Professor Moore’s Commentary On The Book Of Judges -- By: Anonymous
BSac 53:210 (April 1896) p. 266
Professor Moore’s Commentary On The Book Of Judges1
THIS is one of the series issued by Charles Scribner’s Sons, under the editorship of Drs. Briggs, Driver, and Plummer. It is mechanically well executed, and the proof-reading appears to be noticeably thorough. It has the merit of great condensation, by the use of abbreviations instead of complete titles of works referred to, and by the abundant use of smaller type for the minuter critical notes and remarks. It includes brief grammatical observations on nearly ninety points, and incidentally discusses, more or less, some forty-eight passages outside of Judges, one-third of them in the book of Joshua. It shows extensive scholarship in certain lines, and aims to give a summary of different opinions, many of which are more matters of curiosity than of importance. The views and methods with which the author is most in sympathy are those of the very advanced German school, and he rather summarily disposes of expositions like those of the Speaker’s Commentary, Cassel (in Lange), and Keil, as well as of most authorities, e. g. Sayce (pp. 24, 26, 85) and Conder (pp. 47, 212), that are not in accord with his views. At the same time, he admits that Bachmann’s unfinished commentary, though “his standpoint is that of Hengstenberg, and he is a staunch opponent of modern criticism of every shade and school,” yet “in range and accuracy of scholarship and exhaustive thoroughness of treatment stands without a rival,”—a somewhat noteworthy fact.
BSac 53:210 (April 1896) p. 267
As to the date of Judges, the author assigns the introductory account, 1–2:5, to an editor later than 2-6, 17-21, which last was not written before the beginning of the sixth century B. C, and very likely “some decades later,” although partly derived from two older sources, one belonging to the first half of the ninth century, the other (E E2) to the end of the eighth or first half of the seventh; while 17–21: contains two old “stories” (Micah and the Gibeon outrage), the latter very old, but overlaid with later “versions” or “strata,” the “secondary version” being the product of the fourth century B. C.
This, however, is but a general statement of the case: for we encounter in the sequel a multitude of interpolations, glosses, displacements, redactions, harmonizings, changes by “the editor,” “a later editor,” “a later writer,” “addition of a scribe,” “more than one source,” etc., indefinitely. In addition to these conveniences, there ...
Click here to subscribe