Of all the tribes of Israel, why is Benjamin cast in the role of the villainous âotherâ in Judges 19-21? Krisel argues that the anti-Benjamin Tendenz in the narrative reflects economic, political and ideological tensions between the Golah community, the deportees who returned from Babylon during the early Persian period, and the people who had not gone into exile, who lived primarily in the Benjamin region. The hypothesis is supported by archaeological and survey data largely overlooked by biblical scholars and by a careful redaction history of the text. Krisel engages critically with the predominant scholarly view that Judges 19-21 uses âironyâ to cast the explicit heroes in the narrative, the sons of Israel, as the implicit villains.
Introduction: Judges 19â21 and the âOtheringâ of Benjamin: A Golah Polemic against the Autochthonous Inhabitants of the Land?
part 1: Text
1 Text Critical Problems in Judges 19â21
â1âPrincipal Differences between BHS and BHQ Judges 19â21
â2âNew Methodological Approach of BHQ to Textual Criticism
â3âDetermining the âPreferredâ Text of Judges 19â21
â4âChapter Summary
2 Judges 19â21 in Canonical Context
â1âJudges 19â21 in the Broad Canonical Context of Judges 13â1 Samuel 7
â2âLiterary Relationship between Judges 17â18 and Judges 19â21
â3âLiterary Relationship between Judges 19â21 and 1 Samuel 1â7
â4âLiterary Associations between Judges 19â21 and Ruth
â5âChapter Summary
3 Literary Structure of Judges 19â21
â1âStatus Quæstionis Concerning the Literary Structure of Judges 19â21
â2âStructural Indicia of Caesuras in Judges 19â21
â3âProposed Literary Structure for Judges 19â21
â4âConclusions
â5âChapter Summary
part 2: Texture
4 The Narratorâs Evaluative Point of View
â1âEvaluative Point of View in Judges 19â21
â2âPosition 1: The Narrator Portrays the Sons of Israel as Heroes
â3âPosition 2: The Narrator Portrays the Sons of Israel as Heroes but Readers Should Reject This Evaluation
â4âPosition 3: The Narrator Uses Irony and Absurd Humor to Portray the Sons of Israel as Villains
â5âPosition 4: The Narrator Uses a âNon-Criticalâ Evaluative Point of View Characteristic of âFoundation Mythsâ
â6âTowards a Methodology for Determining the Narratorâs Evaluative Point of View
â7âConclusions
â8âChapter Summary
5 The Phenomenon of Intertextuality in Judges 19â21
â1âMethodology and the Phenomenon of Intertextuality in the HB
â2âSynchronic and Diachronic Approaches to the Analysis of Intertextuality
â3âEdenburgâs Analysis of Intertextuality in Judg 19:22â24
â4âConclusions
â5âChapter Summary
part 3: Context
6 Understanding the Anti-Benjamin Tendenz in Judges 19â21
â1âStatus Quæstionis through the End of the 20th Century
â2âRecent Iterations of the âAnti-Saulâ Political Polemic Hypothesis
â3âCritique of the âAnti-Saulâ Political Polemic Hypothesis
â4âMethodological Weaknesses of the Hypothesis
â5âConclusions
â6âChapter Summary
7 Situating the Anti-Benjamin Tendenz in Judges 19â21 in Historical Context
â1âArchaeological and Survey Data from the Benjamin Region
â2âInterpretation of Archaeological Data by Biblical Commentators
â3âRelations between the Golah and Those Who Remained in the Land
â4âNew Hypothesis to Explain the Anti-Benjamin Bias in Judges 19â21
â5âChapter Summary
part 4: Textualization
8 Methodological Problems in Diachronic Analysis
â1âBasic Models for Understanding the Compositional History of Judges 19â21
â2âRecommendations for Methodological Controls in Redaction Criticism
â3âChapter Summary
9 Compositional History of Judges 19
â1âCompositional History of Judges 19:1â10aB
â2âCompositional History of Judges 19:10aCâ21
â3âCompositional History of Judges 19:22â30
â4âChapter Summary
10 Compositional History of Judges 20
â1âCompositional History of Judges 20:1â17
â2âCompositional History of Judges 20:18â31a
â3âCompositional History of Judges 20:31bâ48
â4âChapter Summary
11 Compositional History of Judges 21
â1âCompositional History of Judges 21:1â5
â2âCompositional History of Judges 21:6â23a
â3âCompositional History of Judges 21:23bâ25
â4âChapter Summary