Son of Anath: he was: one of the Judges in Israel. (Judges 3: 31.) His name seems to be derived from Shem, name - - and Ger, stranger.
Sham´gar, son of Anath, and third judge of Israel. It is not known whether the only exploit recorded of him was that by which his authority was acquired. It is said that he ’slew of the Philistines 600 men with an ox-goad’ (Jdg 3:31). It is supposed that he was laboring in the field, without any other weapon than the long staff armed with a strong point, used in urging and guiding the cattle yoked to the plow, when he perceived a party of the Philistines, whom, with the aid of the husbandmen and neighbors, he repulsed with much slaughter. The date and duration of his government are unknown, but may be probably assigned to the end of that long period of repose which, followed the deliverance under Ehud. In Shamgar’s time, as the song of Deborah informs us (Jdg 5:6), the condition of the people was so deplorably insecure, that the highways were forsaken, and travelers went through byways, and, for the same reason, the villages were abandoned for the walled towns.
Son of Anath, the third judge of Israel, after Ehud and shortly before Barak, in a time of great insecurity and distress, Jdg 3:31 5:6. Scripture only says he defended Israel, and killed six hundred Philistines with an ox-goad. See PLOUGH.\par
Son of Anath, judge of Israel after Ehud, and immediately before Barak (Jdg 5:6; Jdg 5:8; Jdg 3:31). Probably a Naphtalite, as Beth Anath was of Naphtali. This tribe took a foremost part in the war with Jabin (Jdg 4:6; Jdg 4:10; Jdg 5:18). The tributary Canaanites (Jdg 1:33) combined with the Philistines against Israel, rendering the highways unsafe and forcing Israelite travelers into byways to escape notice. The villages were forsaken, and as in later times the oppressors disarmed Israel of all swords and spears (Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:19; 1Sa 13:22). With an ox goad, his only weapon (compare Jdg 15:15-16, an undesigned coincidence marking genuineness; 1Sa 17:47; 1Sa 17:50; spiritually 2Co 10:4; 1Co 1:27) he slew 600 Philistines, thereby giving Israel deliverance from oppressors for a time. So he prepared the way for Deborah and Barak’s more decisive blow. The inadequacy of the instrument renders Jehovah’s might the more evident.
By: Emil G. Hirsch, George A. Barton
—Biblical Data:
One of the Judges; son of Anath. He smote 600 Philistines with an ox-goad and saved Israel (Judges iii. 31). During his judgeship so unsettled were the times that "the highways were unoccupied, and the travelers walked through byways" (ib. v. 6).
—Critical View:
In the song of Deborah (Judges v. 6) Shamgar is connected with the hour of Israel's deepest humiliation. He was, therefore, probably not a judge, but a foreign oppressor of Israel. From the form of his name it has been conjectured that he may have been a Hittite (comp. "Sangar," Hittite king of Carchemish in the ninth century B.C.); Moore, in "Jour. American Oriental Society" (xix. 2, p. 160), shows reason for believing that he was the father of Sisera.
Judges iii. 31, in which Shamgar is first mentioned, is out of place, the whole verse being a late addition to the chapter. Ch. iv., the story of Jabin and Sisera, connects directly with the story of Ehud. Moreover, the introduction of the Philistines is suspicious, for they do not appear in Hebrew history till shortly before the time of Saul. Moore has noted also that in a group of Greek manuscripts, and likewise in the Hexaplar Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic versions, this verse is inserted after the account of the exploits of Samson, immediately following Judges xvi. 31, in a form which proves that it was once a part of the Hebrew text. It was observed long ago that this exploit resembled the exploits of David's heroes (II Sam. xxi. 15-22, xxiii. 8 et seq.), especially those of Shammah, son of Agee (ib. xxiii. 11 et seq.). Probably an account similar to this last was first attached to Judges xvi. 31; then the name was in course of time corrupted to "Shamgar," through the influence of ch. v. 6; and, lastly, the statement was transferred to ch. iii. 31, so that it might occur before the reference in ch. v.
Bibliography:
Moore, Judges, in International Critical Commentary, 1895, pp. 104 et seq.;
Budde, Richter, in K. H. C. 1897, p. 32;
Nowack, Richter, in his Handkommentar, 1902, pp. 30 et seq.;
Moore, Shamgar and Sisera, in Jour. American Oriental Society, xix. 2, pp. 159, 160.
SHAMGAR smote 600 Philistines with an ox-goad (Jdg 3:31). There is no mention of his judging Israel, or of the duration of his influence. The exploit belongs to the latest redaction of the book; Jdg 4:1 continues the story of Jdg 3:30. Nothing is known of any Philistine dominion at so early a period, and in some Gr. MSS the verse follows Jdg 16:31. His exploit resembles that of Shammah in 2Sa 23:11 (cf. 2Sa 21:16-22), and may have been attached to him as an expansion of the reference in the song of Deborah (Jdg 5:6). There, however, he appears to be a foreign oppressor, and the connexion of the two passages is obscure, the song having to do with Canaanite oppression in the North. The name is foreign, Hittite or Assyrian. He is the ‘son of Anath.’ Anati occurs in the Tell el-Amarna tablets, and Anatu is an Assyr.
C. W. Emmet.
1. Biblical Account:
One of the judges, son of Anath (
2. Critical Hypotheses:
Several writers have challenged the Biblical account on the following grounds: that in Jdg 5 no mention is made of any deliverance; that the name “Shamgar” resembles the name of a Hittite king and the name “Anath” that of a Syrian goddess; that the deed recorded in Jdg 3:31 is analogous to that of Samson (Jdg 15:15), and that of Shammah, son of Agee (2Sa 23:11 f); and lastly, that in a group of Greek manuscripts and other versions this verse is inserted after the account of Samson’s exploits. None of these is necessarily inconsistent with the traditional account. Neverthelesss, they have been used as a basis not only for overthrowing the tradition, but also for constructive theories such as that which makes Shamgar a foreign oppressor and not a judge, and even the father of Sisera. There is, of course, no limit to which this kind of interesting speculation cannot lead.
(For a complete account of these views see Moore, “Judges,” in ICC, 1895, 104 f, and same author in Journal of the American Oriental Society, XIX, 2, 159-60.)
