Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 5:12 - 5:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_5:12-23
Awake, awake, compose the song!
Barak, arise!—conquer thy conquest,
Thou son of Abinoam!
13Then down against the robust rushed a remnant,
The People of God rushed with me against the powerful.
14From Ephraim’s stock, the victors of Amalek;
After thee (marched) Benjamin against thy foes,
Masters came from Machir,
Men skillful with the accountant’s pencil distinguished Zebulun.
15But the first in Issachar were with Deborah,
Yea, Issachar was the basis of Barak,
When into the valley his men threw themselves on foot,—
While by the brooks abode Reuben’s great investigators.
16Why sitt’st thou by the folds, listening to the shepherd’s flute?
By the brooks Reuben has great scrutinizers.
17Gilead stays beyond the Jordan;
But, Dan, how didst thou sail in ships!
Asher sits on the sea-shore, sheltered in his bays,
18But Zebulon hazarded his soul unto death,
With Naphtali, upon the high plain of the field.
19Kings came to fight—Kings of Canaan fought,
At Taanach and by Megiddo’s waters,—
Satisfaction-money gained they none.
20From heaven strove the stars,
They strove from their stations with Sisera.
21Kishon’s stream swept them away—
A stream of succours was Kishon’s stream,—
Tread strongly on, my soul!
22When struck the sounding hoof of the rushing steed,
Of the flying strong ones!
23The ban on Meroz, commands the messenger of God, the ban!—
The ban on its inhabitants;
Because they came not to the help of the people of God,
Of the People of God against the powerful.
àָæ éָøַã ùָׂøִéã ìְàַãִּøִ ֑éí
òַí éְçåָֹä éָøַã ìִé áַּâִּáּåֹøִ ֽéíÓ
So also the LXX. (in Cod. Vat.) and many expositors. The most serious objection to it is, that as it is the easier reading, the Masorites must have had strong traditional grounds for preferring one more difficult. The verse has been translated and interpreted in a great variety of ways; but the view of Dr. Cassel commends itself strongly, especially when compared with Jdg_4:14. Our English version seems to take éְøַã as imperf. apoc. Piel from øָãָä , after the example of several Jewish grammarians and interpreters.—Tr.]
[2 Jdg_5:14.—Dr. Cassel’s rendering of the first line of Jdg_5:14— îִðִּé àֶôְøַéִí ùָׁøְùָׁí áַּòֲîָìֵ÷ —is, Aus Efraim’s Art, die Amaleksieger. It does not clearly appear how he would translate the passage literally, but the following would probably express his view: “Out of Ephraim (came) their root (who were) against Amalek.” The “root,” then, according to our author’s exposition (see below), would be Joshua, in his relation to those whom he led to victory against “Amalek.” So far as ùֹׁøֶùׁ is concerned, this interpretation has full as much in its favor as that which makes it mean “dwelling-place.” On the rendering of òֲîָîֶéêָ , see the commentary. The majority of expositors, would probably accept the rendering of the two lines given by Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Repos. 1831):—
“
After thee (was) Benjamin among thy hosts.”
[3 Jdg_5:14.—The rendering of this line turns on ùֵׁáֶè ñֹôֵø . The Targum, Peshito, and most ancient expositors, explain it of the “stylus of the writer;” while most moderns translate it “the staff of the leader.” Compare the remarks in the preceding note.—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_5:15.—Dr. Cassel probably reads ùָׂøֵé , with Bertheau, Keil, and most expositors. The preposition áְּ after the construct state is not unusual in poetry, cf. 2Sa_1:21; Job_18:2; etc. Some regard ùָׂøַé as an unusual plural (cf. Ges. Gram. 87, 1, c), or as an archaic form of the construct (so Ewald, Gram. 211, c).—Tr.]
[5 Jdg_5:15.—On áְּøַâְìָéå , compare “Grammatical” note on Jdg_4:10; also Jdg_8:5; 2Sa_15:17; etc.—Tr.]
[6 Jdg_5:15.— çִ÷ְ÷ֵé ìֵá ; Dr. Cassel, Ergründler. For äִ÷øֵé ìֵá , in the next verse, he has Ergrübler, which admirably reproduces both the paranomasia and the irony of the original. çִ÷ְ÷ֵé and äִ÷ְøֵé are, of course, abstract nouns, followed by the genitive of the subject to which they pertain.—Tr.]
[7 Jdg_5:17.—“Aber Dan, was zogst du auf schiffen aus!” Our author probably takes âּåּø in its most usual sense, “to sojourn:” to sojourn in or on ships, readily suggesting the idea of sailing in ships. Most expositors translate: “And Dan, why abides he at the ships?” The prepositionless accusative is as easy or as difficult in one case as in the other.—Tr.]
[8 Jdg_5:19.— áֶּöַò ëֶּñֶó : Dr. Cassel, Geld zur Busse, “penance money,” cf. the Commentary below. Bertheau, Keil, and others, taking áֶּöַò in its Arabic sense of frustum (cf. the root áöò ), translate: “not a piece of silver did they take;” but against the Hebrew use of the word.—Tr.]
[9 Jdg_5:20—Dr. Cassel, following many previous expositors, alters the Masoretic text division by transferring “the stars” from the second to the first clause. But it is justly objected to this change that it reduces the second clause to a mere repetition by which nothing is added to the idea already expressed in the first. In the next line, the word îְñִìָּä signifies, “a causeway,” “highway.” Dr. Cassel’s rendering, Statten, places, is manifestly chosen for the sake of alliteration: Sie stritten von ihren Statten mit Sisera; compare the English imitation above.—Tr.]
[10 Jdg_5:21— úִּãְøְëִé ðַôְùִׁé òֹæ . This line has been very variously interpreted. It is now generally agreed, however, that it is an address of the Singer to herself. úִּãְøְëִé is the jussive of the second person, cf. Ges. Gram. 48, 4. òֹæ may either be taken as an adverbial accusative (= áּòֹæ ), or as the direct object after the verb. Dr. Cassel decides for the former, after Herder, Justi, Bertheau, Ewald, Keil; Dr. Bachmann, with Schnurrer, Köhler, Holmann, etc., prefers the latter, and takes òֹæ as the abstract for the concrete: “Tread down, my soul, the strong ones!” cf. Robbins, in Bibl. Sacra. In either case, the incitement of the line may be directed to the continuation of the Song, or to the prosecution of the pursuit of the enemy. Bachmann prefers the latter; but the former seems to us more striking and appropriate.—Tr.]
[11 Jdg_5:22.—Dr. Cassel :—
Der entjagenden Starken.
“
Because of the galloping of their valiant riders.”
[12 Jdg_5:23—On the above translation of Jdg_5:23 it is to be remarked, 1. That the word rendered “ban,” is àַָøַø , and does not, like çָøַí , imply the actual destruction of the object against which it is aimed. 2. That with the LXX. (Cod. Vat.) our author transfers àֹøåּ from the second line to the first. On the construction of àָøåֹø (which below, but not here, he changes (with the LXX.) into àָøåּø ), cf Ges. Gram. 131, 4 b. 3. That the expression “People of God” is our author’s interpretation of what is meant by “coming to the help of Jehovah,” cf. below. 4. That áַּâִּáּåֹøִéí is by most recent expositors rendered, “among (or, with) heroes,” namely, the warriors of Israel. Compare the Septuagint and Vulgate; the Targum takes áְּ in the hostile sense.—Tr.]
Jdg_5:13. The prophetess now continues to depict the surprising contrasts that have arisen from Israel’s return to God. A ùָׂøִéã , a remaining few, by no means all Israel, but a small band—like the remnant ( ùְׁøִéãִéí ) whom, according to the prophet Joel (Joe_2:32 (Joe_3:5)), God calls,—takes up the conflict with àַãִּéøִéí , mighty ones. (Cf. my discussion on Psa_8:2, in the Lutherischen Zeitschr., 1860. “Mighty kings,” îְìָëִéí àַãִּéøִéí , are slain by God, Psa_136:18). The next line runs parallel with this: “the people of God ( òַí éְäåָֹä ) charges againstgibborim.” Gibborim are warlike men of gigantic strength. It is applied here to enemies, as elsewhere to Nimrod, who also was an enemy. In the view of Scripture, God alone is the true Gibbor (Deu_10:17, etc.). Usually, the gibborim conquer; but here the result is that of which Isaiah speaks (Isa_49:25), “the captives of the gibbor are taken away from him.” There is a peculiar beauty in Deborah’s mode of stating her own share in the war: “the People of God rushed for me ( ìִé ) against heroes.” For my sake, she sings, at my call, with me, did they hazard the conflict with men of superior strength.
Jdg_5:14-16. It was truly a “remnant” that fought at the Kishon against Sisera. It was only a part of all Israel that was entitled to the honor of being styled the “People of God.” A special renown must henceforth attach to those tribes who took part in the war, just as the Athenians never lost the glory of having alone gained the battle of Marathon. In Israel, as in Hellas, rivalries obtained between the different tribes. Considerations like these afford the proper introduction to Jdg_5:14. Expositors have made its difficulties altogether insurmountable, by supposing that all the tribes here named assisted Barak. But this supposition is utterly untenable: 1. The statement of Judges 4 is positive and definite, that only Zebulun and Naphtali fought on the plains of Issachar. It is moreover corroborated by the fact that, from her residence on Mount Ephraim, Deborah sends to just those tribes, because the oppression under which Israel suffered bore heaviest on them. 2. The question whether Ephraim and Benjamin took part in the war, could not have been overlooked by the narrator; for the direction of the march which he had to trace was altogether different from what, had they been combatants, it would have been. And why, in that case, would it have been necessary for Deborah to go with Barak to Kedesh? 3. It is contradicted by Jdg_5:14 itself. Machir means Gilead proper. Manasseh as a whole cannot be Intended by it (cf. the word éָøְãåּ ). It is for the very purpose of designating a part that the term “Machir” is employed. But Deborah herself says, Jdg_5:17, that Gilead did not take part in the campaign. Nor would it be at all apparent why Zebulun should be described by two different attributes (Jdg_5:14; Jdg_5:18), in relation to the same event. 4. If those tribes took part in the conflict, why does Jdg_5:18 speak only of Zebulun and Naphtali? The Platæans, who alone stood by the Athenians in the day of battle, were not thus forgotten. The most ancient Jewish expositors, however, already perceived the more correct view to be taken of the verse: it is to be historically interpreted. The poet’s mind, like the action itself, moves over the northern territory of Israel. The tribes of Judah and Simeon lie altogether beyond her present field of vision. But with the ancient glory of those tribes, whose territories stretched onward from Mount Ephraim—from the spot where she herself resided, near the border of Benjamin,—she compares that of the conquerors whom she led on. Each tribe had its own glorious traditions. No doubt, exclaims the prophetess, Ephraim is renowned, for out of him sprang he who was against Amalek. The ancients rightly understood this of Joshua, the conqueror of Amalek, the pride of Ephraim, who was buried among them, and on whom, unquestionably, the Ephraimites always founded their claim to the leadership among the tribes.— àַçֲøֶéãָ áִðְéָîִéï áַּòֲîָîֶéêָ , after thee, Benjamin against thine enemies. Since áַּòְîָîֶéêָ (Aram. plur. c. suffix) manifestly answers to áַּòֲîָìֵ÷ , the áְּ , which with the latter means “against,” must be taken in the same sense with the former. This is confirmed by the fact that the plural of òַí is always applied to the “heathen,” the “nations,” and carries with it the idea of hostility against Israel. òֲîָîֶéêָ means the hostile nations who stand arrayed against thee,—“thy heathen,” so to speak, “thine enemies.” “After thee,” says the prophetess to Ephraim, “Benjamin advanced against thine enemies”—Benjamin, who bears the name of Wolf (Gen_49:27). It is the fame of Ehud, that renders Benjamin illustrious. The old expositors understood these utterances of Deborah, concerning Benjamin and the other tribes, as prophetic. But such an explanation cannot be accepted. A prophetess who looked into the boundless and indefinite future, could not have compared tribe with tribe in a manner possible only when dealing with the facts of history.—By the side of the warlike fame of Ephraim and Benjamin, the prophetess places the peaceful renown of Machir and Zebulun. How far the sons of Machir distinguished themselves as mechokekim, orderers of the law, we have, it is true, no information. But it is to be noticed that what is told of Jair, Jdg_10:4, connects itself with a Jair who lived as early as the time of Moses (Num_32:41). The sons of Machir were born “upon the knees” of their grandfather Joseph (Gen_50:23). It is only by supposing that the renown of Zebulun also, is one which existed previous to the war, that what is here said can be brought into easy and proper connection with what is said in Jdg_5:18. Zebulun, formerly known only for his îåֹùְׁëִéí áְּùֵׁáֶè ëֹôֵø , experts with the ciphering-pencil, had now become a people courageous unto death. Zebulun was a commercial tribe, like Zidon. The purple-trade especially occupied them. Consequently, the art of the Sopher, i.e. writing, reading, and ciphering, could not fail to be extensively practiced in this tribe. The Sopher appears also in Phœnician inscriptions; Gesenius compares him with the quæstors of Carthage, who held an office next in importance to that of the Suffetes (Monum. Phœnic., 173). A like important office was held by the Sopherim at the courts of the Jewish kings. They are always named in conjunction with the high-priest (cf. 2Sa_8:17; 2Sa_20:25; 1Ki_4:3; 1Ch_18:16; Isa_36:3; 2Ki_19:2). The Sopher and the high-priest count the money found in the offering-box, 2Ki_12:10 (11). King Josiah sends his Sopher Shaphan ( ùָׁôָï , cf. àֱìִéöָôָï . Elizaphan, a Zebulonite, Num_34:25) to the priest. It is he who reads the sacred book, which the priest has found, to the king (2Ki_22:8). The commander-in-chief has a Sopher who enrolls the army (2Ki_25:19; Jer_52:25). The uncle of David is celebrated as a wise man and a Sopher (1Ch_27:32). The Psalmist praises the stylus of a ready Sopher (Psa_45:1 (2)). The activity of a Sopher is everywhere pacific in its nature, demanding sagacity, and presupposing knowledge. The stylus, òֵè , of the Psalmist, is the same as Deborah’s ùֵׁáֶè , staff. It was an honor to Zebulun, that in the tribe there were able Sopherim, who could make the art which commerce had caused to flourish among them, subserve the internal and higher life of Israel. The word îùְׁëִéí suggests a forcible picture; we see the writer artistically drawing the letters with his stylus. This constituted the ancient renown of the tribe. But the victory with Deborah at the Kishon, will not less highly exalt those who had a part in it. That thought forms the transition to Jdg_5:15. Issachar, it is true, had not shared in the battle; but that did not diminish the significance of the tribe. Their territory was the theatre of the decision. Very much depended upon the attitude they assumed. Were the battle lost, Issachar must first bear the consequences. Nevertheless, their chiefs decided to hearken to Deborah. “The princes in Issachar were with Deborah.” They surrounded Deborah, while Barak plunged into the valley. As Moses did not himself take the field against Amalek, but intrusted Joshua with the conduct of the battle while he prayed on the mount, so Deborah stood behind the battle-ranks, surrounded by Issachar, uttering blessings, or in case discouragement showed itself, urging, encouraging, inspiriting, in a manner similar perhaps to that which the German women were wont to adopt. It has been well observed that in the expression åְéִùָׂùׂëָּø ëֵּï ëָּøָ÷ the word ëֵּï is not the particle, but the noun. (Schnurrer was the first to adduce this from among various opinions collected together in the commentary of R. Tanchum.) ëֵּï signifies the base, the pedestal (cf. Exo_30:18); and in truth Issachar was this for the whole battle. It was fought on his territory, an 1 his men formed the reserve of Barak, when that chieftain threw himself into the valley. ëָּòֵîֶ÷ ùׁìַּú ëְּøַâְìָéå expresses the storm-like rapidity of Barak’s movement. The Pual ùֻׁìַּú is to be taken in the sense of the Greek middle voice.—Presently the thought occurs to the prophetess that still other neighboring tribes could have helped, Reuben, namely, and Gilead, beyond the Jordan, Dan at its sources, Asher on the coast; but their assistance did not come. Deborah does not blame the distant tribes, as Judah, Simeon, Ephraim, Benjamin, Gad, but only the near ones. Reuben at that time cannot have dwelt to the east of the Dead Sea, but according to Num_32:26, etc., must have had a more northerly location, reaching as far up as the banks of the Jabbok. There he must have dwelt, pasturing his herds by his brooks. ôְּìַâּåֹú , plural of ôìַâּä , like ôֶּìֶâ , brook, stream (cf. my exposition of Psalms 1. Luther. Zeitschr., 1859, p. 537). Reuben, like the tribes beyond the Jordan generally, had been called on by Barak to take part in the war against Sisera. In like manner was Sparta summoned by Athens, before Marathon. And like Sparta, Reuben considered long. Hence the derisive description of the men of Reuben as ìëúִ÷ְ÷ֵé and äִ÷ְøֵé ìֵë , investigators and scrutinizers. They reflect upon the necessity and feasibility of acting, till the time for it is past. Reuben sits between the folds, and prefers to listen to the shepherd’s flute, ùְׁøִé÷ָä ùְׁøִ÷åִú òֲøָøִéí , pipe, flute, from ùָׁøַ÷ , sibilare, to whistle, to hiss, according to the root and form of the name, is nothing else than the syrinx, pipe, whose invention Hellenic mythology ascribed to Pan. What is here said of Reuben, that he amuses himself with listening to the herdsmen’s flutes ( òֵøֶø is properly the herd), is the same that Homer says, Iliad, xviii. Judges 525: “ íïìῆåò ôåñðüìåíïé óýñéãîé .”
Jdg_5:17. And Gilead tarries beyond Jordan. The fact that what is here said of Gilead might be equally applied to Reuben, since both dwelt beyond the Jordan, is suggestive of the excuse which Gilead may have urged in distinction from Reuben. Reuben reflected; but Gilead denied that the efforts of Barak concerned him: did he not live beyond the Jordan?
But Dan, how didst thou sail in ships! Jewish tradition places the occurrence related in Judges 18 before the time of Deborah. And to all appearance this seems to be the right view. For in its southern possessions the tribe of Dan did no hold the sea-coast (Jdg_1:34). Moreover, how should Deborah complain of the want of assistance from southern Dan, when she entered no such complaint against Judah? If, however, Dan had already removed to the vicinity of Naphtali, the complaint was very natural. The old expositors explain that “Dan had shipped his goods and chattels in order to cross the Jordan.” But this is less simple than the supposition that Dan, like Zebulun, was engaged with the Phœnicians (Tyre) in maritime commerce, or at least pretended to be, as a reason for refusing Barak’s summons. What renders this interpretation the more probable, is the fact that Deborah speaks next of Asher, “who dwells on the sea-shore.” Jabin, king of Hazor, cannot have domineered over the coast, where the powerful maritime cities were in the ascendency. Therefore Asher also had nothing to suffer from him. He dwells securely in his harbors. It is noteworthy that what the singer here says of Asher, the blessing of Jacob says in the same words of Zebulun, ìְúåֹó éַîִּéí éִùְׁëֹּï , with an additional clause, however, concerning the pursuit of navigation.
Jdg_5:18. This verse puts it beyond all doubt that only Zebulun and Naphtali engaged actively in the conflict; for only to them refers the declaration that they “hazarded their souls unto death.” (For the sake of the poetical parallelism Naphtali is put at the head of the second member, instead of making “Zebulun and Naphtali” the composite subject of the whole distich.) Their faith in Deborah’s word was so firm, that they dared risk the unequal conflict even in the valley (“the high-plain of the field”). Therein consisted the uncommon sacrifice of these tribes. Hitherto, Israel had always given up the valleys (cf. Jdg_1:19; Jdg_1:34), because it could not overcome disciplined armies and chariots. Even down to the time of the later kings, it was considered invincible on the mountains (1Ki_20:23), which fact however implies that in the valleys it still continued to be otherwise. Hence, îְøåִîé ùָׂøֶä is to be understood, not of the “heights,” but of the surface, of the field. It was a fearful battle-crisis: a few against so many, a band of footmen against a host of iron chariots, a handful of mountaineers on the plain, a few tribal chieftains against the mighty.
Jdg_5:19. Kings came. This is to be understood figuratively, of eminent and powerful military leaders: Sisera was no king. ìָ÷ָçåּ ëֶּöַò ëֶּñֶó ìà , gain of money they obtained not. This is usually understood only of the booty, which the enemy hoped to obtain, but failed to get. But the troops of Zebulun and Naphtali can scarcely have appeared to promise a booty rich in money. It is therefore probable that the meaning of the prophetess includes something else. We know from instances of later times, that when the people did not feel themselves strong enough to cope with a threatening enemy, they sought to buy him off with money. Thus, in the reign of Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, took away all the treasures of the temple (1Ki_14:26). Asa gave all the remaining gold and silver to Benhadad of Damascus (1Ki_15:18). Ménahem collected a large amount of money in order to persuade the king of Assyria to turn back (2Ki_15:20). Sisera was not so successful. He neither obtained composition-money before the campaign, nor did he secure any booty after it. The troops and their leaders who had accompanied him, gained no profit from this expedition. Profit is the prominent idea in ëֶּöַò ; hence the Chaldee Paraphrast usually puts “Mammon” for it.
Jdg_5:20-22. From heaven fought the stars. Josephus has introduced into his narrative of this victory, the description of a thunder-storm, accompanied by wind and hail, by which the enemy were thrown into confusion. It is one of those pragmatical endeavors by which he seeks to facilitate belief for his Hellenic readers, and to make the miraculous more natural. The occasion for it was given by the expression, Jdg_4:15, “and God confounded them.” The presence and effect of thunder and hail were inferred, by comparison, from two other passages, where a similar divinely-wrought confusion of the enemy is related. Thus in Jos_10:10-11, when Joshua fights against the enemy, it is said: “And the Lord confounded them, and as they fled cast down great hailstones upon them, that they died.” So also 1Sa_7:10 : “And the Lord thundered with a great thunder on that day, and confounded the Philistines.” But there appears to be no necessity whatever for transferring these occurrences into our passage. The narrator is rather thinking of Exo_14:24, which speaks of Pharaoh’s confusion by God without thunder and hail. Nor is there any need of thunder and hail to confound an army. The confusion of Rosbach (Nov. 5, 1757) was not caused by the intervention of a storm. All that appears from the statements of Judges 4 and the Song of Deborah alone, is, that Barak and his faithful followers made a violent and sudden attack, before the numerous chariots had been placed in battle-array. This was done as night was coming on. When Joshua fought, sun and moon assisted him (Jos_10:12): on Barak, the stars shone brightly,—which does not make a thunder-storm probable. Consistently with Israelitish conceptions, the help of the stars can only be understood of their shining. Joshua also had come upon his enemies suddenly ( ôִּúְàֹí , Jos_10:9). Gideon, too, threw himself upon the hostile camp in the night. But not the stars alone assisted Barak in his heroic course. As the enemy, either for attack or in flight, wished to cross the Kishon, in the direction from Taanach and Megiddo, the swollen stream swept many of them into the arms of death. “The brook Kishon snatched ( ðְּøָôָí ) them away.” ( âָּøַó , in its Semitic forms, corresponds to the Indo-Germanic forms rapere, Ger. raffen, Sanskrit, rup.) It thus came to the help of Israel, and became a ðַçַì ÷ְøåּîִéí , brook of succors. In what sense the Kishon should be especially called a brook of “ancient days,” as many explain ÷ְøåּîִéí , cannot be made out, not at least from Scripture. The rendering “brook of battles,” has little ground in philology. The repetition of “brook Kishon,” is doubtless intended to suggest a definition of what sort of a stream the Kishon was for Israel on that day. It was not merely the scene of battle, but an instrument of help against the foe. ÷ִøֵּí has frequently this sense, especially in poetical language. In Psa_79:8 the poet prays, “Let thy mercy come speedily to our help” ( éְ÷ַãְּîãּðåּ ); cf. Psa_59:11; Psa_21:4. But in Deuteronomy, also, Deu_23:5, it is said of Ammon and Moab that they did not help Israel with bread and water ( ìֹàÎ÷ִøְּîåּ àֶúְëֶí ). Kedumim is the plural of a form ÷ָøåּí . The Kishon—thus exults the poet—showed itself a helpful stream. The statement that it snatched the enemies away, presupposes its swollen condition. It is only after the rainy season that the Kishon runs full; for which reason the LXX: call it ÷åéìÜῤῥïõò , winter-flowing. In summer it is for the most part dried up; but in the spring it sends down a rushing flood. Ritter (xvi. 704, Gage’s Transl. iv. 351) adduces the fact that on the 16th of April, 1799, in a conflict between the French and Turks, many of the latter perished in its raging waters. Hence we may infer that the time of Barak’s battle is to be fixed in the latter part of April or the beginning of May. The Feast of Weeks fell in the same season. Immediately after the narrative in Exodus, it is intimated that the manifestation on Sinai occurred in the beginning of the third month, and consequently coincided with the Feast of Weeks. The occurrence of the battle in a season devoted to such commemorations, explains with peculiar emphasis the opening lines of the Song, concerning the omnipotence of God on Sinai, “when the earth trembled.” The ancients had a not ungrounded tradition,—to prove which this is not the place,—for regarding the 68th Psalm as a song for the Feast of Weeks; and it is just that psalm which incorporated into itself the introductory parts of Deborah’s Song.
While singing, the prophetess sees herself transported into the tumult of the battle. The stream rushes violently onward,—the perishing foes contend with its whirling eddies. The roar of the conflict, its battle-cries, and shouts of victory, are around her. In the midst of her Song, she addresses her own soul, as the Greeks addressed their muse, with words of animation and refreshment: Tread vigorously on, my soul! Her genius hovers over the valley of conflict; her ear feels the hoof-strokes of the flying foes, who, panic stricken before Israel, furiously dash off into flight. What a triumph! the “strong ones” ( àַáִּéøִéí ) run away! ãָּäַø is to run fast, used of a horse’s trot, like the Sanskrit dru, Greek äñᾶíáé ( äéäñÜóêù ). àַáִּéøִéí , as Bochart already remarked (Hieroz. i. 99), is probably used here, as in Jer_8:16; Jer_47:3, of the war-horses, who with their rattling chariots ran wildly off. In that case, the might of the steeds stands representatively for that of the warriors themselves.
Jdg_5:23. The flying enemy had not succeeded even in escaping, if all places of the surrounding country had done their duty. The prophetess utters sentence of condemnation against the inhabitants of Meroz, because they rendered no assistance. Their aid had probably been important in the pursuit. Hence, their conduct is referred to here,—before the blessing upon Jael. The verse first introduces a messenger of God, crying, “Curse ye Meroz, curse it!” and then continues itself, “Cursed are its inhabitants.” The “messenger of God” is the singer herself, sent by the Spirit of God to consummate the victorious achievement. In obedience to the Spirit’s prompting, she with Barak pronounces the national ban against the faithless city. For it came not to the help of God ( ìְòֶæְøú éְäåָֹä ), that is, to the help of the òַí éְäåָֹä , the People of God, as in Jdg_5:11; Jdg_5:13. It left the cause and the good gifts of God to their fate, when they were endangered in battle against heroes. The greater the responsibility, the severer the punishment. The higher the cause to be served, the blacker the treason that abandons it. To ascertain, at this date, the site of Meroz, can hardly be possible. It has indeed been supposed to be identical with a place on Robinson’s map, southwest of Endor, called Kefr Musr (cf. Ritter, xv. 399 [Gage’s Transl. ii. 316]); but neither the name of the place is certain, nor its situation entirely suitable; and, finally, considering the popular odium which the Song of Deborah affixed to the name, it is by no means probable that it remained unchanged, and actually perpetuated itself. Procopius confirms this surmise, when he observes (Reland, Palästina, p. 896), that concerning the name he had found nothing anywhere, not even in Hebrew expositions. The curse itself most probably implied, as in Joshua , 6, the utter destruction of the place, although nothing further is said of it. In later times, this verse became a locus classicus for the Talmudic exposition of the ban against persons and things (Mond Katan, 16, a; Shebnoth, 36, a; Selden, de Synedriis, p. 84, etc.).\
Footnotes:
[Jdg_5:13.—This rendering of Jdg_5:13 supposes the Hebrew text to be pointed and divided thus:
àָæ éָøַã ùָׂøִéã ìְàַãִּøִ ֑éí
òַí éְçåָֹä éָøַã ìִé áַּâִּáּåֹøִ ֽéíÓ
So also the LXX. (in Cod. Vat.) and many expositors. The most serious objection to it is, that as it is the easier reading, the Masorites must have had strong traditional grounds for preferring one more difficult. The verse has been translated and interpreted in a great variety of ways; but the view of Dr. Cassel commends itself strongly, especially when compared with Jdg_4:14. Our English version seems to take éְøַã as imperf. apoc. Piel from øָãָä , after the example of several Jewish grammarians and interpreters.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:14.—Dr. Cassel’s rendering of the first line of Jdg_5:14— îִðִּé àֶôְøַéִí ùָׁøְùָׁí áַּòֲîָìֵ÷ —is, Aus Efraim’s Art, die Amaleksieger. It does not clearly appear how he would translate the passage literally, but the following would probably express his view: “Out of Ephraim (came) their root (who were) against Amalek.” The “root,” then, according to our author’s exposition (see below), would be Joshua, in his relation to those whom he led to victory against “Amalek.” So far as ùֹׁøֶùׁ is concerned, this interpretation has full as much in its favor as that which makes it mean “dwelling-place.” On the rendering of òֲîָîֶéêָ , see the commentary. The majority of expositors, would probably accept the rendering of the two lines given by Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Repos. 1831):—
“
After thee (was) Benjamin among thy hosts.”
[Jdg_5:14.—The rendering of this line turns on ùֵׁáֶè ñֹôֵø . The Targum, Peshito, and most ancient expositors, explain it of the “stylus of the writer;” while most moderns translate it “the staff of the leader.” Compare the remarks in the preceding note.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:15.—Dr. Cassel probably reads ùָׂøֵé , with Bertheau, Keil, and most expositors. The preposition áְּ after the construct state is not unusual in poetry, cf. 2Sa_1:21; Job_18:2; etc. Some regard ùָׂøַé as an unusual plural (cf. Ges. Gram. 87, 1, c), or as an archaic form of the construct (so Ewald, Gram. 211, c).—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:15.—On áְּøַâְìָéå , compare “Grammatical” note on Jdg_4:10; also Jdg_8:5; 2Sa_15:17; etc.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:15.— çִ÷ְ÷ֵé ìֵá ; Dr. Cassel, Ergründler. For äִ÷øֵé ìֵá , in the next verse, he has Ergrübler, which admirably reproduces both the paranomasia and the irony of the original. çִ÷ְ÷ֵé and äִ÷ְøֵé are, of course, abstract nouns, followed by the genitive of the subject to which they pertain.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:17.—“Aber Dan, was zogst du auf schiffen aus!” Our author probably takes âּåּø in its most usual sense, “to sojourn:” to sojourn in or on ships, readily suggesting the idea of sailing in ships. Most expositors translate: “And Dan, why abides he at the ships?” The prepositionless accusative is as easy or as difficult in one case as in the other.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:19.— áֶּöַò ëֶּñֶó : Dr. Cassel, Geld zur Busse, “penance money,” cf. the Commentary below. Bertheau, Keil, and others, taking áֶּöַò in its Arabic sense of frustum (cf. the root áöò ), translate: “not a piece of silver did they take;” but against the Hebrew use of the word.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:20—Dr. Cassel, following many previous expositors, alters the Masoretic text division by transferring “the stars” from the second to the first clause. But it is justly objected to this change that it reduces the second clause to a mere repetition by which nothing is added to the idea already expressed in the first. In the next line, the word îְñִìָּä signifies, “a causeway,” “highway.” Dr. Cassel’s rendering, Statten, places, is manifestly chosen for the sake of alliteration: Sie stritten von ihren Statten mit Sisera; compare the English imitation above.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:21— úִּãְøְëִé ðַôְùִׁé òֹæ . This line has been very variously interpreted. It is now generally agreed, however, that it is an address of the Singer to herself. úִּãְøְëִé is the jussive of the second person, cf. Ges. Gram. 48, 4. òֹæ may either be taken as an adverbial accusative (= áּòֹæ ), or as the direct object after the verb. Dr. Cassel decides for the former, after Herder, Justi, Bertheau, Ewald, Keil; Dr. Bachmann, with Schnurrer, Köhler, Holmann, etc., prefers the latter, and takes òֹæ as the abstract for the concrete: “Tread down, my soul, the strong ones!” cf. Robbins, in Bibl. Sacra. In either case, the incitement of the line may be directed to the continuation of the Song, or to the prosecution of the pursuit of the enemy. Bachmann prefers the latter; but the former seems to us more striking and appropriate.—Tr.]
[Jdg_5:22.—Dr. Cassel :—
Der entjagenden Starken.
“
Because of the galloping of their valiant riders.”
[Jdg_5:23—On the above translation of Jdg_5:23 it is to be remarked, 1. That the word rendered “ban,” is àַָøַø , and does not, like çָøַí , imply the actual destruction of the object against which it is aimed. 2. That with the LXX. (Cod. Vat.) our author transfers àֹøåּ from the second line to the first. On the construction of àָøåֹø (which below, but not here, he changes (with the LXX.) into àָøåּø ), cf Ges. Gram. 131, 4 b. 3. That the expression “People of God” is our author’s interpretation of what is meant by “coming to the help of Jehovah,” cf. below. 4. That áַּâִּáּåֹøִéí is by most recent expositors rendered, “among (or, with) heroes,” namely, the warriors of Israel. Compare the Septuagint and Vulgate; the Targum takes áְּ in the hostile sense.—Tr.]
[According to Bachmann the first half of Jdg_5:12 contains the self-incitement of Deborah to begin the inscription of the battle, while the second half actually enters on the inscription with a reminiscence of Jdg_4:14.—Tr.]
éְøַã áַּâִּáּåֹøִéí . Cf. Jdg_7:9, øֵã áַּîַּçֲáֶä ; also Jdg_7:13.
Keil also has adopted this view.
Num_32:39; cf. Jos_17:3.
“In the land of Ephraim” there was a Mount of Amalek, cf. Jdg_12:15.
[“Always” is too strong; cf. Gen_48:4; Leviticus 21 :; Eze_18:18.—Tr.]
As in conflicts of the Bedouin tribes, the Arab women at the present time still stand in the rear, and encourage the combatants by their zâlágît (singing). Cf. Wetzstein, Haurân, 145.
This was still done by the women of the crusaders in the battle near Doryläum, as Petrus Trudebod informs us (Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 782): “Feminæ nostrœ in illa die fuerunt nobis in refugium .… confortantes not fortiter pugnantes et viros protegentes.” Cf. Wilken, Gesch. der Kreuzz., i. 155.
Only those tribes can have been censured who stood in close geographical connection with Naphtali and Zebulun, not those whose position inclined them to southern alliances. Ephraim, Benjamin, Judah, and Simeon, receive no censure; but Asher, Dan, and Gilead, do. How could Reuben be blamed, while Judah was not, if his seat were below at the Dead Sea?
àְðִéּåִú , used only of sea-going vessels, cf. Pro_30:19.
[But îָøåֹí assuredly means height, an elevation above the general level, not surface. In connection with the facts of the history, the expression, it seems to me, can only mean either Mount Tabor or the higher parts of the plain of Esdraelon, as the gathering-place of the warriors, where they in thought and intention “scorned their lives.” So Bachmann and many other expositors.—Tr.]
[On Taanach and Megiddo see at Jdg_1:27. The “waters of Megiddo” undoubtedl