News

This section is better understood if you read Dr Block's commentary: "21:17 The Hebrew of v. 17 is difficult. It would be rendered literally, “a possession for the survivors of Benjamin and a tribe must not be blotted out from Israel.”394 But the awkward construction captures the vexed emotional state of the elders. They seem to be concerned about two separate but related issues. First, since the word yĕruššâ, “possession,” usually refers to the land allotted to the nation of Israel or one of its tribes,395 the elders seem to be worried about how this small group of survivors will retain possession of the tribe of Benjamin’s territorial allotment.396 Second, rephrasing the notion expressed in v. 6, they express concern that the four hundred Benjamites who have been provided with wives will not be able to maintain the tribe’s independent existence within the twelve-tribe confederacy. To prevent the tribe from being blotted out they must find wives for all the Benjamites who survived the battle. The shift in verbs from gādaʿ, “to hack off,” in v. 6 to māḥâ, “to blot out, wipe out,” heightens the crisis since in the majority of cases in the Old Testament the latter describes the disappearance of the name or the memory of a person or group.397 Not only is this the worst fate one could experience, but it would leave the nation with a permanent blank in its roster of tribes. 394 Many add אֵיךְ תִּשָּׁאֵר to the first phrase on the basis of some LXX MSS, which begin the sentence with πῶς ἔσται, reading, “How shall an inheritance remain for the Benjamite survivors …?” Thus Boling, Judges, 290. Soggin (Judges, 298–99) claims to follow the LXX, but he leaves יְרֻשַּׁת unaccounted for. 395 This observation renders unlikely the NIV’s and the NRSV’s “heirs.” The only exception is 2 Chr 20:11, which treats Judah as Yahweh’s. Cf Deut 2:5, 9, 19; 3:20: Josh 1:15; Jer 32:8; Ps 61:6. See further Block, Gods of the Nations, 80–81. 396 In which case יְרֻשַּׁת פְּלֵיטָה לְבִנְיָמִן could be translated something like “It is a [territorial] possession of a survivor belonging to Benjamin.” 397 See HALOT 2.567 for references. Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 578–579."

This section needs the clarification from Dr Block's Commentary because the "the man, the Levite ..." does not appear in English translations. His commentary reads: "Whether or not the question was addressed to him, the Levite is the first to speak. But note how carefully the speaker is introduced: he is (lit.) “the man, the Levite, the husband of the murdered woman.” The first expression simply reflects the fact that he is a man among men, gathered at Mizpah. The second is ironic. As a Levite, a member of the tribe charged with spiritual oversight in Israel, he should have taken the responsibility to lead, especially at an assembly before Yahweh; but as his speech will demonstrate, spiritual leadership is the farthest thing from his mind. As the husband of the murdered woman he is presented as an aggrieved party. And it is as an aggrieved party that he will speak." Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 552–553.