Jephthah

JEPHTHAH, jef'tha: The name of one of the Judges of Israel. It is related (Judges x. 6-xii. 7) that he was driven from his home because of illegitimate birth, and became captain of a band of freebooters in the land of Tob. When the Israelites of the East Jordanland were oppressed by the Ammonites, they sent for him to return and lead them against their enemies. This he consented to do if he were given the headship, which was promised him. After vainly trying by argument to induce the foe to retire, he made a vow to sacrifice whatever should come forth to meet him if he should return from the campaign victorious. He won a brilliant victory, and was met by his daughter on his return who consented to the performance of his vow, asking, however, a reprieve of two months. He performed the sacrifice, and a yearly celebration was established in which for four days the women lamented Jephthah's daughter. Jephthah was assailed by the Ephraimites for not summoning them to the battle, and in an ensuing conflict inflicted upon them a stinging defeat. He then ruled as judge for six years.

Discussion of the Sources.

Examination of the narrative shows that several sources are employed, and the story enclosed in the pragmatic framework is itself complex. Jephthah is mentioned as the son of Gilead by a foreign wife; but Gilead is the name of a district or of its population. Moreover, the section xi. 12-28 severs the continuity of the narrative and discusses the Moabites, whom the Hebrews had left unassailed (Num. xx. 14 sqq.), while xi. 34 shows that the hero had a house in Mizpah, which does not accord with verse 3. And it is difficult to relate the episode of the Ephraimitic conflict with the two months of the reprieve of Jephthah's daughter, since it is not likely that the Ephraimites would await the issue of that event. Many scholars have suspected an extension of the original text by interpolation, the passagexi. 12-28 especially being regarded as of late introduction, though this is opposed by Holzinger and Budde on the ground that the verses in which the Ammonites are mentioned (12-15, 27) show the same conception as the main portion of the narrative. It is probable, however, that this is an independent report which the redactor wished to bring into connection with the Ammonitic war. Wellhauaen and Frankenberg suspect also xii. 1-7 as a late interpolation founded upon viii. 1-3. While the individuality of this section differentiates it from viii. 1-3, it is probably taken from an independent source. Holzinger disposes of one of the difficulties by supposing that Jephthah, on his recall from Tob, acquired a residence in Mizpah. That a war with Moab is implied in xi. 12-28 goes well with the place names in verse 33, some of which are Moabitic, while others are Ammonitic, and thus a double narrative is suggested dealing with two episodes, which an addition in verse 33 of the Septuagint, "and unto Arnon," supports. Then the Moabitic war was later, and the residence in Mizpah already acquired goes well with the "I" and "me" of verse 27. Holzinger finds in xi. 29 a suggestion of a journey made by Jephthah in the West Jordanland ("and Manasseh") connecting xi. with xii. 1-6, and concludes that there are two sources combined inside the framework of this story.

Historicity of the Narrative.

Against the historical character of the narrative of the Ammonitic war there is no reasonable objection. Jephthah appears as an exile who has gained position as head of a band like that of David. The differences of the two sources do not oppose the historicity, since the events may be referred to different times and occasions, a war with the Ammonites and one with Moabites. The hero is not to be taken as a mythical invention to explain the celebration of the death of his daughter, and analogies of the event are not lacking in the history of other Semitic peoples. One is furnished by the story of II Kings iii. 27, and another comes out of Arabic history of the seventh Christian century (Tabari, i. 1073-1074), so that the historical character of the event which the celebration commemorated appears at least probable. Since in the narrative there is no mention of substitution, it must be that Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter. This was the understanding of the early exegetes until D. Kimchi, who asserted that the maiden was simply devoted to the service of Yahweh, an explanation which gained the approval of later Christian exegetes, who combined the idea with that of an enforced celibacy. The reason for this is not far to seek, since not only is human sacrifice in itself unusual for such a state of society, but it was supposed that the Pentateuchal legislation was well known in the time of the Judges (cf. Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2-5, and see VOWS, I.; cf. also the Targum on Judges xi. 39); moreover emphasis was laid on the fact that the maiden bewailed not her life, but her virginity, as though condemned to a single life. Some support was gained from Ex. xxxviii. 8 and I Sam. ii. 22, though it is not said that the women mentioned here were celibates. But the true explanation of verse 37 doubtless is that the cause of the maiden's grief was that she must die without being either wife or mother. Some take refuge in a disjunctive in the statement of the vow (verse 31) making the last two clauses apply to different

119
objects, human and animal. Other syntactical devices have been proposed with the object of getting rid of the sacrifice of a human being, but they all fail in view of the fact that the verb used in the passage (he'elah) is that employed in the technical language of the ritual for sacrifice. Moreover, human sacrifice is involved in the whole story; only thus can be explained the despair of the father and the grief of the daughter; and the celebration itself finds no adequate ground short of the actual sacrifice of the maiden. In anti-prophetic circles human sacrifice was not unknown (Jer. xxxii. 35); indeed, within the prophetic circle itself the idea was not absolutely strange (Gen. xxii.). That the words of Jephthah's vow involve that he thought only of a human being and must therefore have reckoned upon the possibility of the victim being his daughter is rightly characterized by Reuss as "detestable." But the, idea of human sacrifice lay in the background of the Yahweh-religion, and in later times under foreign influence the practise broke out in opposition to the prophetic teaching.

(F. BUHL.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best discussion is in the Commentary on Judges by G. F. Moors, with which should be compared the treatment in the Commentaries of Studer, Heil, Cassel, Bertheau, Harvey, Oettli and Budde, as mentioned under JUDGES, and that in the standard works on the History of Israel, mentioned under AHAB. Consult further: E. W. Hengstenberg, Einleitung in das A. T., iii. 127, Berlin, 1839, Eng, transl., Edinburgh, 1847-48; K. A. Auberlen, in TSK, 1860, pp. 540 sqq.; E. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A. T., Brunswick, 1874, Eng. transl., Boston, 1884; I. Goldziher, Der Mythus bei den Hebr�ern, pp. 113 sqq., Leipsic, 1876; A. Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek, i. 349, Leyden, 1885; J. Wellhausen, Komposition des Hexateuchs, pp. 228-229, Berlin, 1889; K. Budde, Richter und Samuel, pp. 125 sqq., Giessen, 1890; M. K�hler, Biblische Geschichte des Alten Bundes, ii. 1, p. 100; H. Schultz, O. T. Theology. London, 1892� W. Frankenberg, Die Komposition des deuteronomischen Richterbuches, Marburg, 1895; A. Kamphausen, Das Verh�ltnis des Menschenopfers zur israelitischen Religion, pp. 46 sqq., Bonn, 1896; E. Sellin, Beitr�ge zur israelitischen und j�dischen Religion, i. 200 sqq., Leipsic, 1896; DB, ii. 567-568; EB, ii. 2359-62; JE, vii, 94-95.