Talk:Book of Judges

message: This sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction seems to be missing a word or two: 'The details of this history's composition are still widely debated, but most scholars [MISSING WORDS] the book's final form in the 6th century BCE and the community of the Babylonian exile.' -jqgill
KW: Possible typo in the Appendices section: "...set in the time of the judges but do discuss the judges" should read "...set in the time of the judges but do not discuss the judges" ??
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhittingham (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hope this fleshes things out a bit. I'm going to do the rest later. This has been quite an educational experience, actually! - Ta bu shi da yu 19:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Intro (1:1-3:6) 

message: This edit reverting cited material was not necessary.  This is not a fringe theory by a single academic.  I googled "Book of Judges redaction 722" and came up with the following reliable sources:  .
I am sure more can be found.  I intend on restoring the cited material within the next few days.  --GHcool (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include 722 in your search naturally you're going to come up with sources that support it. To my mind it runs counter to the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, which is pretty much a consensus. For that reason I'd like to know where it sits in terms of the mainstream. Can you find something on that?PiCo (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: What does AMit actually say? The first of those sources you link ("Origin Myths...") seems to say that Amit is just talking about Judges 17-18. which would be very narrow and quite within the DtrH consensus (nobody believes that the Josianic editors didn't use sources). I can't quite see the relevance of the second link (O'Connell) - I don't have time to read him at length, but he seems to accept the DtrH.PiCo (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've found what Amit says. He says that the normal scholarly view is the DtrH - a Josianic redaction with post-Josianic revision. The view he's advancing falls outside this "widespread agreement". As such, I don't think we should mention it.PiCo (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  --GHcool (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to just accept what I say - I'm quite happy to have counter-arguments :) 06:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  THere's also some interesting ideas put forward in the thread above this one - might be interesting to develop them. PiCo (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice that you say that, but frankly, I'm a novice when it comes to biblical studies and what you say seems pretty reasonable.  Would you like to take a stab at doing something like what the thread above suggests and I'll take a look? I'm afraid I'm a little out of my depth to start it myself.  --GHcool (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redaction 

message: Articles on books of the Bible mention it’s historical value and such. But it’s not in here for some reason.
I don’t do too much on this topic but I’m gonna see what I can do about this.CycoMa (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: The section entitled 'The Deuteronomistic History' contains the statement: 
"Twice, this statement ["In those days there was no king in Israel"] is accompanied with the statement "every man did that which was right in his own eyes", implying that the redactor is pro-monarchy."
The supporting link is simply to scriptural quotation itself. In fact, there is little logical reason to claim that "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" implies support for the monarchy. In Biblical criticism, there is a fair amount of debate over the stance of Deuteronomist on the monarchy with support for both sides.  [See Norton Critical Edition of King James Bible]. Ultimately there is a fair amount of ambiguity on the subject. 'Every man doing what is right in his eyes' can be read as a positive or negative. 
Later comments in 'Theme and Genre' do qualify above claims about a monarchist slant. However, they do so by identifying the redactor as living in Judah in Josiah's time. Yet in the preface to Judges in the Norton Critical Edition of The English Bible, editor Herbert Marks writes, '...the core stories [...] were probably composed, or at least assembled, by an exilic scribe...' That is to say, after the reign of Josiah. [pg. 442. Norton].
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobotBoy66 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Deuteronomistic History 

message: The only source provided that Abimelech was named "judge" or "shophet" meaning a "chieftain" - rather than a judge in the sense that all the other judges listed in this article are called judges - refers to the passage in the Bible itself (see reference 10).  But Judges 9:22 uses the Hebrew word root of "shophet" to refer to Abimelech, saying he reigned/judged Israel for three years.  This is the exact same word root used for Tola and Jair in Judges 10:2 and Judges 10:3 respectively.
Unless a better source can be provided to refute Abimelech's status as a judge, then I suggest that Abimelech should be stated as a judge in this article.  Also that the italics should be removed for Abimelech from the table in the top right of the article, which suggests that names in italics aren't stated to be judges in the Bible.  I suggest that Judges 9:22 clearly states that Abimelech reigned/judged Israel for three years. DiverseSynergy (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ablimelech