Abstract:

Set during a time of leaderless chaos in ancient Israel, Judges 19 provides the contemporary reader with a grisly account of the sexual assault, murder and dismemberment of a young woman. This shocking narrative has given rise to conflicting interpretations, both ancient and modern. Some commentators have understood the story as expressing sensitivity to the woman’s tragic plight while others have viewed the tale as deeply misogynistic. The impasse reached by these polarized interpretations invites a fresh examination not only of the story but of the hermeneutical lens(es) through which composite books are read. Arising out of a critique of synchronic studies of Judges, this paper will explore the relationship(s) between narratives and the larger texts into which they have been embedded using the harrowing tale of Judges 19 as a case study. Greger Andersson’s work in narratology and biblical texts, specifically his suggestion that fictional narratives are autonomous and resistant to integration, will provide the theoretical framework through which the story will be analyzed. Insights gleaned from sociological approaches to urban legends will supplement the study and help build the case that the disturbing tale of Judges 19 may have circulated orally as a horror legend in ancient Israel before integration into its present literary context. The paper will attempt to show that contemporary interpretation of the story hinges on a negotiation of meaning between the text and its context, a process complicated by the autonomous nature of its narrative.