JUDGES 17:4-6 -- ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

In recent years, a different type of archeological dig has been taking place in Israel called Regional Investigation. The goal of these investigations is to take a typical site in a certain region, excavate it, and compare it to other sites in order to: (1) see how the people lived in that time period, (2) determine the effect the size of the site has, and (c) look for signs of interdependence of the sites on one another.

One such site was chosen for study in 1975 in the area of Mt. Carmel since scheduled construction work there was going to destroy any chance for future investigations. This three-year dig uncovered many details of daily life. But one of the most interesting finds came while excavating the remains of a private dwelling dating to the 11th-12th century BC (i.e. during the time of the Judges). The archeologists found typical cultic bowls as well as the bones of goats, almost exclusively from the right forelegs. It was this last finding that pointed to several early Bible passages.

Exodus 29:22-27

The setting for these verses is during the ordination ceremony for Aaron and his sons as priests during which a ram is slaughtered and certain choice pieces such as the fat and internal organs burned as a sacrifice. The right thigh is handed first to the priests, then back to Moses. Then the breast is kept by Moses for his share as the officiating priest, and right thigh is given back to Aaron and his sons as “a perpetual contribution from the Israelites.”

Verse 33 goes on to say that the priests are to boil the meat in a place set apart at the opening of the Tent of Appointed Meeting. They are the only ones who are to eat it.

Leviticus 7:30-36

Then we come to a somewhat similar ceremony here called the Peace Offering. But there are two differences from the priestly ordination ritual in Exodus. For one thing, this time it is the breast which is given to all the priests to share among themselves whereas the officiating priest is the one who receives the right thigh. Another difference is that the priests are allowed to eat their share at any clean place, not just near the tabernacle.

As to the piece of meat involved, Wenham says, “It is difficult to know precisely which cuts are intended by these terms. The right leg (shoq) might indicate the hindquarter, but Deut. 18 speaks of the shoulder (zerod), which suggests the forequarter. In a Canaanite temple at Lachish the right forelegs of several different species were found by the altar.”

Hamilton and Milgrom also agree that when used of animals, shoq refers to the thigh of the hind legs rather than the shoulders of the fore legs. But Allis states: “Whether fore-leg or hind-leg is meant is not certain.”

A.P. Ross suggests, “The right thigh of the animal may have been designated for priests because it bore the burden of the labor by the animal, or it simply may have been considered the best cut of meat. In 1 Sam. 9:24 this portion is reserved for the guest of honor.”

But I would suggest another possibility, at least for the case in I Samuel 9:24. The host at the particular meal in that verse was the prophet Samuel and his guest was none other than Saul, whom he was about to ordain as the first king of Israel. So Samuel may have been making a pointed reference back to the ceremony in Exodus 29 where the first priests of Israel were ordained.

Noting the differences in custom between Exodus and Leviticus, Milgrom proposes a complicated process of composition for the latter in which two different customs are fused reflecting the change in the ceremony with time. Thus, the earlier practice “reflects the practice of the small sanctuary with one priestly family” while the later one took place at a centralized shrine having multiple priests who would take turn serving. Averbeck critiques Milgrom's theory by saying, “His overly rigid conclusion forces him to argue for diachronic revision [i.e. something that has changed with time].” One specific weakness of Milgrom's argument is that he unnecessarily feels that the ceremonies in Exodus and Leviticus must be the same, which they aren't at all. The one in Exodus is an ordination ritual while the Leviticus passage describes a “Peace Offering” instead.

Judges 17:4-6

All of the above brings us back to the archeological find near Mt. Carmel. It appears to indicate that during the time of the Judges, private individuals could possess their own sacrificial paraphernalia. And the bones of the thigh found there also indicate that an officiating priest lived there and the bones are left from his portion of a sacrifice.

With this background, it is not at all strange to learn in Judges 17 of a wealthy individual commandeering a Levite to be his own private priest and install him in part of his house. After all, as the author of Judges says right after this passage, “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” That exact chorus appears once more in Judges, at 21:25. Together they serve to bracket the so-called Appendix to Judges and “provide a kind of inverse job description for the king. By detailing Israel's problem, the writer establishes an agenda for the solution, a pattern for kingship.” (L.G. Stone)

The only point remaining is why Bible scholars all appear to agree that the Jewish rituals all involved the right hindquarter of an animal as the priest's or priests' portion and yet the Canaanite shrines of the time appear to involve the fore-arm. The tie-breaker could be the find near Mt. Carmel. The bones there were from the fore-arms of goats, perhaps confirming that, as the archeologists suspected, the house uncovered was that of an Israelite. It would be interesting if the apparently exclusive dedication of the fore-arms of sacrificed animals to the priests was done to purposefully distinguish the Israelite practice from that found in the worship of the pagan tribes around them.