¹ The present work makes a distinction between the terms “deuteronomistic” and “deuteronomic.” “Deuteronomistic” designates that author responsible for the final form of the history-like work extending from Joshua through 2 Kings. On the basis of the narrated account of 2 Kgs 25:27–30, this writer must be assigned to the period after ca. 560 BCE. “Deuteronomic” refers to the author(s) of the preexilic history responsible for the earlier assemblage of predeuteronomic materials into a continuous theological interpretation of Israel's history from the entry into the land until the reign of Josiah. This writer is commonly dated to the seventh century, though the date is affected by the number of deuteronomic “editions” that are posited. Noth, Martin (Überlieferungsgeschiclitliche Studien [3d ed.; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1967], 1–110)Google Scholar regarded the history as the work of a single tradent (Dtr), writing ca. 550 BCE. While there is agreement that the deuteronomistic history, in its final form, dates to the exilic period, it is now generally accepted that a major portion of the work was composed in preexilic times. Cross, Frank M. (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973], 274–89)Google Scholar has argued that this deuteronomic edition (Cross's Dtr₁) dates to the time of Josiah, ca. 620 BCE, and that his work was updated during the exile by a member of the same “school” (Cross's Dtr₂=Noth's Dtr). When the analysis of deuteronomic redactional activity is applied to the framework of the Book of Judges, the situation becomes quite complex. According to the analysis of Richter, Wolfgang (Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomischen Epoche [BBB 21; Bonn: Hanstein, 1964], 113–16)Google Scholar, the hands of at least three authors or redactors may be detected in the framework of Judges (Rdt₁ and Rdt₂ were preexilic; DtrG, exilic). For a convenient survey of the research on the deuteronomistic history until 1960, see Jenni, Ernst, “Zwei Jahrzente Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige,” ThR NF 21 (1961) 97–146, esp. 129–36Google Scholar on Judges. A more recent discussion of the redactional activity discernible in the deuteronomistic history is that of Nelson, Richard D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 13–28, 43–53.Google Scholar Since Judg 1:1–2:5 is accepted by most modern critics as a secondary insertion to the deuteronomic work, it is normally assigned, along with chaps. 17–21, to the latest, or deuteronomistic edition of the book.

² The parallels between Judg 1:3–36 and Joshua 14–19 are numerous: Judg 1:4–7 and Josh 10:1–5; Judg 1:8, 21 and Josh 15:63; Judg 1:10–15, 20 and Josh 15:13–19 (cf. 14:6–15); Judg 1:18–19 and Josh 13:2–3; Judg 1:27–28 and Josh 17:11–13; Judg 1:29 and Josh 16:10; Judg 1:30 and Josh 19:10–16; Judg 1:31–32 and Josh 19:24–31; Judg 1:33 and Josh 19:32–39; Judg 1:34–35 and Josh 19:41–48. It should be noted that though parallel, the two accounts are at times contradictory, e.g., Judg 1:18–19 and Josh 13:2–3.

³ For analyses of this introduction, see Beyerlin, Walter, “Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch,” in Würthwein, E., ed., Tradition und Situation: Festschrift A. Weiser (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 1–29Google Scholar; Richter, Bearbeitungen, 3–91; and Weinfeld, Moshe, “The Period of Conquest and of the Judges as seen by Earlier and Later Sources,” VT 17 (1967) 93–113.Google Scholar

⁴ Wright, G. Ernest, “The Literary and Historical Problem of Joshua 10 and Judges 1,” JNES 5 (1946) 109.Google Scholar

⁵ Gottwald, Norman K., The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979) 165.Google Scholar

⁶ lt should be noted that many commentators accept Judges 1 as both older and more historically reliable than the traditions in Joshua. See, for example, the position of Hertzberg, H.-W., Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth (2d ed.; ATD 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959) 147.Google Scholar Against this view are those who accept the position enunciated by Wright (“Joshua 10 and Judges 1,” 105–14), which accepts the basic historical accuracy of the Joshua account. For a summary and analysis of the major reconstructions of the conquest of Canaan and the ways in which the presentation of Judges 1 is incorporated into those views, see Vaux, Roland de, The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 475–87.Google Scholar

⁷ An exception to this is the commentary by Boling, Robert G. (Judges [AB 6A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975] 63–66)Google Scholar which attributes the final redaction of Judges 1 to the period of the exile and relates the chapter to both the themes of Joshua and the remainder of Judges and notes that its purpose was to show the political and religious deterioration of the Israelite federation. This represents a significant step beyond the standard interpretation of this chapter. Boling, however, does not view Judges 1 as a literary unit, but rather as a carefully arranged report of tribal activities composed from “preformed narrative units together with archival details and notices of various sorts” (63) which are of varying dates and degrees of historical accuracy.

⁸ O'Doherty, Eamonn, “The Literary Problem of Judges 1, 1–3, 6,” CBQ 18 (1956) 1.Google Scholar

⁹ Polzin, Robert M., Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York: Seabury, 1980) 147.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The problem of interpretation of the significance and meaning of the book can be even more complex than this indicates. Depending upon the number and settings of redactions postulated for the growth of the book, the differentiations of possible purposes and meanings are multiplied. Hence, if one accepts the three-stage redactional activity proposed by Richter (see above, n. 1) and the theory of a predeuteronomic collection of deliverer stories, then the interpretations of the “books” of Judges, in order to be complete, would have to be conducted on at least four levels to illustrate the various positions of the redactors responsible for each stage.

¹¹ The deuteronomic shape of the Book of Joshua is debated, though most follow the basic analysis of Noth (Überliejerungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8–9). According to this analysis, neither Joshua 13–22 nor Joshua 24 belongs to the original deuteronomic history. Thus, the deuteronomic introduction of Judg 2:6–3:6 originally followed Joshua 23, the farewell speech of Joshua. Hence, Judg 1:1–2:5, Joshua 24, and also Judges 17–21 are viewed as secondary additions to the text of the original history. The relationships between Judges 1 and Joshua 14–19 noted above (n. 2) suggest that the two texts are in some way interrelated (see below). While the dates and sources for the border and town lists employed in Joshua 13–19 are difficult to delimit and date precisely, it seems most likely, contra the position of Martin Noth, that the deuteronomic historian “did not compose his book of Joshua without chaps 13–19” (Boling, Robert G. and Wright, G. Ernest, Joshua [AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982] 71). Boling does noteGoogle Scholar (Joshua, 350) that chaps. 12–14 of this section are to be attributed to the later deuteronomistic writer.

¹² The texts presented by LXX^A and LXX^B present a number of interesting variants and are often seen as two separate translations. On the state of the text of Judges, see Boling, Judges, 38–42, and Soggin, J. Alberto, Judges (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 12–13Google Scholar. Williamson, H. G. M. (“The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History,” VT 32 [1982] 242–47)Google Scholar has recently argued that the work on this “history” continued beyond that reflected in the present canonical form of the books, a possibility which might account, in part, for some of the variants in the LXX.

¹³ ln light of the near consensus among scholars that Judg 1:1–2:5 and 2:6–3:6 come from different editorial hands, the present paper will assume that 1:1–2:5 has been inserted to form the final introduction. At the same time, however, it will be assumed that the redactor who changed the text in this way was fully cognizant of the materials preceding and following this new material and that the final redactor viewed the new text as presenting the materials in what was, for his setting and purpose, an appropriate manner.

¹⁴ I would agree with the observation of Gottwald (Tribes, 730 n. 110) that the conquest and settlement are a “single process viewed from two angles.”.

¹⁵ As Soggin, J. Alberto (Joshua [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972] 8–10)Google Scholar has noted, following the observations of Martin Noth and Albrecht Alt (see Noth, Martin, Das Buck Josua [HAT 7; Tübingen: Mohr, 1938] X–XII)Google Scholar, the conquest stories of Joshua 2–12 almost all refer to Benjaminite territory and almost always in relation to the shrine at Gilgal, where these traditions were most probably preserved. Other traditions, like those of Josh 10:16–12:24, concerning territory outside Benjamin, were probably combined with the Benjaminite traditions, which, in all probability, originally had little, if anything, to do with a major twelve-tribe conquest. The “all Israel” emphasis and the leadership of the Ephraimitic Joshua were imposed on the traditions by the deuteronomic writer.

¹⁶ The exact dating of the boundary and town lists contained in this section is difficult and disputed, though it is generally agreed that the lists come from the monarchical period. For a discussion of these chapters and the problems they present, see the commentaries by Soggin (Joshua, 147–215) and Boling and Wright (Joshua, 66–72, 319–500) and the literature cited therein.

¹⁷ Moshe Weinfeld (“Period of Conquest,” 100–101, 105) argues that Joshua, according to the deuteronomic scheme, put all the inhabitants of the land to the ban (Josh 10:28–43; 11:12–23; cf. Deut 20:14–17) in accordance with the deuteronomic law. Since Joshua “did all that Moses had commanded” (Josh 11:12, 15, 20), in accord with the deuteronomic scheme, the only pressure that could come from Israel's enemies was “from round about” (Judg 2:19), and not from within, as recounted in Judg 1:1–36.

¹⁸ Little consensus exists regarding the analysis of Judg 2:20–3:6. It is possible that traces of an older JE epic tradition reflecting a predeuteronomic preface to the stories of the deliverers may be discerned in this section. For a discussion of the problems involved in this part of the deuteronomic introduction, see Richter, Bearbeitungen, 35–44.

¹⁹ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 259.Google Scholar There is little, however, to suggest that Judges 1 “uses the undigested details of an ancient historical account in its original form as a means of illustrating the breakdown of Joshua's legacy,” as Childs asserts (261). As de Vaux has noted (Early History, 805), Judg 1:1–36 reflects a southern tradition that is entirely in favor of Judah and attributes conquests to Judah that it did not make or which were never made by the Israelites at all, e.g., 1:18. It would seem that Judg 1:1–36 cannot be viewed uncritically as a historical source. More likely, it, like the deuteronomic composition of 2:6–3:6, is to be seen as a highly schematized theological preface to the book.

²⁰ Soggin (Joshua, 245) argues that since Judg 2:6 takes up the first part of Josh 24:28 and continues the verse in a different way, it is clear that the deuteronomic history included neither Joshua 24 nor Judg 1:1–2:5, though both may reflect predeuteronomic traditions. See also the analysis of Richter, Bearbeitungen, 44–49.

²¹ By placing the events narrated in Judg 1:1–2:5 “after the death of Joshua” (1:1a), the deuteronomistic editor was able to make these events contemporaneous with the generations who “did not know Yahweh” (2:10) and who sinned against him, provoking his anger and his refusal to drive out the inhabitants of the land (2:11–3:6). While this may create chronological problems for the historian attempting to reconstruct specific events underlying the narrative presentation, it establishes a consistent temporal frame for the narrative which follows.

²² Moses, 148.

²³ The shift from total success to partial failure might be explained in part by the historical situations of the redactors involved. The period of Judean revival and expansion under Josiah provided the setting for the deuteronomic picture of success. The sudden and radical shift to the failure to take the land might reflect the actual loss of that land and the exile, the setting in which the deuteronomistic historian made his reinterpretation of his predecessor's work. This interpretation presumes an understanding of the role and activity of the redactor (tradent) in the handling and arrangement of his sources. Willis, John T. (“Redaction Criticism and Historical Reconstruction,” in Buss, M., ed., Encounter with the Text: Form and History in the Hebrew Bible [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 83–89)Google Scholar summarizes the role and purposes of a redactor and stresses the importance of recognizing that the biblical authors preserved traditions handed down because they believed such materials met the contemporary needs of their audience and because those materials could convey their religious messages to that audience effectively. Hence, the historical materials were not preserved for the sake of recounting historical facts, but to present such data in a particular historical light. In the case of the predeuteronomic traditions employed in Judges, Moore, George F. observed (Judges [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895] xxxiv)Google Scholar that the reediting process reveals “history with a moral becoming history for the moral.”.

²⁴ The absence of Reuben and Gad from the account could be related to the fact that their holdings were in the Transjordan. No explanation, other than a lack of specific traditions regarding the tribe's settlement in the land, is apparent for Issachar. The facts that Tola was from Issachar (Judg 10:1) and that Issachar was praised in Judg 5:15 show that this tribe was regarded as active during this period, at least by some redactor involved in the formation of the final work. Issachar also formed an independent unit in Solomon's administrative districts (1 Kgs 4:17).

²⁵ Moses, 127–31. The change in emphasis in this section of Joshua is clearly noted by 13:1–6, which explicitly denotes the land yet to be conquered and which stands in direct contrast to the closing statement of this segment (21:43–45), which describes a complete conquest. Between these two statements occur numerous references detailing land not yet taken by Israel (Josh 14:12, 15:63, 16:10; 17:11–13, 14–18; 18:3–7, 8; 19:47), which indicate a shift of emphasis by the writer of this section from that projected in Joshua 1–12.

²⁶ This future conquest of the land has been emphasized by G. T. Manley, who, interestingly, argues against any deuteronomic redaction and places the compilation of the Book of Judges in the period of the reign of David (“The Deuteronomic Redactor in the Book of Judges,” EvQ 31 [1959] 36–37).Google Scholar

²⁷ Boling asserts (Judges, 35) that the traditions in Judges are “neither very clearly monarchical nor antimonarchical” and must be seen as “essentially premonarchical.” One should note, however, that in the context of the deuteronomistic history, the traditions of Judges function as illustrations of the need for leadership and, as part of the background of the rise of the monarchy and the Davidic kingship, convey a decidedly promonarchical tone. While the predeuteronomic traditions may have been basically nonmonarchical in emphasis, the final editor has intentionally modified that situation.

²⁸ That both requests of Yahweh to designate a leader for Israel are assigned to sections of the narrative attributed to the deuteronomistic writer (Judg 1:1–2:5; 19–21) suggests that the need for new leadership was a concern to that redactor and his audience.

²⁹ Boling, Judges, 15.

³⁰ Hertzberg, Die Bücher, 148. Wright argues (“Joshua 10 and Judges 1,” 106 n. 3), in relation to Judg 2:20–23, that “the compiler must have believed what he inserted.” In the case of my understanding of a redactor and his role, I would assert that the “compiler” must have intended the reader to accept his narrative account as significant to the historical situation of both the reader and the redactor.

³¹ I accept the conclusions of A. Auld that Judg 1:1–36 was derived, in part, from traditions contained in Joshua 13–21 (“Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration,” VT 25 [1974] 284).Google Scholar I find no compelling reason to postulate the existence of a common source from which both accounts were derived, as assumed by O'Doherty (“Judges 1, 1–3, 6,” 2 n. 8) and followed by many. For a summary of the attempts to trace Pentateuchal sources in Joshua and Judges, see Snaith, Norman, “The Historical Books,” in Rowley, H. H., ed., The Old Testament and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951) 84–95.Google Scholar

³² It is not unlikely that the placement of such a summary was contemporaneous with the division of the “history” into separate “books.” See Auld, “Judges 1 and History,” 285; O'Doherty, “Judges 1, 1–3, 6,” 6.

³³ Moses, 147–48.

³⁴ On such differences, see below.

³⁵ Following the division suggested by Hertzberg, Die Bücher, 147.

³⁶ Miller, J. Maxwell, “The Israelite Occupation of Canaan,” in Hayes, John H. and Miller, J. Maxwell, eds., Israelite and Judean History (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 238–39.Google Scholar

³⁷ Boling, Judges, 36.

³⁸ ”Judges 1 and History,” 285. In addition, if one accepts the analysis of Richter (Bearbeitungen, 90–91) that the Othniel account of Judg 3:7–11 is a paradigmatic example that serves to introduce the ideal judge and that this is a secondary addition to the main narratives, then Judah plays no part in any of the major narratives in the book. Likewise, the tribe of Judah plays little or no active role in the conquest stories of Joshua 1–12.

³⁹ ”The Bearing of Judges i-ii 5 on the Authorship of the Book of Judges,” AusBR 7 (1959) 37–38.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ “The Period of the Conquest,” 94–95 n. 1.

⁴¹ Boling, Judges, 53.

⁴² These two suppositions present no problems for the parallel text, Judg. 20:18, for there Bethel is noted as the site of the assemblage, and the tribes do act in concert against Benjamin in the following narrative (20:19–48).

⁴³ Both LXX^A and LXX^B add “and to Bethel” after Bokim. It is possible that the name Bethel has been lost in the MT by haplography. At any rate, the text specifies the proximity of Bokim and Gilgal (Judg 2:1), and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that Gilgal, the “base camp” for the conquest of Joshua 1–12, could be presumed by the redactor in the opening verses of Judges.

⁴⁴ I disagree with the position taken by most commentators that Judg 1:1–36 was originally a “list of historico-geographical facts” (Weinfeld, “The Period of the Conquest,” 93) or that the present selection “must be a mutilated fragment of an original which described the victories of the other tribes, as well as of Judah, and which detailed the towns they had conquered” (Gurewicz, “The Bearing of Judges i-ii 5,” 37). For a reconstruction of such an account, normally assigned to J, see Burney, C. F., The Book of Judges with Introduction and Critical Notes and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings (2d ed.; London: Rivingtons, 1930; New York: KTAV, 1970) 47–52.Google Scholar It seems more likely that the deuteronomistic redactor selected those notices of incomplete control of the land that were already contained in the deuteronomic account of the allotment of the land as the basis for his reinterpretation of the events of the settlement in the land.

⁴⁵ The conquest of the territory of Simeon is included within the conquests of Judah. This presumes a setting when the tribal claims of Simeon were included in those of Judah. Such a situation is presumed in Josh 19:1–9; 15:26–32. It is possible that the redactor has combined the accounts of Judah and Simeon under the influence of Josh 19:1, which states explicitly that Simeon's inheritance “was in the midst (bētôk) of the inheritance of Judah.” This reference to the gôrāl, or “lot,” explicitly ties the account to that in Joshua 14–21. This term is used some twenty-six times in Joshua, all in chaps. 14–21. In Judges, gôrāl occurs only three times: twice in 1:3 and once in 20:9. This clearly suggests that the allotments in Joshua 14–21 designate the ideal territory to be conquered, not the actual territory that had been taken.

⁴⁶ The place Bezek is mentioned only one other time in the OT, 1 Sam 11:8, where it is located northeast of Shechem. Whether this is to be identified as the Bezek of Judg 1:4 must be left open to question. The reference to the Perizzites in addition to the Canaanites is interesting. They are noted as one of the groups of people left in the land in whose midst the Israelites dwelt (Judg 3:5). Apart from 1:4, 5 and 3:5, they are not mentioned in the Book of Judges. It is mentioned in Josh 17:15 that they possessed part of the land that was allotted to the Joseph tribes. Elsewhere in the deuteronomic history, they occur as part of a standardized list of peoples, e.g., Judg 3:5, Josh 9:1; cf. Deut 7:1, 20:17, etc.

⁴⁷ Though it is common to associate Adoni-Bezek with the Adoni-zedek of Joshua 10, there is little, if any, evidence that the stories are related. From the materials at our disposal, it would seem best to view these two episodes as separate traditions associated by the redactors with different events in the conquest of the land.

⁴⁸ Soggin, Judges, 24.

⁴⁹ Weinfeld, “The Period of the Conquest,” 94. This same redactional change is found with reference to Manasseh in Judg 1:27 (Josh 17:12).

⁵⁰ de Vaux, Early History, 541. Boling (Judges, 56) reconstructs the following: the Judeans managed to “sack” the unfortified southwest hill of Jerusalem, but the Benjaminites did not meet with such success. Thus, despite this partial victory, Jerusalem remained unconquered until the time of David. Since the texts themselves do not differentiate sectors or districts of the city in 1:8 and 1:21, 1 find it best to let the tension between the reports stand. The traditions regarding the defeat of the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek (Josh 10:1, 3, 5, 23; cf. 12:10), say nothing about a defeat of the city.

⁵¹ Early History, 542–43.

⁵² The request of Achsah in Josh 15:18–19 (Judg 1:14–15) is highly problematic. Achsah apparently requests springs of her father Caleb, and he grants her request. For reconstructions of the text, see the commentaries.

⁵³ Bearbeitungen, 56–57, 136–37; see also Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 51 n. 1.

⁵⁴ This verse, like 1:14–15, is extremely difficult. It seems likely that the definite article should be supplied to read haqqênî, with the MT of Judg 4:11. Further, the context suggests that a personal name should be supplied, most probably Hobab, again with 4:11. If the reading of 4:11 is accepted, the beginning of the text would read as follows: ūbēnê ḥōbāb haqqênî ḥātan mōšeh …, “and the people of Hobab the Kenite, the brother-in-law of Moses …“This reconstruction follows the LXX^AB for 4:11. LXX^A and LXX^B differ in the reading of 1:16: LXX^A reflects a text that reads ḥōbab haqqênî ḥōtên mōšeh; LXX^B, yitrô haqqênî ḥătan mōšeh. On the textual problems, see Moore, Judges, 32–35.

⁵⁵ Num 21:1–3 records the JE account of the destruction of Arad, which was put to the ban and renamed Hormah.

⁵⁶ The role of Simeon is unclear throughout Judg 1:3–20. Simeon is explicitly noted as acting along with Judah only in 1:3 and 1:17, though the plural verbs in 1:4–5 could indicate that Simeon participated with Judah.

⁵⁷ Ashkelon, included in the list in Judg 1:18, is missing from Josh 15:45–47, making the texts only close parallels. LXX^AB adds Ashdod, contained in the MT of Josh 15:46–47, but not in the MT of Judg 1:18.

⁵⁸ Cross, Frank M. and Wright, G. Ernest, “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah,” JBL 75 (1956) 218.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ lōʾ lĕhōrîš of 1:19b is difficult. We read lĕ yākōl lĕhôrîš with the versions.

⁶⁰ On the oft-posited connection of the account of the defeat of Bethel with the taking of Ai, Joshua 7–8, see Boling and Wright, Joshua, 242–44.

⁶¹ Bethel is included in the territory of Benjamin in Josh 18:22. For a discussion of the way in which this Ephraimite territory came to be assigned to Benjamin, see Cross and Wright, “Boundary and Province Lists,” 222–23.

⁶² Bethel also serves as Israel's place of assemblage to decide the matter of wives for Benjamin (Joshua 21).

⁶³ The mas (Judg 1:28, 30, 33, 35), a specific form of compulsory labor to which certain conquered peoples were to be subjected (Deut 20:6), though not the inhabitants of Canaan, developed during the early period of the monarchy. See Rainey, A. F., “Compulsory Labour Gangs in Ancient Israel,” IEJ 20 (1970) 191–202.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ As noted above, the absence of Issachar, given an allotment in Josh 19:17–23, is unexplained.

⁶⁵ lt is clear that Joshua 18–19 begins a new section of the account of the apportioning of the land. While one might argue that these chapters derive ultimately from a different source, and hence make no reference to tribal failures, the essential datum remains the appearance of such failures in the redactional work of Judg 1:27–33.

⁶⁶ Boling, Judges, 61.

⁶⁷ Compare the fate of Judah in 1:19.

⁶⁸ The shift to Amorite in 1:34–35 from the more common Canaanite (vss 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30) is interesting. Both peoples are included among the nations to be utterly destroyed (Deut 7:1; 20:17). Judah (and Simeon) successfully defeats the Canaanites at Hormah. The northern tribes, on the other hand, are only able to put the Canaanites or Amorites to forced labor (1:27–35), an institution reserved explicitly for conquered residents of distant lands (Deut 20:11), not for the indigenous population of the land. Dan's failure to take the plain is thus equivalent to the failures of the other northern tribes.

⁶⁹ The har-ḥeres, “hill of the sun” (1:35), is commonly equated with the “city of the sun” (ʿîr šemeš) of Josh 19:41.

⁷⁰ The concluding verse of this otherwise carefully organized unit is difficult. As it stands, it gives a fragmentary description of the southern border of the land. The reference to the Amorites is commonly emended to read Edomites (e.g., Soggin, Judges, 25). If 1:36 is to be related to Josh 15:3, which describes the southern boundary of Judah as going southward from maʿātēh ʿaqrabbîm, then it would seem quite possible that the redactor has concluded his historical survey by returning to a reference at the beginning of the source which had supplied the bulk of his materials, Joshua 14–19. The conclusion of the “conquest” account would then be bordered not only by the Amorites, but also by the successes attributed to Judah.

⁷¹ Josh 17:17 attributes the failure of the house of Joseph, i.e., Ephraim and Manasseh, to take the plain to the fact that the Canaanites possessed chariots of iron. The redactor of Judg 1:1–36 has appropriated this explanation and reapplied it to Judah (1:19). Though Joshua had announced that Ephraim and Manasseh would succeed in dispossessing the Canaanites (Josh 17:17- 18), they are unable to do so in Judg 1:27–35.