Jephthah's Daughter: A Human (Burnt) Sacrifice to Yahweh?

The Christian Road Warrior administers the "Doomsday Device" to the idea that Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40 offered his daughter to the God of the Bible as a burnt human sacrifice.

While this issue is controversial, it is not beyond reconciliation from the text and the overall context of the consistent message of the Bible about the character of God.

Sincere Christians do differ on the interpretation both on the layman and scholarly levels. However, when there are two contradictory claims, logic dictates that someone is wrong, or BOTH are wrong. The warrior offers three key ways to determine the truth.

While some try argue over a language (Biblical Hebrew) they do not know (and don't bother to even research), let's be clear about certain facts.

Besides the Young's Literal Translation used in the actual video, there are other English versions where the translators recognize the validity of the "or" translation of the Hebrew conjunction in Judges 11:31 so that we have an alternative or option in the vow separated by the conjunction. These translations are: the the Modern King James Version and certain versions of the New American Standard Bible.

In addition, Clarke's Commentary also points out regarding the translation of Judges 11:31:

"...the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering."
(Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 2-Joshua to Esther, Phillips & Hunt, p. 152).

Another resource confirming that there was no necessary human burnt offering in this passage comes from renowned scholar Gleason L. Archer, who stated:

"But, as Keil and Delitzsch show, this interpretation as a literal human sacrifice cannot stand in the light of the context...His daughter was allowed two months of mourning, not to bewail her approaching loss of life, but only to bewail her virginity...It is stated in verse 39 that after Jephthah had performed his vow and offered her as a 'burnt offering,' 'she knew not man.' This would be a very pointless and inane remark if she had been put to death. But it has perfect relevance if she was devoted to the service of Jehovah at the door of the tabernacle the rest of her life (For references to the devoted women who performed service in connection with the national cultus, cf. Exod. 38:8 and 1 Sam. 2:22; also Anna in the days of Jesus - Luke 2:36,37). The pathos of the situation in this instance did not lie in Jephthah's daughter devoting herself to divine service, but rather in the sure extinction of Jephthah's line, since she was his only child...There was no human sacrifice here." (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 266-67).

For more study on the subject from the Web, have a look at these resources:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2320

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/638426/jewish/What-happened-to-...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral01.cfm#b-27

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=11&version=45#...

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1081-what-about-jephthahs-vow

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• 43alley
• atheism
• debate
• religion
• Bible
• stories
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Sam
• Harris
• Daniel
• Dennett
• Christianity
• Old
• Testament
• Book
• Genesis
• Sodom
• Gomorrah
• story
• Lot
• Moses
• Jesus
• angels
• thunderf00t
• venonfangx
• Hebrews
• Jephthah
• Jephthah's
• daughter

[blueasblueis]

You ignore the 35th verse. Why would jephthah 'rent his clothes'? Jews still do this when someone has died. Do you ever wish your 'holy book' was less evil?

[CRoadwarrior]

@blueasblueis No, what I wish is that people would learn the meaning of words like "context." Distorting literature to make it "evil" when it isn't is nonsense.

[TRUTHERish]

Wow!! Talk about rationalization. This brother is clearly delusional!!

[CRoadwarrior]

@TRUTHERish No, what's clearly delusional is ignoring what the text says to make up what it does not say. The text does not say, "and he sacrificed her." If it did, there would be no argument, and there would have been no argument down through the centuries.

[CRoadwarrior]

@Delinexwow No, the text does no "clearly" state that he vowed to kill her. This is the point you miss. And even towards the end of the text, there is emphasis NOT on her alleged impending death, but on her sexual status, her virginity. Sorry, but your opinion lacks informed understanding of the text and cultural issues at the time. This was his only child, and it appears he was going to have her remain a perpetual virgin. That was looked on as bad in those days, almost like family death.

[Delinexwow]

@CRoadwarrior I'm aware of the laws presented by god. It would hold bearing as well if god didn't ritually break his own laws when he commanded people to do things. God has no issues of his people breaking his laws once he commands them, why would he have an issue with that?

The text clearly states he vowed to kill her, then it clearly states he did as he vowed. Granted I understand we will disagree here, it's merely opinion. To read it as it is wrote though, he killed her, IMO.

[CRoadwarrior]

@TheTomtompiper LOL. I would like your definition of "clearly." The TEXT does NOT "clearly" say what you assume. Where are the words, "And he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to Yahweh"? Give me the verse on that one, because I know and you know it's NOT there. And even if it were there, that would not mean it was acceptable to God, since we know that Yahweh had forbidden such practices long before Jephthah's time. So there are no "hoops" here. Just hermeneutics.

[CRoadwarrior]

@Delinexwow No, you did not pay attention to the points made in the video. He did not clearly vow to offer a burnt sacrifice. Human sacrifice was forbidden by God YEARS before this incident took place. Jephthah, or someone in that area, had to have known this. The TEXT does NOT say the woman was killed or sacrificed. That is an assumption not necessarily warranted from what the text actually says. There is an emphasis on her sexual status (virginity), NOT her life. So no, I disagree.

[CRoadwarrior]

@blueasblueis Oh, I know it was not in theology. No, 122 videos does not necessarily suggest "free time." Better time management, perhaps. But not necessarily free time. Now if you want to talk about video counts and "free time," let's talk about some atheists who have done more than double that amount of videos. I have answered your question from Scripture.

[CRoadwarrior]

@reduciblycomplex Truth is not determined by majority vote or consensus. The TEXT does not overtly say a sacrifice took place. Instead, there is this emphasis on her sexual status.

[CRoadwarrior]

@blueasblueis What you call the "massah's" religion is a nonsense claim by people ignorant of the fact that the Bible is an eastern book, not western, and that most of the doctrines of Christianity were formulated or taught by Africans like Athanasius and St. Augustine. What's sad is that people still promote the "massah's religion" myth in ignorance.

[CRoadwarrior]

@blueasblueis No, you again do not understand the text you read. Learn this...people like myself who spend years studying the Bible, even to the original languages and historical context, do know the Bible better than those who just pick up an English Bible and read a passage out of context with little to no study at all.