![]() ![]() 1:1-2:5: ‘the double intention of an exilic Deuteronomistic redactor.’ Artificially composing Judg.1:1-2:5 based on the old and new materials, the redactor not only promotes the relatively positive image of Judah, but also provides a smooth transition from the overall positive portrayal of the Israelite conquest in Joshua to the negative evaluation of the failure of Israelites’ conquest at the beginning of Judges (2:6-3:6). While critically interacting with the previous scholarship, I will propose a new way to understand Judg. 1:1-2:5 as transitional material between Joshua and Judges. ![]() Second, literary critics attempt to read the text within the direct context of Judges and to set literary or thematic connections between Judg. They approach the text from the perspective of the broad context of the Deuteronomistic History. 1:1-2:5 as pro-Judahite redactional material. 1:1-2:5 there? What is the function of this additional material? Scholarly research has been threefold. Then, we can ask, why does the redactor place Judg. 2:6-9 also forms a Wiederaufnahme, a common device for inserting additional material. The approximate repetition of Josh 24:28-31 in Judg. 1:1-2:5 is somehow dangled between Joshua and Judges. Since the stories of the judges (3:7-16:31) have a Deuteronomistic introduction in Judg. Judges 1:2-2:5 is generally considered as a later addition to the main body of the book of Judges. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |