In Defense Of Paneling As A Clue To The Chronology Of Judges: A Critique Of Andrew Steinmann’s Reply -- By: Robert B. Chisholm, Jr.

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 53:2 (Jun 2010)
Article: In Defense Of Paneling As A Clue To The Chronology Of Judges: A Critique Of Andrew Steinmann’s Reply
Author: Robert B. Chisholm, Jr.


In Defense Of Paneling As A Clue To The Chronology Of Judges: A Critique Of Andrew Steinmann’s Reply

Robert B. Chisholm, Jr.

Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. is chair and professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, 3909 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, TX 75204.

In my article “The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to Solving a Pesky Problem” (JETS 52 [2009] 247-55), I suggested that the absence of יסף in Judg 6:1 is a clue that the accounts in the central section of the book are not arranged in strict chronological sequence, but rather in a two-paneled structure in which the panels overlap chronologically (3:7-5:31 and 6:1-16:31). Both panels cover the period from 1336 (or 1334 in the case of panel two) to 1130 BC. This allows one to place the chronological markers in Judges into a scheme that fits nicely within the framework established by 1 Kgs 6:1.

I intended the article to be provisional, so I welcome Andrew Steinmann’s reply. I thank the editor of JETS for inviting me to offer a critique of Steinmann’s reply and to amplify and clarify my position. To make it easier for readers to coordinate my comments with Steinmann’s remarks, I address his arguments in the order that he presents them, using his heading titles in either exact or abbreviated form.

In the introduction to his reply, Steinmann asks: “Is the pattern Chisholm identified a clue to the chronology of Judges or is it a clue to some other feature developed by the author of Judges?” He suggests that one must choose between two alternatives. But literary structures may have concurrent functions. Nowhere in my article do I state or imply that the structure is only a chronological indicator. In fact, I am quite open to suggestions of additional functions.

I. The Significance Of The Pattern

1. The pattern. Commenting on my thesis that the paneled structure has chronological implications, Steinmann makes this statement: “While this may be a theoretical possibility, Chisholm offers no supporting evidence for this suggestion.” My proposal is based on the observation that יסף is omitted in 6:1 from the otherwise recurring statement “the Israelites again did evil” (cf. 3:12; 4:1; 10:6; 13:1). Whether יסף

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()