10 Gregory T.K. Wong the mountainous area east of the Jordan was occupied by the tribe of Gad plus the eastern half of the tribe of Manasseh, the reference in v. 17a may very well be a reference to those one and a half tribes (25). If so, then each of the complementary roll calls in A and B would have equally mentioned exactly four and a half tribes: Ephraim, Benjamin, the western half of Manasseh (Makir), Zebulun, and Issachar in A; Reuben, Gad and the eastern half of Manasseh (Gilead), Dan, and Asher in B. In fact, a further structural parallel can also be seen in A and B in that the material concerning Issachar, the last tribe mentioned in the roll call of participating tribes, is significantly lengthier than the material concerning any of the other participating tribes. Moreover, within this roll call of participating tribes, Issachar is the only tribe to have been mentioned twice (26). Interestingly, in the following roll call of non-participating tribes, the material concerning Reuben, the first tribe mentioned, is also significantly lengthier than the material concerning any of the other non-participating tribes. And like Issachar, Reuben is also the only tribe among the non-participants to be mentioned twice. In this regard, the two roll calls seem to represent a mirror image of each other in terms of their structural arrangement. (25) C.F. BURNEY, The Book of Judges (New York 1970) 142; MOORE, Judges, 155; AULD, Judges, 159; BLOCK, Judges, 233, all see the reference to Gilead as a substitution for Gad since otherwise, Gad would have been the only non-southern tribe not represented in the roll-call in vv. 14-18. This understanding is also supported by readings in the Peshitta and in some LXX manuscripts. But the fact that Gilead is used instead of Gad probably suggests that the designation is meant to include also the half tribe of Manasseh to balance the mention of Makir in v.14c. After all, the grouping of the two together under a shared geographic designation makes sense if both had taken the same stance regarding participation in the war against Sisera. (26) Admittedly, there is some debate as to whether Issachar is indeed mentioned twice within v. 15 especially since LXXA lacks the underlying phrase qrb ˆk rkççyw. But LINDARS, Judges, 256, points out that the omission cannot represent the OG and its underlying Hebrew Vorlage because then, the subject of the following phrase would have been Deborah. Yet the masculine pronoun clearly presupposes Barak as subject. LXXB, on the other hand, does have the phrase, but substitutes Barak for Issachar so that Barak is mentioned twice and Issachar only once. LINDARS sees this reading also as an error resulting from the confusion in the Greek tradition. In addition, J. GRAY, “Israel”, 434 n. 35; 437 n. 51, favours emending the second reference to Issachar to Naphtali so that the latter is also mentioned in vv. 14-17. However, as GRAY himself admits, this proposed emendation is conjectural and lacks support from the versions.