Judges 18:27

THE DANITES TAKE LAISH AND DESTROY IT

"And they took that which Micah had made, and the priest whom he had, and came to Laish, unto a people quiet and secure, and smote them with the edge of the sword; and they burnt the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon, and they had no dealings with any man; and it was in the valley that lieth by Beth-rehob. And they built the city and dwelt therein. And they called the name of the city Dan, their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first. And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were the priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. So they set them up Micah's graven image which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh."

"They ... smote them with the edge of the sword" (Judges 18:27). This is a reference to the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children and infants, and the burning of the city with fire might also have been an instrument in the annihilation of the population of that quiet and peaceful little city.

"They had no dealings with any man" (Judges 18:28). The citizens of that quiet little city had not made any treaties or alliances with others who might have been able to help them in such a disaster. "There was no deliverer."

"It was in the valley ... by Beth-rehob" (Judges 18:28). This place was the northern limit of the penetration of Canaan by the twelve spies sent out by Moses (Numbers 13:21).

"And they called the name of the city Dan" (Judges 18:29). They built their city on the ruins of the destroyed Laish. Note that Dan is referred to here as "their father," meaning their "ancestor." The proverbial expression, "From Dan to Beersheba," carried the meaning of, "from one end of Israel to the other."

"Jonathan ... son of Gershom, son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to ... the Danites" (Judges 18:30). The apostasy of this grandson of Moses (the same word, [~ben], means great grandson) was an embarrassment to the Jews, and they wrote the word "Manasseh" above the word Moses but did not change the text, so that in reading it aloud they did not have to mention this shameful development in the posterity of Moses.[14] Of course, the connection of the distinguished family of Moses with this apostate shrine in Dan added to its prestige and acceptance by the Israelites.

"Until the day of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30). It is amazing to this writer that the same radical scholars who can find thirty `interpolations' or `glosses' in a single chapter are absolutely blind to such a thing when they actually encounter one. That there are indeed editorial additions to the sacred text here and there cannot be denied, as for example in those places where the sacred writer's death and burial are recorded. An example is found in Joshua 24:29-30, and another is in Deuteronomy 34:5-8).

The phrase noted here is possibly an editorial addition at a later time than that of Samuel's narration. If these words mean "after the Assyrian captivity," then Samuel who died centuries earlier could not have written them. Baigent stated that, "`Until the day of the captivity' is a later editorial insertion, and the date indicated here is probably that of the fall of the Northern Israel (circa 721 B.C.)."[15] Furthermore, this appears to mean that the apostasy of Dan was never healed but continued until the Assyrians captured and depopulated Northern Israel.

"During the time that the house of God was in Shiloh" (Judges 18:31). The continuity of that particular installation of Micah's `god' in Dan did not last until the Assyrian invasion in 722 B.C., because Judges 18:31 indicates that it continued only "during the time that the house of God" remained in Shiloh. "The sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed in 1050 B.C."[16] If Samuel had written the words indicating the use of that shrine "until the captivity of the land," then the words, "all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh" would have been robbed of their meaning. For this reason, we receive the words "until the time of the captivity" as possibly an editorial insertion, true indeed as for their intended meaning, but nevertheless confusing in the text as they stand.

"Until the days of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30). Keil did not accept the view that this is an editorial insertion, but accepted it as a legitimate part of the text. Keil also refused to apply the words either to the Assyrian captivity in 721 B.C. or to the Babylonian captivity later, basing that conclusion on the basis that, "If that Danite shrine had still existed in the days of Jeroboam I, that monarch would certainly not have established a second worship in Dan of the same kind under a priesthood that was not Levitical ... The words, therefore, can only refer to some event that took place in the last years of Samuel, or the first part of the reign of Saul."[17] We accept this alternative explanation as absolutely satisfactory and as also avoiding the allegation of an "editorial comment." The only problem with it is the fact that the Bible does not reveal any "captivity of the land" until a time long afterward. Even this, however, is not a fatal objection to Keil's explanation, because there are many, many things which happened in the history of Israel that are NOT recorded.

"Archaeological excavations in 1826,1928 show that there was an extensive settlement in Shiloh in the twelfth and early eleventh centuries B.C. until its destruction circa 1050 B.C."[18] Of course, there could well have been at that time a "captivity of the land," which was left unmentioned in the sacred text.

Hervey also pointed out that, "The original image made by Micah may have been destroyed by Saul or David ... Others think that `the captivity of the land' is a reference to some deportation of the Danites by the Syrians or other neighboring enemies not recorded in the Bible. This would enable us to give what is surely the natural meaning to the words, `the captivity of the land.'"[19]

However one may interpret this difficult passage, there is certainly nothing in it that contradicts the probability of Samuel's authorship of Judges. Again, from Hervey, "Certainty regarding the interpretation here cannot be arrived at without more actual knowledge."[20]