“IN THE DAYS OF SHAMGAR”:

A CHRONOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES

FOR A LATE EXODUS DATE

Andrew Higginbotham

The dating of the Exodus in many regards depends on the dating of the Exodus and

Conquest. Since it is generally easier to fit the chronology of the book of Judges into the early-

date framework and such reconstructions have been done in multitude, this is an attempt to

reconstruct the chronology for the late-Exodus date. This attempt takes no position on the

Exodus debate, other than to show that a late date is also conceivable textually.

Any attempt to reconstruct the implicit messages of biblical texts that do not follow the

Western historigraphical conventions is fraught with danger. Though drawing from a literary-

critical perspective, E. T. A. Davidson cautions any reader of Judges “that to ignore anything is

fatal to understanding the book…[it] must be read as a whole, not piecemeal…. To make sense

of the book, its entire structure must be grasped.”1 A minimal number of assumptions should be

made, lest the reconstructor force the text to fit his pre-conceived view of the world at that time.

The Need for an Overlapping Chronology

Kitchen points out that regardless of which Exodus date is held, there are too many

textual years to fit the possible chronological years.2 Thus an overlapping chronology must be

adopted. Jo Ann Hackett resolves the tension by seeing two modes of transmission, one in epic

form with contrived rules in 20-year multiples and another in list form with “realistic” tenures.3

Alan J. Hauser however believes that some judges could have served concurrently.4 The

reconstructions proposed here assume then that some overlap occurs historically.

__________

1. E. T. A. Davidson, Intricacy, Design & Cunning in the Book of Judges, (Xlibris, 2008), 1-2.

2. Kitchen, Reliability, 307-308.

3. Jo Ann Hackett, “‘There Was No King in Israel’: The Era of the Judges” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D.

Coogan, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 140.

4. Alan J. Hauser, "The 'Minor Judges' - A Re-evaluation", Journal of Biblical Literature 94, no. 2 (June 1, 1975), 195.

Coincidentally, these two methods correspond loosely with the underlying assumption of

higher criticism of regionalism (read: northern/Elohist and southern/Jahwist) and functionalism

(read: Priestly and Deuteronomistic). Martin Noth’s work on classifying the judges as military

and amphictyonic (cultic), discussed this later functional parallelism, but his work has been

largely dismissed and with it, the potential value of that hypothesis.5 Thus a regional approach is

adopted to reconstruct any overlaps of judgeships. Evidence for regional overlapping can be

found in the text itself. Hackett thinks that the order of judges is not chronological, but

geographical, moving in general from south to north.6 It is also noteworthy that both classes of

major and minor judges are equally divided among the south and the north.

Many scholars of the book of Judges agree that much of the text is non-linear, but instead

cyclic or thematic in its structure. Alexander Rofé asserts that most biblical literature is arranged

symmetrically.7 Klaas Spronk points out parallels of the tribe of Dan and eleven hundred pieces

of silver in Judges 13 & 18 and Judges 16 & 18, respectively.8 Davidson identifies significant

chiastic structure between Judges 1-2 and 18-21.9 Given this macro-structure, it can be assumed

that the stories have been arranged for a non-historiographical reason.

Both Davidson and Hackett see the canonical order of stories as artificial.10

Davidson

also asserts that the author of Judges arranged the stories not only symmetrically in a complex

chiasmus, but also as a proto-Inferno with four cycles of increasing evil in the characters.11

She

__________

5. see Hauser, “Minor”, 1975, for one example.

6. Hackett, “No King, 138-139.

7. Alexander Rofé, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, (Jerusalem, Simor Ltd., 2009), 104.

8. Klaas Spronk, “From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History,

and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelius de Vos, (Boston, MA: Brill, 2009), 144.

9. Davidson, Intricacy, 62-64.

10. Davidson, Intricacy, 23-25; Hackett, “No King in Israel”, 133, 138.

11. Davidson, Intricacy, 27-43, 212, 214-215, 218-219.

also proposes that the original list of minor judges included Jephthah and Shamgar and thus

should be moved to the position between Ehud and Deborah.12

These reconstructions assume

then some sorting of narratives, given the evidence of the two types of source materials and

editorial crafting of the text.

For the purpose of initial consideration, the book of Judges is divided into three thematic

units. The sections are grounded by the narratives of Deborah, Gideon and Samson. The first

section includes the (thematic/theological) introduction and the Othniel narrative, anchored after

the time of Joshua. The third section also contains of the proposed appendix of tribal narratives.

This follow, for the most part, Davidson’s structure, who sees the Deborah and Samson stories as

an original stratum of adapted Ugaritic myths, for which the Gideon story was invented to

parallel them and then the other narratives were inserted accordingly.13

What she fails to see (or

at least to account for) is the high level of non-correspondence between Ugaritic society and the

society implied in Judges, though she mentions several striking differences.14

Rofé also connects

Samson and Deborah thematically through the common phenomenon of Spirit –indwelling in

Nazirites and (early) prophets.15

In the reconstructions, the tribal materials and the three major

judge sections will be interleaved, but their authenticity or significance must be established first.

Shamgar and Deborah, given the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), clearly anchor the first

section/cycle of judges. Rofé sees the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) as evidence of an early

Israelite poetic tradition.16

Raymond de Hoop sees it as originally a northern victory song

__________

12. Ibid., 21-23.

13. Ibid., 24-25, 120-121.

14. Ibid., 56, 376 n. 35.

15. Rofé, Introduction, 374-375.

16. Ibid., 293.

reworked by a southern redactor to disparage Ephraim/North over Judah/South.17

This

theological/political perspective, held by many modern higher critics, is irrelevant to the

historical reconstructions given the above-mentioned equality of treatment of judges in the text.18

The second section of Judges is anchored by the Gideon and Jephthah narratives. Hayyim

J. Angel sees the Gideon narrative as the turning point of the Book of Judges, in which the judge

begins to not act solely for the interests of Israel and YHWH, but also for himself.19

Judges 9 is

included in his opinion to resolve the tension of Gideon complex persona in the opposite lives of

his two (surviving) sons.20

Davidson sees the doubling theme throughout the Gideon narrative

for possibly the same reason.21

Chronologically, Lawrence E. Stager places Gideon and

Abimelech in the eleventh century BCE.22

The reconstructions however necessitates a earlier

Gideon narrative, a dilemma that must then be resolved by further archaeology of Midianite

presence in the Jordan Valley region.

The third section of Judges is centered on the Samson narrative. Rofé demarcates the

bounds of the “original” Judges and the later material as falling between Judges 16 and 17,

seeing a proto-history called the Ephraimite redaction composed of Joshua 24, Judges 3:12-

16:31, and I Samuel 1-12.23

His argument is somewhat compelling, but he fails to explain the

__________

17. Raymond de Hoop, “Judges 5 Reconsidered: Which Tribes? What Land? Whose Song?”, in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and

Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelius de Vos, (Boston, MA: Brill, 2009), 165.

18. see Davidson, Intricacy, 81, 273; Rofé, Introduction, 58; Spronk, “Joshua”, 145; and Nicolai Winther-Nielsen, “Fact, Fiction and

Language Use: Can Modern Pragmatics Improve on Halpern’s Case for History in Judges?”, in Windows into Old Testament History:

Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel”, ed. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham, (Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 63.

19. Hayyim J. Angel, Revealed Texts, Hidden Meanings: Finding the Religious Significance of Tanakh, (Jersey City, NJ: KTAV

Publishing House, 2009) 97, 104-105. 20. Angel, Revealed, 96.

21. Davidson, Intricacy, 120-122.

22. Lawrence E. Stager, “Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael

D. Coogan, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 107.

23. Rofé, Introduction, 52.

(assumed) insertion of Shamgar and the location of Samson’s exploits, both fighting the

Philstines in the south and he does admit that part of the Samson narrative (the riddle at the

wedding feast) seems early.24

Angel notes that the migration of Dan and Micah’s idol must occur at the beginning of

the Judges period due to the presence of Jonathan, grandson of Moses.25

Spronk sees the position

of the civil war against Benjamin as an intentional precursor to the Samuel/Saul/David narrative

due to the common topographical markers.26

The biblical text allows for these narratives to be

moved relative to the judges and the reconstructions place the Danite migration near the

beginning of the period, following Angel and the text of Joshua. The Benjaminite civil war is

less clear and its difficulties will be discussed later.

One example of the problems that plague historical reconstructions of the biblical texts is

the double destruction of Hazor, explicitly stated in Joshua 11:10-11 and strongly implied in

Judges 4:24. James K. Hoffmeier points out one difficulty for the chronological relationship of

Joshua’s conquest to Deborah and Barak’s battle: “It is hard to believe that the city that was the

‘head’ of all kingdoms of northern Canaan would so thoroughly be devastated by Joshua in 1400

BC and then rise from the ashes to be rebuilt to its peak of prosperity only to be demolished by a

much smaller force from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulon (Judg 4:6, 10) under Deborah and

Barak.”27

De Hoop, citing Yigael Yadin and Amnon Ben-Tor, agrees, thinking that “Hazor

could hardly have played the role it is assigned in the narrative, since it had been destroyed at the

__________

24. Ibid., 584.

25. Angel, Revealed, 81.

26. Spronk, “Joshua”, 141-142.

27. James K. Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 50 (2008), 244.

end of the Late Bronze Age and scarcely settled during Iron Age I.”28

Antoon Schoors resolves

the tension by seeing Judges 4 as a late gloss that still precedes the modification of Joshua 11, so

that Joshua preserves instead “an ancient tradition on the capture of Hazor by the tribes of

Israel.”29

However, it is not inconceivable that a strategic site such as Hazor would not be

quickly re-occupied and the reconstructions of the text provided below give ample time for such

re-establishment to take place.

A second issue is the interpretation of round numbers with potentially non-literal values.

Concerning the somewhat imprecision of numbers in the Bible, Umberto Cassuto proposes the

principal rule for their interpretation, which states that numerals listed in ascending magnitude

(ones, then tens, so forth) are “technical or statistical data…since the tendency to exactness in

these instances causes the smaller numbers to be given precedence and prominence.”30

Otherwise, “the natural and spontaneous…descending order” can be taken as possibly symbolic

or imprecise. Davidson also infers that the numbers are inexact in this period, with her analysis

of the casualty numbers in the book compared with archaeological evidence of inhabitation.31

The reconstructions follow the values given in the text since they are governed by the ordering of

the judges, but admit that some variance may be present and the exact dates are thus in flux.

Three Overlapping Chronologies Considered

One solution that overlaps the judges by allowing neighboring regions to have

__________

28. de Hoop, “Judges”, 157.

29. Antoon Schoors, “The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument”, in The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of

Civilizations, E. Lipiński, (Leuven, BE: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 79; see also de Hoop, “Judges”, 156, for opposite dependence.

30. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew

University, 1961), 52.

31. Davidson, Intricacy, 76-78, 99, 155, 379 n.5-6.

simultaneous judges is proposed by K. A. Kitchen.32

He preserves the order of judges as

recorded in the book of Judges and manages to fit the events between a 1200 BC conquest and

the 1042 BC accession of Saul and attributes a historical position only to the Danite migration,

not to the civil war against Benjamin.

With regard to the 480 years cited by Solomon in I Kings 6:1, Kitchen proposes two

solutions. The first is to view the number as 12 x 40 year “ideal” generations, which is then

converted to 12 x 25 real-year generations, giving the 300± span from Exodus to Solomon.33

This, however, is infeasible given Cassuto’s principal rule of numbers. The second solution is to

view the 480 years as an idealized 12-epoch history of Israel.34

What is somewhat inconsistent in

his method is his selective use of numbers as real, if they support his system, and

“fatuous…baseless speculation” if they do not fit.35

A final difficulty with the Kitchen reconstruction is the overlap of judges in regions that

have different depictions in the biblical text. His ordering has Ehud ruling over Benjamin (east-

central Israel) while Jabin is oppressing Ephraim (central Israel). Why would the text note that

the next-door neighbor (Benjamin) has years of peace (Judges 3:30) while Ephraim must call on

distant Galilee (i.e. Barak) to help repel the oppressor? Additionally, Kitchen has Gideon

governing over Manasseh (north-central Israel) and yet we are to believe that Deborah does not

also elicit his help?36

Though textually feasible, Kitchen’s reconstruction seems at points

inadequate.

___________

32. Kitchen, Reliability, 206, Table 14.

33. Ibid., 307.

34. Ibid., 308-309.

35. Ibid., 308.

36. Ibid., 207, Table 15.

Another solution is to follow the literary re-arrangement proposed in Davidson, which

yields two possible reconstructions.37

Davidson advocates that Jephthah and Shamgar are

actually extracted from an earlier, stylistic list of judges. Since she does not propose which of the

two outliers goes in the early position in the reconstructed list, both possibilities must be

explored, as shown in Table 1 below. If Shamgar (and due to the allusion to him in Judges 5:6,

also Deborah and Barak) is placed early and Jephthah late in the chronology, Ehud and Gideon

are removed from the time of Jabin and Deborah, resulting also in a reconstruction with no

inadvertent overlaps of oppressors and judges and a unique explanation for the Ephraim/Gilead

conflict.38

If Shamgar is placed late (and Jephthah early), an additional assumption must be made

in order to fit the age of the judges between the Conquest date of 1210 and the accession of Saul

in 1042. One must assume that the phrase “after him” implies a sequential relationship to the

major judge last listed.39

This affects Jair, who is then located after Abimelech and

contemporaneous with Tola, and the three judges of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, who then all follow

Jephthah (regarded here as a major judge given the extended narrative for him). There is then

again no overlap of oppressor and judge not indicated in the biblical text.

Two difficulties remain with these two reconstructions. First, the placement of Shamgar,

regardless of literary position, in the middle of the 40-year Philistine oppression of southern

Judah is problematic. One must then read in the reduced text concerning Shamgar a temporary

push-back against the Philistines that does not have the lasting effect of the later Samson

___________

37. Davidson, Intricacy, 21-22.

38. See Figure 1. Midian is described in the biblical text as raiding Manasseh, not occupying it. Also Ammon is described as oppressing

only Gilead since it is only their leaders that call on Jephthah and make him their leader. Coincidentally, Ephraim crosses the Jordan

with no recorded leader, which fits with the death of Abdon in 1055.

39. See Figure 2. Hauser, “Minor”, 194, argues that the phrase "after him" implies only sequence, not immediacy.

judgeship. This is possible, but allows for the position adopted by many literary scholars of

Judges to see Shamgar as a reflection of Samson, dismissing one or the other. Most critics would

probably then dismiss what they regard as the un-Israelite and almost-mythical Samson narrative

as a literary expansion of the relatively forgotten Shamgar.

Second, the location of the Benjaminite civil war in relation to the judges is difficult to

chart on the reconstructions. Two possibilities remain that would fit the cultural and political

context proposed. Benjamin, decimated by the internecine war, is weakened, allowing for the

ascension of Eglon in 1200. Alternately, the death/twilight of Ehud (dynasty?) in c. 1102 allows

for the depraved character described in the text. Given the mention of Phineas as part of the war,

the first/early option is preferred. However this places the in-fighting quite close to the time of

Joshua and makes Ehud somewhat tainted as the half-breed offspring of a disgraced father.40

The

late option fits the larger regional context of foreign powers (Philistines and Jabin/Hazor)

moving into a weakened Israel c. 1102. However this makes difficult the reading of Phineas as

priest at the time, given no priest of the direct lineage bore that name at the time.41

Two interesting patterns do emerge from the reconstructions. First, in both Shamgar

positions, a political void appears in Cisjordan around 1102, which the reconstructions then place

the expansion of both Philistia from the south and Hazor from the north as oppressors. Second, in

the Shamgar-late reconstruction, Ammon also rises to power in Transjordan during a previous

__________

40. This is still possible, given the near civil war that results from the building of the Altar of Witness in Joshua 22. The reference to

Ehud’s left-handedness could also be seen as the result of his poor pedigree or an injury incurred in the war.

41. See Figure 3, “Priest”. This also puts pressure on the reading of I Samuel 9:1-2, in which the extended genealogy of Saul is abruptly

terminated at “the son of a Benjamite”, which is preferred as the disgraced position of the line than making Abiel the disgraced father

of half-breed-Kish.

political lull in 1134/1133. Though no archaeology has been found to support the period of the

judges directly, it may be possible to detect these expansions in a broader context and validate

the reconstructions given.

Conclusion

For those who hold to an inerrant text that should be validated by the archaeological

record, the book of Judges is problematic. Not only is the material evidence for such a rapidly

shifting and undoubtedly cross-cultural occupation difficult to discern so far removed from the

period, the typically literal readings of the text create issues of their own in constructing a

hypothesis in order to test against the occupational remnants. If, however, the commonly-held

evangelical belief that the book of Judges communicates a cycle of sin and redemption for the

people of Israel between Moses and David is also applied to explain re-arrangements of the

narratives from their original historical positions into their present literary/theological positions,

reconstructions that nonetheless support the inerrantist view can be achieved. Such support can

then be demonstrated for both the early and late Exodus dates without jeopardy to the

authenticity of the text or to the archaeology of the region.

TABLE 1: Judges color-coded by biblical position and arranged by reconstruction

Biblical order Shamgar early Shamgar late

Intro-Othniel Intro-Othniel Intro-Othniel

Ehud Ehud Ehud

Shamgar/Deborah/Barak Gideon Gideon

Gideon Abimelech Abimelech

Abimelech Tola Tola/Jair

Tola Jair Jephthah

Jair Shamgar/Deborah/Barak Ibzan/Elon/Abdon

Jephthah Ibzan Shamgar/Deborah/Barak

Ibzan Elon Samson

Elon Abdon

Abdon Jephthah

Samson Samson

FIGURE 1: Shamgar early (in third minor judge position, from Davidson, Intricacy, 21-22,

following form of Kitchen, 206-207)

Year SW - Phil S Judah/Negev

E Central –

Benjamin

Central –

Ephraim

N Central –

Manasseh Galilee Transjordan

1210

Danite

migration?

Joshua and

Elders?

Joshua and

Elders?

Joshua and

Elders?

Joshua and

Elders?

1200

Cushan-R

(1200-1192)

Eglon

(1200-1182)

1190

Othniel

(1192-1152)

1180

Ehud

(1182-1102)

1170

Midian

(1175-1168)

1160

Gideon

(1168-1128)

1150

(vacante

after 1152)

1140

1130

Abimelech

(1128-1125)

1120

Tola

(1125-1102)

1110

1100

Philistines

(c. 1102-1062)

(vacante

after 1102)

Jabin

(1102-1082)

Jair

(1102-1080)

1090

1080

Shamgar

(c. 1082)

Ibzan

(1080-1073)

Deborah

(c. 1082)

Barak

(c. 1082)

1070

Eli

(1072-1042)

Elon

(1073-1063)

Ammon

(1073-1055)

1060

Samson

(1062-1042)

Samuel

(1062-1042)

Abdon

(1063-1055)

1050

Jephthah

(1055-1049)

1040

sons of Samuel

(c. 1045)

Saul crowned king

(1042 BC)

KEY: black = judge, red = oppressor, green = best-fit position, yellow = problematic placement

FIGURE 2: Shamgar late (seventh minor judge position, from Davidson, Intricacy, 21-22,

following form of Kitchen, 206-207)

Year SW – Phil S Judah/Negev

E Central –

Benjamin

Central –

Ephraim

N Central –

Manasseh Galilee Transjordan

1210

Danite

migration?

Joshua and

Elders?

Joshua and

Elders?

Joshua and

Elders?

Midian

(1206-1199)

1200

Cushan-R

(c. 1200 - 1192)

Eglon

(c. 1200-1182)

Gideon

(1199-1159)

1190

Othniel

(c. 1192-1152)

1180

Ehud

(c. 1182-1102)

1170

1160

Abimelech

(1159-1156)

1150

(vacante

after 1152)

Tola

(1156-1133)

Jair

(1156-1134)

1140

1130

Ammon

(1134-1116)

1120

Jephthah

(1116-1110)

1110

Ibzan

(1110-1103)

(vacante

after 1102)

Abdon

(1110-1102)

Elon

(1110-1100)

1100

Philistines

(1102-1062)

Jabin

(1102-1082)

1090

1080

Shamgar

(c. 1082)

Deborah

(c. 1082)

Barak

(c. 1082)

1070

Eli

(1072-1042)

1060

Samson

(1062-1042)

Samuel

(1062-1042)

1050

sons of Samuel

(c. 1045)

1040

Saul crowned king

(1042 BC)

KEY: black = judge, red = oppressor, green = best-fit position, yellow = problematic placement

FIGURE 3: Comparison of Generations Recorded (as partly proposed by T. J. Betts42

)

Priest43

Levite

(I)44

Levite (II)45

King (I)46

King (II)47

Judges Appendix

1 Aaron Moses Korah

2 Eleazar Gershom Ebiasaph Salmon/Rahab Joshua

3 Phinehas Jonathan Assir

Othniel

Micah and

Danites;48

War with

Benjamin

4 Abishua Tahath R (Moab)

4.5 e Ehud

5 Bukki Zephaniah d

6 Uzzi Azariah u Shamgar/(Jabin)

6.5 c Deborah/Barak

7 Zerahiah Joel e

7.5 d (Midian)/Gideon

8 Meriaioth Elkanah

8.5 G Abimelech/Tola

9 Amariah Amasai e Jair

9.5 n (Ammon)

10 Ahitub Mahath e Jephthah/Ibzan/Elon

10.5 a Abdon/(Philistines)

11 Zadok Elkanah o

11.5 Samuel?49

l Samson

12 Ahimaaz Zuph (Benjamite)9 o

War with

Benjamin50

13 Toah Aphiah g

14 Eliel Becorath Y51

15 Jeroham Zeror

16 Elkanah Abiel Boaz/Ruth

17 Samuel Kish Obed

18 Joel Saul Jesse

19 Zadok Heman David

20 Azariah Solomon KEY: assumes “20 years” = 1 generation; black = from text, red = theoretical position, green = best-fit position

42. T. J. Betts, “Dating the Exodus”, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 12:3 (fall 2008), 87-88. 43. 1Ch 6:50-53; 2Sa 8:17; 1Ki 4:1

44. Judg 18:30

45. 1Ch 6:33-37; possibly 1Sa 1

46. 1Sa 9:1-2

47. Rut 4:21-22; Mat 1:5

48. Stager, “Forging”, 91, 125 sees the migration of Dan as related to the influx of Philistines one generation after the Conquest.

49. Spronk, “Joshua “, 142-144 notes several parallels between the birth narratives of Samson and Samuel.

50. Davidson, Intricacy, 198, 263 proposes a late date of the civil war, seeing a common thread of drunkenness with 1 Samuel 1, so Saul

might be a direct descendent of Jabesh-Gilead.

51. Could the abbreviation of geneaology follow Judah in Judges? (they "disappear")?

REFERENCES

Angel, Hayyim J. Revealed Texts, Hidden Meanings: Finding the Religious Significance of

Tanakh, Jersey City, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 2009.

Betts, T. J. “Dating the Exodus” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 12:3 (fall 2008),

82-95.

Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch,

Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1961.

Davidson, E. T. A. Intricacy, Design & Cunning in the Book of Judges, Xlibris, 2008.

de Hoop, Raymond, “Judges 5 Reconsidered: Which Tribes? What Land? Whose Song?”, in The

Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed.

Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelius de Vos, Boston, MA: Brill, 2009, 151-166.

Hackett, Jo Ann, “‘There Was No King in Israel’: The Era of the Judges” in The Oxford History

of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan, New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

1998, 132-164.

Hauser, Alan J. "The 'Minor Judges' - A Re-evaluation", Journal of Biblical Literature 94, no. 2

(June 1, 1975): 190-200.

Hess, Richard S. “Israelite Identity and Personal Names from the Book of Judges”, Hebrew

Studies 44 (2003), 25-39.

-----, “Non-Israelite Personal Names in the Book of Joshua”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58:2

(April 1996) 205-214.

-----, “The Name Game: Dating the Book of Judges” Biblical Archaeology Review,

November/December 2004, 38-41.

Hoffmeier, James K. “What is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”,

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2008), 225-247.

Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing, 2003.

Rofé, Alexander, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem, Simor Ltd.,

2009

Schoors, Antoon, “The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument”,

in The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipiński, Leuven, BE:

Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985, 77-92.

Spronk, Klaas, “From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges” in

The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed.

Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelius de Vos, Boston, MA: Brill, 2009.

Stager, Lawrence E. “Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel” in The Oxford

History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan, New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 1998, 90-131

Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai, “Fact, Fiction and Language Use: Can Modern Pragmatics Improve on

Halpern’s Case for History in Judges?”, in Windows into Old Testament History:

Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel”, ed. V. Philips Long, David W.

Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing,

2002), 44-81.