When was Judges written?

Judges. According to generally accepted Jewish tradition, Samuel was the writer of this book. The remark, "In those days there was no king in Israel," four times repeated (Judges 17:6; Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1; Judges 21:25) would show that the book was written after the establishment of Monarchy in Israel, but before the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jebusites by David (for this compare Judges 1:21, with 2 Sam. 5:6-9). The administration of the thirteen Judges from Othniel to Samson embraced a period of about three hundred years. The last five chapters form an important appendix which must be placed historically at a very early period of the book. The reference to Phinehas (Judges 20:28) would prove this. This supplementary part discloses the moral condition of the people — one of lawlessness, anarchy, and idolatry.

The land was the land in connection with Dan, and especially of Zorah and Eshtaol. Now this was the very part of the land that was captive to the Philistines. There Samson was born and there his doings. The Northern Danites came thence, and set up their teraphim before Samson. It continued as long as the House of God was in Shiloh, a few years after this. Samson judged Israel twenty years. Then there was Eli still in the time of the Philistines; he judged Israel forty years. This image of Micah was there all the time the house of God was in Shiloh; this gives a date. The captivity of the land was the Philistine captivity. There being no king shows nothing but that there were kings elsewhere, compare Psalm 78:58-61. And note, they were priests to the tribe of Dan, not to the northern part of it; so the men said "To a tribe in Israel." Were it not for verse 31 (Judges 18), one might well suppose verse 30 to be a prophetic, later addition; in this case, "the captivity of the land" might mean the Assyrian. But Jonathan is none the less a near descendant of Moses, and the question is one of interpretation, whether the captivity refers to the Philistines or a later one; if a later, then verse 30 is a prophetic addition. This I think very probable. The Judges, written in Samuel's time or thereabouts, go down to Shiloh. The prophetic addition shows the idolatry to have continued till the captivity. But this in no way affects the question as to Jonathan, or the date of his name.

The book of Judges describes the time after the death of Joshua (Judges 1:1; 2:8) up to the end of Samson's life (Judges 16:31).

The following statements in Judges indicate its origin at the beginning of King Saul's reign:

We read in chapter 1:21: ". but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day." According to 2 Samuel 5:6-8 only David conquered Jerusalem. Judges 1:21 therefore had to been written before that.

The repeated mention of the fact that there was no king in Israel (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) indicates a time of writing during the beginning of the kingdoms in Israel.

As in many other books in the Old Testament the author of the book of Judges is not mentioned either. According to ancient Jewish tradition the author was Samuel the prophet, who lived at the times of Saul and David around the year 1000 BC.

Judges 18 shows that the moral condition, especially of the priest-Levite, was as bad as the religious state. His heart was glad of a better living and of a larger sphere (verses 19, 20), as he goes off from the house of Micah with the lawless children of Dan to blot out Laish with fire and sword, and call their new city after their own name, where the graven image was set up, and a succession that failed not till the day of the captivity of the land; for error takes root faster, and bears fruit more luxuriantly as well as permanently than the truth.* Yet there is little reason to suppose that the exile of the land means Shalmaneser's, but rather under the Philistines; for it was merely all the time the house of God was in Shiloh. There being no king is in contrast with other lands which had kings, as Israel themselves subsequently. (Compare Ps. 78:60-61) Such are the prominent points of instruction in this appendix. The first and gravest departure is that Jehovah could be so forgotten and so shamelessly dishonoured as to set up in His name a rival; and the more seriously it was set about, so much the worse. It was flying in the face of His law and word to have an idol; it was adding profane insult to enter on its worship with such ceremony as to get a Levite consecrated priest in order to invest it with solemnity. We have seen the political confusion: here is the religious aspect of Israel so soon after entering the holy land!

(3) The third part shows us, briefly, the end of this sad story. The surprise of Laish is complete; and the Canaanites, doomed of God before, are cut off. Laish becomes Dan. But there the idolatrous system begun by Micah is established, and abides till the captivity of the land; that is, as we are informed, as long as the house of God continued at Shiloh. When the ark went into captivity among the Philistines, the sanctuary at Shiloh came to an end (Ps. 78:60-61); and with the reformation under Samuel, the idolatry under Dan was no doubt swept away.

Jonathan forsook the God of his grandfather, the leader and lawgiver of Israel, and encouraged the worship of idols. Prompted apparently by avarice and ambition, he originated and established that succession of idolatrous priesthood which continued in the tribe of Dan through many centuries "until the day of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30), that is, until the ten northern tribes, some six centuries later, were carried away by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17). It will be remembered that when the usurper, Jeroboam, set up the two calves of gold to be the gods of Israel, he placed one in Dan and one in Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-30). The subtle, poisonous, Satanic influence of Dan upon his fellow-tribes seems to be implied in dying Jacob's prophecy (Gen. 49:17), describing Dan as "a serpent on the way, a horned snake on the path." This pernicious influence is first indicated historically by the installation of Micah's graven image in the city of Dan (Judges 18:29-31). The corruption was increased under the successive kings of Israel, until Amos, before the Assyrian captivity, prophesied of the judgment that should fall upon those "that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, As thy god, O Dan, lives" (Amos 8:14). The serpent's venom had then spread from Dan throughout the whole land, and was beyond cure. But at the beginning a Levite, the grandson of Moses, was the chief organiser of this idolatry!

The author of the book of Ruth is unknown. The conclusion of the book shows that it must have been written after David had been made king. However the late date assigned to it by the critics, after the exile, is incorrect. We do not enter into their arguments. Any intelligent reader must see at once that its place between judges and Samuel is the right place, for it is as sequel to the former and an introduction to the latter. If we read the books of Samuel we discover that they do not contain any reference whatever to the ancestors of the house of David. To supply this deficiency is one of the reasons why this book was written. It is more than probable that Samuel is the author.

An author is not mentioned in Ruth. As the genealogy in chapter 4:17.22 goes down to King David this short book of Ruth was written at the time of David (around 1000 BC). According to the Babylonian Talmud of the Jews Samuel the prophet may have been the author of the book of Ruth. This view is shared by many Bible expositors.

The witness to man's condition here is, as commonly, a double one; and as the second table of the law is based upon the first, it is with the first that we must begin. The idolatry in Dan precedes in moral order, probably historically also, the Benjamite war, though the latter was early, for Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, was then high priest. On the other hand, the seizure of Laish or Leshem by the Danites is given in the book of Joshua (19:47). It is quite plain, therefore, that we have thus a new beginning, all the more significant as looked back to from the end, as God will one day require again the things that are past.