The main thing, however, is not the chronology, but the religious connection of the events.  The two are intimately associated, not only formally, as can be gathered from the scheme, but also by a real inner connection.  For what is aimed at in both alike is a connected view of large periods of time, a continuous survey of the connection and succession of race after race, the detailed particulars of the occurrences being disregarded; the historical factors with which the religious pragmatism here has to do are so uniform that the individual periods in reality need only to be filled up with the numbers of the years.  One is reminded of the “Satz,” `"Gegensatz,” and “Vermittelung” of the Hegelian philosophy when one’s ear has once been caught by the monotonous beat with which the history here advances, or rather moves in a circle.  Rebellion, affliction, conversion, peace; rebellion, affliction, conversion, peace.  The sole subjects of all that is said are Jehovah and Israel; their mutual relation alone it is that keeps the course of things in motion, and that too in opposite directions, so that in the end matters always return to their original position.

“They did what was evil in the sight of Jehovah, they went a-whoring after strange gods,"-such is the uninterrupted key-note.  Although Jehovistic monolatry is so potently recommended from without, it yet takes no firm root, never becomes natural to the people, always remains a precept above and beyond their powers.  For decennia on end indeed they hold fast to it, but soon their idolatrous tendency, which has only been repressed by fear of the judge during his lifetime, again finds expression; they must have a change.  Now this rebellion is indeed quite indispensable for the pragmatism, because otherwise there would be nothing at all to tell; it is on the unrest in the clock that the whole movement depends.  But at the same time this is of course no extenuation; the conduct of the people is manifestly totally inexcusable, the main actions, the deeds of the judges, are for this manner of historical treatment always only proofs of Israel’s sin and of the unmerited grace of Jehovah that puts them to shame.

That all this is no part of the original contents of the tradition, but merely a uniform in which it is clothed, is admitted. Numero Deus impare gaudet.  It is usual to call this later revision Deuteronomistic.  The law which Jehovah has enjoined upon the fathers, and the breach of which He has threatened severely to punish (ii. 15, 21), is not indeed more definitely characterised, but it is impossible to doubt that its quintessence is the injunction to worship Jehovah alone and no other God.  Now in this connection it is impossible to think of the Priestly Code, for in that document such a command is nowhere expressly enjoined, but, on the contrary, is assumed as a matter of course.  Deuteronomy, on the other hand, has in fact no precept on which it lays greater emphasis