[1] On this point (date of the outbreak of heresy) there is some
inconsistency in the reported fragments of Hegesippus. In that quoted
below from Eus. _H. E._ iii. 32. 7 seq., it is expressly dated after
the martyrdom of Symeon and death of the grandsons of Jude under
Trajan. In iii. 19 the "ancient tradition" attributing the
denunciation of these to "some of the heretics" is perhaps not from
Hegesippus; but in iv. 22 the beginning of heresy is traced to a
certain Thebuthis, a candidate for the bishopric after the death of
James, as rival to Symeon. The same figure of the church as a pure
virgin is also used as in iii. 32. But as it is only the envious
feeling of Thebuthis which is traced to this early date, Hegesippus
doubtless means to place the outbreak later.
JUDGE (Lat. _judex_, Fr. _juge_), in the widest legal sense an officer
appointed by the sovereign power in a state to administer the law; in
English practice, however, justices of the peace and magistrates are not
usually regarded as "judges" in the titular sense. The duties of the
judge, whether in a civil or a criminal matter, are to hear the
statements on both sides in open court, to arrive at a conclusion as to
the truth of the facts submitted to him or, when a jury is engaged, to
direct the jury to find such a conclusion, to apply to the facts so
found the appropriate rules of law, and to certify by his judgment the
relief to which the parties are entitled or the obligations or penalties
which they have incurred. With the judgment the office of the judge is
at an end, but the judgment sets in motion the executive forces of the
state, whose duty it is to carry it into execution.
Such is the type of a judicial officer recognized by mature systems of
law, but it is not to be accepted as the universal type, and the
following qualifying circumstances should be noticed: (1) in primitive
systems of law the judicial is not separated from the legislative and
other governing functions; (2) although the judge is assumed to take the
law from the legislative authority, yet, as the existing law never at
any time contains provision for all cases, the judge may be obliged to
invent or create principles applicable to the case--this is called by
Bentham and the English jurists judge-made and judiciary law; (3) the
separation of the function of judge and jury, and the exclusive charge
of questions of law given to the judge, are more particularly
characteristic of the English judicial system. During a considerable
period in the history of Roman law an entirely different distribution of
parts was observed. The adjudication of a case was divided between the
_magistratus_ and the _judex_, neither of whom corresponds to the
English judge. The former was a public officer charged with the
execution of the law; the latter was an arbitrator whom the magistrates
commissioned to hear and report upon a particular case.
The following are points more specially characteristic of the English
system and its kindred judicial systems: (1) Judges are absolutely
protected from action for anything that they may do in the discharge of
their judicial duties. This is true in the fullest sense of judges of
the supreme courts. "It is a principle of English law that no action
will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial
act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly."
Other judicial officers are also protected, though not to the same
extent, against actions. (2) The highest class of judges are irremovable
except by what is in effect a special act of parliament, viz. a
resolution passed by both houses and assented to by the sovereign. The
inferior judges and magistrates are removable for misconduct by the lord
chancellor. (3) The judiciary in England is not a separate profession.
The judges are chosen from the class of advocates, and almost entirely
according to their eminence at the bar. (4) Judges are in England
appointed for the most part by the crown. In a few cases municipal
corporations may appoint their own judicial officer.
See also LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR; LORD CHIEF JUSTICE; MASTER OF THE
ROLLS, &c., &c., and the accounts of judicial systems under country
headings.
JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL, an officer appointed in England to assist the
Crown with advice in matters relating to military law, and more
particularly as to courts-martial. In the army the administration of
justice as pertaining to discipline is carried out in accordance with
the provisions of military law, and it is the function of the
judge-advocate-general to ensure that these disciplinary powers are
exercised in strict conformity with that law. Down to 1793 the
judge-advocate-general acted as secretary and legal adviser to the board
of general officers, but on the reconstitution of the office of
commander-in-chief in that year he ceased to perform secretarial duties,
but remained chief legal adviser. He retained his seat in parliament and
in 1806 he was made a member of the government and a privy councillor.
The office ceased to be political in 1892, on the recommendation of the
select committee of 1888 on army estimates, and was conferred on Sir F.
Jeune (afterwards Lord St Helier). There was no salary attached to the
office when held by Lord St Helier, and the duties were for the most
part performed by deputy. On his death in 1905, Thomas Milvain, K.C.,
was appointed, and the terms and conditions of the post were rearranged
as follows: (1) A salary of £2000 a year; (2) the holder to devote his
whole time to the duties of the post; (3) the retention of the post
until the age of seventy, subject to continued efficiency--but with
claim to gratuity or pension on retirement. The holder was to be
subordinate to the secretary of state for war, without direct access to
the sovereign. The appointment is conferred by letters-patent, which
define the exact functions attaching to the office, which practically
are the reviewing of the proceedings of all field-general, general and
district courts-martial held in the United Kingdom, and advising the
sovereign as to the confirmation of the finding and sentence. The deputy
judge-advocate is a salaried official in the department of the
judge-advocate-general and acts under his letters-patent. A separate
judge-advocate-general's department is maintained in India, where at one
time deputy judge-advocates were attached to every important command.
All general courts-martial held in the United Kingdom are sent to the
judge-advocate-general, to be by him submitted to the sovereign for
confirmation; and all district courts-martial, after having been
confirmed and promulgated, are sent to his office for examination and
custody. The judge-advocate-general and his deputy, being judges in the
last resort of the validity of the proceedings of courts-martial, take
no part in their conduct; but the deputy judge-advocates frame and
revise charges and attend at courts-martial, swear the court, advise
both sides on law, look after the interests of the prisoner and record
the proceedings. In the English navy there is an official whose
functions are somewhat similar to those of the judge-advocate-general.
He is called counsel and judge-advocate of the fleet.
In the United States there is also a judge-advocate-general's
department. In addition to being a bureau of military justice, and
keeping the records of courts-martial, courts of inquiry and military
commissions, it has the custody of all papers relating to the title of
lands under the control of the war department. The officers of the
department, in addition to acting as prosecutors in all military trials,
sometimes represent the government when cases affecting the army come up
in civil courts.
See further MILITARY LAW, and consult C. M. Clode, _Administration of
Justice under Military and Martial Law_ (1872); _Military Forces of
the Crown_ (2 vols., 1869).
JUDGES, THE BOOK OF, in the Bible. This book of the Old Testament,
which, as we now read it, constitutes a sequel to the book of Joshua,
covering the period of history between the death of this conqueror and
the birth of Samuel, is so called because it contains the history of the
Israelites before the establishment of the monarchy, when the government
was in the hands of certain leaders who appear to have formed a
continuous succession, although the office was not hereditary. The only
other biblical source ascribed to this period is Ruth, whose present
position as an appendix to Judges is not original (see BIBLE and RUTH).
_Structure._--It is now generally agreed that the present adjustment of
the older historical books of the Old Testament to form a continuous
record of events from the creation to the Babylonian exile is due to an
editor, or rather to successive redactors, who pieced together and
reduced to a certain unity older memoirs of very different dates; and
closer examination shows that the continuity of many parts of the
narrative is more apparent than real. This is very clearly the case in
the book of Judges. It consists of three main portions: (1) an
introduction, presenting one view of the occupation of Palestine by the
Israelites (i. 1-ii. 5); (2) the history of the several judges (ii.
6-xvi.); and (3) an appendix containing two narratives of the period.
1. The first section relates events which are said to have taken place
after the death of Joshua, but in reality it covers the same ground with
the book of Joshua, giving a brief account of the occupation of Canaan,
which in some particulars repeats the statements of the previous book,
while in others it is quite independent (see JOSHUA). It is impossible
to regard the warlike expeditions described in this section as
supplementary campaigns undertaken after Joshua's death; they are
plainly represented as the first efforts of the Israelites to gain a
firm footing in the land (at Hebron, Debir, Bethel), in the very cities
which Joshua is related to have subdued (Josh. x. 39).[1] Here then we
have an account of the settlement of Israel west of the Jordan which is
parallel to the book of Joshua, but makes no mention of Joshua himself,
and places the tribe of Judah in the front. The author of the chapter
cannot have had Joshua or his history in his eye at all, and the words
"and it came to pass after the death of Joshua" in Judg. i. 1 are from
the hand of the last editor, who desired to make the whole book of
Judges, including ch. i., read continuously with that which now precedes
it in the canon of the earlier prophets.[2]
2. The second and main section (ii. 6-xvi.) stands on quite another
footing. According to Josh. xxiv. 31 the people "served Yahweh" during
the lifetime of the great conqueror and his contemporaries. In Judg. ii.
7 this statement is repeated, and the writer proceeds to explain that
subsequent generations fell away from the faith, and served the gods of
the nations among which they dwelt (ii. 6-iii. 6). The worship of other
gods is represented, not as something which went on side by side with
Yahweh-worship (cf. x. 6), but as a revolt against Yahweh, periodically
repeated and regularly chastised by foreign invasion. The history,
therefore, falls into recurring cycles, each of which begins with
religious corruption, followed by chastisement, which continues until
Yahweh, in answer to the groans of his oppressed people, raises up a
"judge" to deliver Israel, and recall them to the true faith. On the
death of the "judge," if not sooner, the corruption spreads anew and the
same vicissitudes follow. This religious explanation of the course of
the history, formally expounded at the outset and repeated in more or
less detail from chapter to chapter (especially vi. 1-10, x. 6-18),
determines the form of the whole narrative. It is in general agreement
with the spirit as also with the language of Deuteronomy, and on this
account this section may be conveniently called "the Deuteronomic Book
of Judges." But the main religious ideas are not so late and are rather
akin to those of Josh. xxiv; in particular the worship of the high
places is not condemned, nor is it excused as in 1 Kings iii. 2. The
sources of the narrative are obviously older than the theological
exposition of its lessons, and herein lies the value and interest of
Judges. The importance of such documents for the scientific historian
lies not so much in the events they record as in the unconscious witness
they bear to the state of society in which the narrator or poet lived.
From this point of view the parts of the book are by no means all of
equal value; critical analysis shows that often parallel or distinct
narratives have been fused together, and that, whilst the older stories
gave more prominence to ordinary human motives and combinations, the
later are coloured by religious reflection and show the characteristic
tendency of the Old Testament to re-tell the fortunes of Israel in a
form that lays ever-increasing weight on the work of Yahweh for his
people. That the pre-Deuteronomic sources are to be identified with the
Judaean (J, or Yahwist) and Ephraimite (E, or Elohist) strands of the
Hexateuch is, however, not certain.
To the unity of religious pragmatism in the main stock of the book of
Judges corresponds a unity of chronological scheme. The "judges," in
spite of the fact that most of them had clearly no more than a local
influence, are all represented as successive rulers in Israel, and the
history is dated by the years of each judgeship and those of the
intervening periods of oppression. But it is impossible to reconcile the
numbers with the statement elsewhere that the fourth year of Solomon was
the 480th from the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1). See BIBLE: _Chronology_.
The general introduction (ii. 6-iii. 6) is a blend of Deuteronomic and
other sources. The intimate relation between it and the separate
narratives (Josh. xxiv. 1-27, a late [Ephraimite] record inserted by a
second Deuteronomic hand, and xxiii., D) appears both from their
contents and from the fact that Judg. ii. 6-10 is almost identical
with the narrative appended to Joshua's address (Joshua xxiv. 28-31).
Judg. i.-ii. 5, however, is not touched by D, and hence was probably
inserted in its present position at a later date. According to the
highly intricate introduction the Hebrews were oppressed: (a) to
familiarize them with warfare--it is assumed that they had
intermarried with the Canaanites and worshipped their gods (iii. 2,
6); (b) to test their loyalty to Yahweh (ii. 22; iii. 1); or (c) to
punish them for their marriage with the heathen and their apostasy (D
in ii. 12; cf. Josh. xxiii., and ibid. v. 12).
To this succeeds a noteworthy example of the Deuteronomic treatment of
tradition in the achievement of Othniel (q.v.) the only Judaean
"judge." The bareness of detail, not to speak of the improbability of
the situation, renders its genuineness doubtful, and the passage is
one of the indications of a secondary Deuteronomic redaction. The
case, however, is exceptional; the stories of the other great "judges"
were not rewritten or to any great extent revised by the Deuteronomic
redactor, and his hand appears chiefly in the framework.[3] Thus, in
the story of Ehud and the defeat of Moab only iii. 12-15, 29-30 are
Deuteronomic. But the rest is not homogeneous, vv. 19 and 20 appear to
be variants, and the mention of Israel (v. 27b) is characteristic of
the tendency to treat local troubles as national oppressions, whereas
other records represent little national unity at this period (i., v.).
See further EHUD.
According to the Septuagint addition to Josh. xxiv. 33, Moab was the
first of Israel's oppressors. The brief notice of Shamgar, who
delivered Israel from the Philistines (iii. 31), is one of the later
insertions, and in some MSS. of the LXX. it stands after xvi. 31. The
story of the defeat of Sisera appears in two distinct forms, an
earlier, in poetical form (v.), and a later, in prose (iv.). D's
framework is to be recognized in iv. 1-4, 23 seq., v. 1 (probably), 31
(last clause); see further DEBORAH. The Midianite oppression
(vi.-viii.) is contained in the usual frame (vi. 1-6; viii. 27 seq.),
but is not homogeneous, since viii. 4, the pursuit of the kings,
cannot be the sequel of viii. 3 (where they have been slain), and
viii. 33-35 ignores ix. The structure of vi. 1-viii. 3 is particularly
intricate: vi. 25-32 does not continue vi. 11-24 (there are two
accounts of Gideon's introduction and divergent representations of
Yahweh-worship); vi. 34 forms the sequel of the latter, and vi. 36-40
(with "God") is strange after the description of the miracle in vv. 21
seq. (with "Yahweh"). Further, there are difficulties in vi. 34, vii.
23 seq., viii. 1, when compared with vii. 2-8, and in vii. 16-22 two
stratagems are combined. There are two sequels: vii. 23 seq. and viii.
4; with the former contrast vi. 35; with viii. 1-3 cf. xii. 1-6, and
see below. Chapter viii. 22 seq. comes unexpectedly, and the refusal
of the offer of the kingship reflects later ideas (cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7;
x. 19; xii. 12, 17). The conclusion, however, shows that Jerubbaal had
only a local reputation. Finally, the condemnation of the ephod as
part of the worship of Yahweh (viii. 27) agrees with the thought in
vi. 25-32 as against that in vi. 11-24. (See EPHOD; GIDEON.) Chapter
ix. (see ABIMELECH) appears to have been wanting in the Deuteronomic
book of Judges, but inserted later perhaps by means of the
introduction, viii. 30-32 (post-exilic). It has two accounts of the
attack upon Shechem (lx. 26-41 and 42-49).
After a brief notice of two "minor judges" (see below), follows the
story of Jephthah. It concludes with the usual Deuteronomic formula
(xii. 7), but is prefaced by a detailed introduction to the oppression
of Israel (x. 6 sqq.). By the inclusion of the Philistines among the
oppressors, and of Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim among the oppressed (x.
7, 9), it appears to have in view not merely the story of Samson, a
hero of local interest, but the early chapters in 1 Samuel. This
introduction is of composite origin (as also ii. 6-21; Josh.
xxiii.-xxiv. 25), but a satisfactory analysis seems impossible. As it
stands, it has literary connexions with the late narrative in 1 Sam.
(vii. seq., xii.), and appears to form the preface to that period of
history which ended with Samuel's great victory and the institution of
the monarchy. But this belongs to a later scheme (see SAMUEL), and the
introduction in its earlier form must have been the prelude to earlier
narratives.[4] The story of Jephthah's fight with Ammon is linked to
the preceding introduction by x. 17 seq.; for the framework see x. 6
(above), xii. 7. Chapter xi. 12-28 (cf. Num. xx. seq.) is applicable
only to Moab, vv. 29 and 32 are variants, and Jephthah's home is
placed variously in Tob. (xi. 3) and Mizpeh (v. 34). In xi. 1-10 the
outlaw stipulates that he shall be chief of Gilead if successful, but
in vv. 12-28 a ruler speaks on behalf of Israel. Both Moab and Ammon
had good reason to be hostile to Gilead (Num. xxi.), but the scene of
the victory points rather to the former (v. 33, possibly conflate).
There is a general resemblance between the victories of Gideon and
Jephthah, which is emphasized by the close relation between viii. 1-3
and xii. 1-6, the explanation of which in its present context is
difficult. See further JEPHTHAH.
The old stories of Samson the Danite have been scarcely touched by the
redaction (xiii. 1; xv. 20; xvi. 31b, where he is a "judge"); only
xiii. appears to be rather later (v. 5 represents him as a forerunner
of Samuel and Saul), and gives a rather different impression of the
hero of the folk-tales. The cycle illustrates some interesting customs
and is in every way valuable as a specimen of popular narrative. See
SAMSON.
Grouped among these narratives are the five so-called "minor judges"
(x. 1-5; xii. 8-15). By the addition of Shamgar (iii. 31) the number
is made to agree with the six more important names. They are not
represented as having any immediate religious importance; they really
lie outside of the chronological scheme, and their history is plainly
not related from such lively and detailed reminiscence as gives charm
to the longer episodes of the book. The notices are drawn up in set
phraseology, and some of the names, in harmony with a characteristic
feature of early Hebrew history, are those of personified families of
communities rather than of families.[5]
3. The third and last section of the book embraces chapters xvii.-xxi.,
and consists of two narratives independent of one another and of the
main stock of the book, with which they are not brought into any
chronological connexion. They appear to owe their position to the latest
redactor (akin to the latest stratum in the Hexateuch) who has heavily
worked over xix-xxi., and put the book into its present form by the
addition of i.-ii. 5, ix. and possibly of v.[6]
The first narrative, that of Micah and the Danites, is of the highest
interest both as a record of the state of religion and for the picture
it gives of the way in which one clan passed from the condition of an
invading band into settled possession of land and city. Its interest
(xvii. seq.) lies in the foundation of the Ephraimite sanctuary by
Micah as also in that of Dan. There are some repetitions in the
account, but there is not enough evidence to restore two complete
stories. The history of the Levite and the Benjamites is of quite
another character, and presupposes a degree of unity of feeling and
action among the tribes of Israel which it is not easy to reconcile
with the rest of the book. In its present form this episode appears to
be not very ancient; it resembles Ruth in giving a good deal of
curious archaeological detail (the feast at Shiloh) in a form which
suggests that the usages referred to were already obsolete when the
narrative was composed. It appears to consist of an old story which
has been heavily revised to form an edifying piece of exposition. The
older parts are preserved in xix.: the account of the Levite of Mt
Ephraim whose concubine from Bethlehem in Judah was outraged, not by
the non-Israelite Jebusites of Jerusalem, but by the Benjamites of
Gibeah; there are traces of another source in vv. 6-8, 10, 13, 15. The
older portions of xx. seq. include: the vengeance taken by Israel
(e.g. xx. 3-8, 14, 19, 29, 36-41, 47), and the reconstruction of the
tribe by intermarriage with the women of Shiloh (xxi. 1, 15, 17-19,
21-23). The post-exilic expansions (found chiefly in xx., xxi. 2-14,
16, 24 seq.) describe the punishment of Benjamin by the religious
assembly and the massacre of Jabesh-Gilead for its refusal to join
Israel, four hundred virgins of the Gileadites being saved for
Benjamin. How much old tradition underlies these stories is
questionable. It is very doubtful whether Hosea's allusion to the
depravity of Gibeah (ix. 9; x. 9) is to be referred hither, but it is
noteworthy that whilst Gibeah and Jabesh-Gilead, which appear here in
a bad light, are known to be associated with Saul, the sufferer is a
Levite of Bethlehem, the traditional home of David. The account of the
great fight in xx. is reminiscent of Joshua's battle at Ai (Josh.
vii.-viii.).
_Historical Value_.--The book of Judges consists of a number of
narratives collected by Deuteronomic editors; to the same circles are
due accounts of the invasions of Palestine and settlement in Joshua, and
of the foundation of the monarchy in 1 Samuel. The connexion has been
broken by the later insertion of matter (not necessarily of late date
itself), and the whole was finally formed into a distinct book by a
post-exilic hand. The dates of the older stories preserved in ii. 6-xvi.
6 are quite unknown. If they are trustworthy for the period to which
they are relegated (approximately 14th-12th cent. B.C.) they are
presumably of very great antiquity, but if they belong to the sources J
and E of the Hexateuch (at least some four or five centuries later)
their value is seriously weakened. On the other hand, the belief that
the monarchy had been preceded by national "judges" may have led to the
formation of the collection. It is evident that there was more than one
period in Israelite history in which one or other of these stories of
local heroes would be equally suitable. They reflect tribal rivalry and
jealousy (cf. Isa. ix. 21, and the successors of Jeroboam 2), attacks by
nomads and wars with Ammon and Moab; conflicts between newly settled
Israelites and indigenous Canaanites have been suspected in the story of
Abimelech, and it is not impossible that the post-Deuteronomic writer
who inserted ch. ix. so understood the record. A striking exception to
the lack of unity among the tribes is afforded by the account of the
defeat of Sisera, and here the old poem represents a combined effort to
throw off the yoke of a foreign oppressor, while the later prose version
approximates the standpoint of Josh. xi. 1-15, with its defeat of the
Canaanites. The general standpoint of the stories (esp. Judg. v.) is
that of central Palestine; the exceptions are Othniel and Samson--the
latter interrupting the introduction in x., and its sequel, the former
now entirely due to the Deuteronomic editor. Of the narratives which
precede and follow, ch. i. represents central Palestine separated by
Canaanite cities from tribes to the south and north; it is the situation
recognized in Judg. xix. 10-12, as well as in passages imbedded in the
latest portions of the book of Joshua, though it is in contradiction to
the older traditions of Joshua himself. Chapters xvii. seq. (like the
preceding story of Samson) deal with Danites, but the migration can
hardly be earlier than David's time; and xix.-xxi., by describing the
extermination of Benjamin, form a link between the presence of the tribe
in the late narratives of the exodus and its new prominence in the
traditions of Saul (q.v.). As an historical source, therefore, the value
of Judges will depend largely upon the question whether the Deuteronomic
editor (about 600 B.C. at the earliest) would have access to trustworthy
documents relating to a period some six or seven centuries previously.
See further JEWS, §§ 6, 8; and SAMUEL, BOOKS OF.
LITERATURE.--Biblical scholars are in agreement regarding the
preliminary literary questions of the book, but there is divergence of
opinion on points of detail, and on the precise growth of the book
(e.g. the twofold Deuteronomic redaction). See further W. R. Smith,
_Ency. Brit._ 9th ed. (upon which the present article is based); G. F.
Moore, _International Critical Comm._ (1895); _Ency. Bib._, art.
"Judges"; K. Budde, _Kurzer Handcommentar_ (1897); Lagrange, _Livres
des juges_ (1903); G. W. Thatcher (_Century Bible_); also S. R.
Driver, _Lit. of Old Testament_ (1909); Moore, in the _Sacred Books of
Old Testament_ (1898); C. F. Kent, _The Student's Old Testament_, vol.
i. (1904). (S. A. C.)