than the “Hear, O Israel-"-that Jehovah is the only God, and the worship of strange gods the sin of sins.  This precept was apprehended much more clearly by contemporaries than the moral demands in the interest of humanity and kindness which are also insisted on in Deuteronomy, but are not new, being derived from older collections; on this side alone, in so far as it follows up the monotheism of the prophets into its practical consequences within the sphere of worship, has Josiah’s law-book had historical importance, on this side alone has it continued to act upon Ezekiel and those who came after him.  If, then, the norm of the theocratic relationship assumed in the redaction of the Book of Judges is to be sought in a written Torah, this can indubitably only be that of Deuteronomy.  The decisive settlement of the question depends in a comparison with the Book of Kings, and must accordingly be postponed until then.

VII.I.2.  As for the relation between this superstructure and that on which it rests, there is a striking difference between the two styles.  The revised form in which the Book of Judges found its way into the canon is unquestionably of Judaean origin, but the histories themselves are not such,—­nay, in the song of Deborah, Judah is not reckoned at all as belonging to Israel.  The one judge who belongs to the tribe of Judah is Othniel, who however is not a person, but only a clan.  What is said of him is quite void of contents, and is made up merely of the schematic devices of the redactor, who has set himself to work here, so as to make the series open with a man of Judah; the selection of Othniel was readily suggested by Judges i. 12-15.  Here again we have an exception which proves the rule.  More important are the inner differences which reveal themselves.  To begin with the most general,—­the historical continuity on which so much stress is laid by the scheme, is in no way shown in the individual narratives of the Book of Judges.  These stand beside one another unconnectedly and without any regard to order or sequence, like isolated points of light which emerge here and there out of the darkness of forgetfulness.  They make no presence of actually filling up any considerable space of time; they afford no points of attachment whereon to fasten a chronology.  In truth, it is hardly the dim semblance of a continuity that is imparted to the tradition by the empty framework of the scheme.  The conception of a period of the judges between Joshua and Saul, during which judges ruled over Israel and succeeded one another almost as regularly as did the kings at a later period, is quite foreign to that tradition.  It is impossible to doubt that Judges i., xvii., xviii. have the best right to be reckoned as belonging to the original stock; but these portions are excluded from reception within the scheme, because they have nothing to say about any judges, and give a picture of the general state of affairs which accords but ill with that plan. 1