Talk:Jephthah

Spelling: why Jephtha?

Why is this page "Jephtha" and not "Jephthah"? Google return more results for the latter, which is also found in Dictionry.com. -- Itai 00:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "with an h" spelling is the KJV spelling. Perhaps the spelling without is simply more correct. God, contrary to some opinions, did not dictate the text of the KJV (as he did the Book of Mormon) <g>.

--In response to the nonsense posted by <g>, God did not dictate any book, especially the Book of Mormon, which is riddled with unfulfilled prophecies and numerous historical and geographical inaccuracies. The name Jephthah is simply an English rendering of the Hebrew name "Yiftakh", which ends in a pronounced velar fricative. Spelling the name Jephthah without an "h" is incorrect and reveals a lack of understanding of where the name comes from and what it means.. [User 68.226.228.6]

Actually, there has been a ton of prophecies that have been fulfilled, and there exists a very plausible geography of the Book of Mormon, and the alleged inaccuracies have been answered by scholars. Ever read them? Don't let secular dogmatism dominate your mind.173.10.19.46 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My NASB also uses the spelling of his name with an 'h'. The article itself only seems to use the spelling Jephthah, not Jephtha. I think either the article should reflect the title, or the title should be changed. It would seem, regardless, that Jephthah is more common than Jephtha. 76.48.50.127 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most commentators say killing of daughter did not take place

See: http://www.kby.org/torah/article.cfm?articleid=1069

"most [Jewish, Observant, Classical] Biblical commentators (Radak, Ralbag, Abarbanel, Malbim, Metzudot) is that, "He carried out with her his vow" does not mean an actual sacrifice, but rather that he set her aside for the service of Hashem. (The Abarbanel even points out that this is the source for the Christian practice regarding the seclusion of the monks.)"

If someone would please reference those commentators for this article to give it a balanced view. There are many metaphors and expressions in the Hebrew Bible that are not meant to be taken literally or translated in modern terms. In addition, other characters are offered for service to the temple (Samuel / Shmuel), and are not killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.3.93 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) ori

This is not the historical view. Josephus and Augustine both admitted it was a ritual sacrifice, and condemned him for it. The 'virgin' theory only arose for apologetic purposes alone.

The word used in the story of Jephthah is 'Olah (עולה), which as a noun means "burnt offering" (sacrifice) in Biblical Hebrew. It is never used to denote "service in the temple", and moreover there is no precedent in the Hebrew Bible for a nun-like vow of perpetual celibacy. The commentaries of the above rabbis on this subject are known to have been influenced by the situation in their European Christian surroundings (e.g. Spain, France), in which girls could make vows of celibacy and become nuns. But this has never existed in Judaism.

Jephthah's daughter does not go off to "bewail her virginity" because she is about to take a vow of perpetual celibacy (for which she would have her entire life to bewail), but because she is about to die a virgin.

Those who are trying to sugarcoat the Biblical story of Jepthah seem to be missing the point. The Torah explicitly prohibits sacrificing one's offspring (Deut. 18:10, Jer. 7:31).

Nevertheless, it is explicitly acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible that at times Israelites did offer up their children as sacrifices, in direct contravention to God's prohibition (Jeremiah 7:30-31):

"For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight, saith the LORD; they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My name is called, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind."

Moreover, the Biblical text states that the period of the Judges (in which Jephthah lived) was a period of lawlessness (Judges 17:6, 21:25).

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

It is against this backdrop that Jephthah's rash vow and actions are to be understood.

JD (talk, 27 March 2014)

More detail

A quick scan of the Book of Judges suggests that this article is lacking the main information about Jephtha, instead concentrating on one curious incident and exploring that: it's very interesting, but the Biblical account suggests he was famous for many other things. Also, he is mentioned very briefly in the New Testament's Letter to the Hebrews, 11:32.

Can someone with more time add the relevant information, and rearrange the article so it doesn't just talk about him "killing" his daughter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

42,000 Ephraimites killed?

Anyone able to corroborate this? I always understood that the Gileadites killed "forty and two thousand" Ephraimites (as per the King James Version). This, given the size of communities in those days, makes more sense. "Forty and two thousand" is 2,040. 42,000 would have been most of the entire population of Judea at that time, I would imagine.

Any thoughts? Jfbcubed 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a failure to comprehend Jacobean English; if you have any real qualms, consult a more recent translation, but "forty and two thousand" is 42,000 just as "forty and two years' would be 42 years. (The figure is likely to be unhistoric, just as Herodotus' figures are; but this is what is meant.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was to move this article --Lox (t,c) 11:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting move from Jephtha to Jephthah, per consistent use of latter spelling at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011%20 and other editions.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion above, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Jephtha/Jephthah.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Jephthah is certainly more common, and almost certainly more widely understood. The difference is between translations chiefly from the Hebrew, which use Jephthah, and translations from the Vulgate, in Latin, which use Jephtha because a final h is impossible in Latin and so avoided in loan words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support --Java7837 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 Done Neıl ☎ 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple weaknesses

This is a great little article, however I have some comments.

First, it needs to cite the references it is drawn from, and to do so properly. Can you guys start supplying those? I'm no wikipedia expert...but know this is needed. I don't jump to the extreme some do and say "uncited, delete everything uncited!", but say "provide the sources and start integrating the citations"!

Second, could it be more specific? For instance, it says that it was widely held among the "Fathers" (I don't really like that label, by the way) that this was a typology. Wacky, I think, but it would be nice to know the specifics on this, or have a link to the source to check this out (as well as other details). For instance, Josephus is quoted...but none of the matter needed to check Him on this is available: not good!

Third, I'm glad there was a guy who understood the proper spelling (with an "h" at the end) because of pronunciation; that's just cool. : )

Fourth, from where did the quoted passage come from? What translation? Perhaps a more widely read version as a source (perhaps literal too to reduce the sectarian possibilities) is in order? Why in the world is that translation so eccentric as to use "holocaust" like this? Seriously. (Seriously.) I know it can...but WHY!?

tooMuchData

11:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommend protect

Some Christians have been spreading the myth that Jephthah's daughter wasn't offered as a burnt sacrifice according to the Bible. This is false. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the text as accords to the daughter's fate. If you find that difficult to reconcile with your faith, I suggest you stop editing Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a spot for poorly rationalizing and equivocating your personal beliefs. PyroGamer (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(Response) Whether or not she was actually burnt or not, the text is deliberately ambiguous. It says וַיַּ֣עַשׂ לָ֔הּ אֶת־נִדְר֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָדָ֑ר which literally means "He did to (alt. "for" or "with") the vow which he had vowed." It doesn't say that clearly he offered her as a sacrifice (or killed her) or that he locked her away. It is a deliberately ambiguous language. Conceptualinertia (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(Response) I am sorry that you have read the text incorrectly. This should not be protected because of a misreading and the article should be corrected to state that Jephthah's daughter was not killed. If you read further on in verse 38 of Judges 11, it clearly states that she wept for her lifelong virginity and not her impending death. Jepthath was a judge over Israel and worshiped the Israelite God who detested human sacrifices such as the ones the pagans were doing to their false gods. Only animals were to be sacrificed according to the law given by God and instituted in the Jewish sacrificial system of that time. God would not have accepted a human sacrifice and Jephthah, as a Judge, would have known that. Therefore, the text goes on to state in Judges 11: 37,38 that Jepthah's sacrifice was offering his daughter to remain a lifelong virgin in memory of his oath. In that timeframe and cultural context, being forced never to marry and produce offspring was a devastating thing for Jephthah's daughter and a sacrifice for Jephthah because he was losing one line of his lineage. Verse 39 confirms that she was never killed. The text is unequivocal and the reasoning is solid. Please correct the article to state this truth without bias.

Sorry, but Josephus and Augustine both know far more about the text and Judeo-Christian theology that a modern fundie apologist would, and they both knew very well that it was a burnt sacrifice and admitted it in their writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.217.95 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And both Josephus and Augustine were wrong. Many scholars have concluded otherwise. 173.10.19.46 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but however much you would like to believe otherwise, verse 39 confirms that she was killed:

After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

The only vow mentioned is the vow to sacrifice - anything else is wishful thinking, trying to make sense out of a book that reflects all sorts of societal changes over a very long time. The story of Isaac should be enough of an indicator that human sacrifice was not unthinkable. In any case, this article needs to reflect what is written by others, not original research.

The bit about her bewailing her virginity is most likely just meant to imply it was even sadder than it would have been otherwise because she was a young woman who had never even had a chance to be married and have children etc, also it stresses her purity and innocence. The next bit says women of the tribe would hold an annual lament for her - sounds a bit over the top if she just was dedicated to God and had to remain virginal, as opposed to her having been killed. Orlando098 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You've misread the entire thing. Nothing in the text indicates that the sacrifice was a literal killing. You've also misunderstood the story of Isaac as well--it was to show that human sacrifice was not needed--and to Christians, a representation of the sacrifice of Jesus. 173.10.19.46 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yearly, remembering the daughter of Jephtah?

Is this still practiced in today's Judaism? If yes it should be mentioned and if not it should be mentioned when and why the practice ceased. -- 92.230.13.99 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the part the text stating that the spirit of the Lord came on Jepthah and caused him to make his oath

I changed the sentence stating that the spirit of the Lord came on Jepthah and caused him to swear his oath to read that he heedlessly swore. There is no indication in the Bible that what Jepthah did here was in any way pleasing to God - either in making the oath or in carrying it out. This passage is often interpreted to be a historical account of a wicked act done by one of the judges. Making a vow as he did was wrong, and then instead of repenting of his sin as he should have he compounded it with human sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsoz (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the article cited by Solomon Landers in Biblical Archeology Review or anywhere. Did someone make it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.39.56 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Idomeneus

The story of Jephtah is startingly similar to that of the general in Greek mythology, Idomeneus. Except there the first person to be met is Idomeneus' son, who is duly sacrificed. It would be interested to deal in the article about how (and if) the two stories are related. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to update this to show that the Idomeneus story comes from Servius' commentary on the Aeneid. Right now it says, "The 18th-century French philosopher Voltaire (citing the 2nd Century BC writer Apollodorus)." Whether or not Voltaire thought that, I can't find anything that supports that Apollodorus actually gave the story about Idomeneus. However, here is the actual Latin text where Servius gives the story https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0053:book=11:commline=264&highlight=Idomeneus%2Crex%2CCretensium%2Cfuit Orluvoq (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I found Voltaire's dictionary: http://www.davidmhart.com/liberty/FrenchClassicalLiberals/Voltaire/PhilosophicalDictionary/1901-English/index.html. In the section on Jephthah, he mentions Idomeneus but not Apollodorus. The current article text is an unsupported extrapolation. I am going to change it to reflect the data. Orluvoq (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

not not acceptable

@Esoglou: Following this edit, the text at "Seen as unacceptable" includes "it was not not acceptable to God". This looks odd to me. Is that double "not" intended? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, the text intends to read "not acceptable". I'm also wondering about the first part of the sentence, though, "the absence of expressed judgement implies..." I would have thought an absence of expressed judgement would normally imply something is acceptable. I don't have access to the article. StAnselm (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sacrifice

The historical and traditional view of this story is that Jephthah killed his daughter. This has been the mainstream view for centuries. I'm not against the article also covering modern views on "sacrifice" that did not involve death, but we should have the popular view first and then deal with the other material elsewhere. Otherwise we're in the odd position - at least for Christians - of completely dismissing Augustine's view on this. I'm also concerned that some editors take a pick and mix approach on accuracy in order to support apologist arguments. On the one hand they favour non-traditional readings of the Bible when dealing with topics such as a man killing his daughter because god tells him too. But on other articles they crawl all over the bible to insist on traditional readings concerning marriage or homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In your presentation you can give first place to what you call "the popular view" (that Jephthah "did with her according to his vow that he had made" means that "he killed her"), but you can't in Wikipedia present it in isolation, keeping out of the sentence and paragraph, and even of the whole of the section that recounts the "story", the least hint that there is any discussion about the meaning of "did with her according to his vow that he had made". Your original-research and false presentation of the situation must be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't do original research. This article needs some serious scholarly work. At the moment I don't have time - but may return to it in the future. It seems to me that it is skewed rather unhelpfully by a good dose of Christian apologetics. Seeing as the subject of the article is part of Jewish religious history (more so than Christian) I think we should primarily clarify the understanding of the story within Judaism. And there the major view is that the daughter died. Then we can add in the Christian perspective - although even here the Church Fathers are of the view that she died. In the medieval and early modern period we see the suggestion that she remained a virgin instead; but even Martin Luther argued the suggestion of death is clear. I think we need a bit more honesty, and a bit less soft-soap. I also would like a reference to Hamlet. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea that "he did with her according to his vow that he had made" meant that he kept her in seclusion was put forward by Jewish scholars (source) some centuries before Christians proposed it (source). Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt some Jewish scholars did put forward that view. But you wouldn't know that from reading this poorly written apologist article. Many Jewish scholars did not. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To Esoglou: Nun-like vows of perpetual celibacy are not and have never been part of Judaism. I will repeat here what I have written above.

The word used in the story of Jephthah is 'Olah (עולה), which as a noun means "burnt offering" (sacrifice) in Biblical Hebrew. It is never used to denote "service in the temple", and moreover there is no precedent in the Hebrew Bible for a nun-like vow of perpetual celibacy. The commentaries of the above rabbis on this subject are known to have been influenced by the situation in their European Christian surroundings (e.g. Spain, France), in which girls could make vows of celibacy and become nuns. But this has never existed in Judaism.

Jephthah's daughter does not go off to "bewail her virginity" because she is about to take a vow of perpetual celibacy (for which she would have her entire life to bewail), but because she is about to die a virgin.

Those who are trying to sugarcoat the Biblical story of Jepthah seem to be missing the point. The Torah explicitly prohibits sacrificing one's offspring (Deut. 18:10, Jer. 7:31).

Nevertheless, it is explicitly acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible that at times Israelites did offer up their children as sacrifices, in direct contravention to God's prohibition (Jeremiah 7:30-31):

"For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight, saith the LORD; they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My name is called, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind."

Moreover, the Biblical text states that the period of the Judges (in which Jephthah lived) was a period of lawlessness (Judges 17:6, 21:25).

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

It is against this backdrop that Jephthah's rash vow and actions are to be understood.

JD

Finally some sanity. I would rather we restructure the article to reflect this important points. I'm fed up of so many wiki articles being used simply to further some specific religious agenda. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Bullinger's grammatical objection makes no sense in the context of the text's meaning.

Judges 11:31 reads: "then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering."

Bullinger claims that it should read instead "then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering."

Aside from the fact that the usual meaning of the Hebrew conjunction 'vav' is 'and' not 'or', Bullinger's interpretation renders the entire sentence meaningless and nonsensical. A burnt offering in the Hebrew Bible is precisely a sacrificial offering to God and by definition belongs to God. Jephthah is not stating an alternative between offering something to God, and offering up a burnt-offering. He is specifying the nature of this offering to God, as a burnt offering. Thus, the conjunction "vav" in this sentence here must mean "and".

Jacob D (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Relevance of cited U.S. Supreme Court decision

I find the relevance of the cited U.S. Supreme Court decision (in the case of Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies) quite obtuse. How is that decision relevant? --PloniAlmoni (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

History civics

The birthplace of judges falls in parent day 43.241.144.225 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Image

@StAnselm In what way does that image contribute to the page at all? It is 100% purely fictitious meaning it contributes nothing whatsoever towards a factual understanding. And, in my subjective opinion, the art style is really ugly and so it contributes nothing from an aesthetic perspective either. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing consensus across many articles to include these images. If you want to change this, it probably requires a broader RfC. Amon of Judah passed GA status with a similar image, while there was a proposal to remove the image at Talk:Omri#Picture in Infobox which did not receive any support. StAnselm (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rush vows: weak discussion

The source used, Catholic Enc., is a bit fishy in this case. It offers 3 further examples of rush vows that sometimes led to human sacrifice, adding a weak "etc." as a quick way out. Did they indeed result in human sacrifice? I was surprised, checked, and saw that they didn't, the examples are not supporting the claim in this form. Our editor also added "vow to God" - that's also wrong, as unsupported.

1. In example with David and the Gabaonites, there is no vow to God, certainly not from David. Did Joshua swear any vow towards the Gabaonites? I don't think so, but I'm not good at that :)
2. King Achaz takes no vow, he just breaks the law in imitation of pagan cult and as a sign of gratitude toward Tiglath Pileser.
3. David and the 7 descendants of Saul: there is no "sacrifice to God", not by the Israelites to be sure. The Gabaonites crucify the 7 as a way of cashing in kind of a "blood debt" of the house of Saul (cf. honour killing). Not quite the same, tribal revenge rather than God-fearing act of atonement.
4. Battle of Michmash: after the battle, Saul does indeed uses a ban strenghtened by a vow, but is stopped by his army from sacrificing Jonathan.

Conclusion: the "examples" don't support the claim. Arminden (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

My bad:

2 Samuel 21.1-5

21Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. The Lord said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."

[David allows for the execution/sacrifice to happen, then shows respect for remains (bones) of Saul, his sons and other executed descendants. As a result:]

2 Samuel 21.14

After that, God heeded supplications for the land.

So the 7 deaths were required and sanctioned by God. Arminden (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Which means: not "rush" either! Arminden (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)