Most of these links will be familiar, but it is used to support his view on the multiple strategies of ending for the book.Chapter four examines an ending strategy of entrapment. Beldman defines entrapment as topics in the ending chapters that may catch readers off guard or disorient them. In this case, the topics of kingship and cult are introduced to the reader only in the conclusion, in his view, to demonstrate that Israel abandoned the instructions of Yhwh. He then turns to the topic of kingship through the introduction of the refrain “no king in Israel.” Beldman views the refrain as a commentary on the lack of a divine standard of morality. He is to be commended for his detailed argument that is attentive both to its minority view and the timing of the emergence of Yhwh’s kingship in Israel.The last chapter provides a quite-helpful discussion of narrative temporality. Beldman argues that chs. 17–21 are to be read very early in the period of the Judges (in light of the generational comments at 18:30 and 20:28) but placed intentionally at the end of the book. Specifically, he connects the ending of Judg to 2:8–10, where “generations” are also mentioned. Other OT examples of analepsis are adduced to show their deliberate rhetorical function. Here, Beldman is able to show how narrative temporality further supports his entrapment and circularity readings. He also suggests that, if this rapid decline occurred quite early, it calls into question the common view of the progressive deterioration of Israel in in the book of Judges.Beldman is well-versed in Judges literature, and the monograph shines in its constant engagement with scholarship, including studies completed just in the last few years. His discussion of narrative theory is also insightful, helping readers reflect on the act of reading. Beldman does well both to introduce his theoretical models and consistently to integrate them into his reading of JudgesHis thesis is tied to downplaying a political reading of the book, especially its ending. This underscores an inherent tension in the monograph to an either/or approach regarding the purpose of Judges and a synchronic versus diachronic reading. His reading of Judges would be aided by placing it in conversation with insights from scribal culture and scribalism. As is, it appears that his starting point is one writer, or at the least, a synchronic approach in which the book provides a “unity” (pp. 39–40, but see p. 131 for repeated comments about an editor). One pressing question is whether his theoretical work and application is dependent on a single author narrative theory. For example, it would be intriguing for Beldman to weigh his claims against Sarah Milstein’s view of scribal revision in Judg 6–9 and 19–21 in her recent volume, Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), chs. 5–6.