Jehovah's Witnesses and Jephthah's daughter

[Justin108]

What exactly happened to Jephthah's daughter according to Jehovah's Witnesses?

Reading Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation in the link below,
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... -daughter/

....it seems as though they believe Jephthah's daughter, instead of being sacrificed as a burnt offering, simply spent the rest of her life in service to God.

Judges 11 seems very clear on this, however.

Judges 11:30 Then Jephʹthah made a vowg to Jehovah and said: “If you give the Amʹmonites into my hand, 31 then whoever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Amʹmonites will become Jehovah’s, and I will offer that one up as a burnt offering.�

Judges 11:34 Finally Jephʹthah came to his home in Mizʹpah, and look! his daughter was coming out to meet him, playing the tambourine and dancing!

Judges 11:39 At the end of two months, she returned to her father, after which he carried out the vow he had made regarding her.


Does Judges 11 not clearly state that Jephʹthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering?

[onewithhim]

What exactly happened to Jephthah's daughter according to Jehovah's Witnesses?

Reading Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation in the link below,
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... -daughter/

....it seems as though they believe Jephthah's daughter, instead of being sacrificed as a burnt offering, simply spent the rest of her life in service to God.

Judges 11 seems very clear on this, however.

Judges 11:30 Then Jephʹthah made a vowg to Jehovah and said: “If you give the Amʹmonites into my hand, 31 then whoever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Amʹmonites will become Jehovah’s, and I will offer that one up as a burnt offering.�

Judges 11:34 Finally Jephʹthah came to his home in Mizʹpah, and look! his daughter was coming out to meet him, playing the tambourine and dancing!

Judges 11:39 At the end of two months, she returned to her father, after which he carried out the vow he had made regarding her.


Does Judges 11 not clearly state that Jephʹthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering?

No it does not. If you read the rest of the account, you will see that she served at the temple and was visited by friends every year. (Judges 11:40)

Offering her up as a literal burnt sacrifice is not the case. It would be an insult to Jehovah---a disgusting thing in violation of his law, to make a literal human sacrifice. He commanded Israel: "You must not learn to do according to the detestable things of the nations. There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire...For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you." (Deut.18:9-12) Jehovah would curse such a person.

The "burnt" sacrifice was the giving up of the daughter's chances of having a marriage mate and children. She wept, not over her death, but over her perpetual virginity, because it was the desire of every Israelite woman to have children and to keep the family name and inheritance alive. (Judges 11:37,38)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]


#QUESTION: Did Jephthah kill his daughter?

No, Judges chapter 11 v 40 explains that after He dedicated his daughter to God the her female companions would go and visit her once a year.

Young's Literal Translation reads:

• "from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year."

Although many bibles render this verse "lament" the Hebrew verb "tanah", means to tell; to repeat; to recount is defined in A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (edited by B. Davies, 1957, p. 693) as " repeat, to rehearse.". At Judges 11:40 the King James Version renders the term "lament" but the margin reads "talk with"

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, states:

• "tanah” does not mean ...., to lament or bewail (lxx, Chald., etc.), but to praise, as R. Tanchum and others maintain."

...

"the still further clause in the account of the fulfilment of the vow, "and she knew no man," is not in harmony with the assumption of a sacrificial death. This clause would add nothing to the description in that case, since it was already known that she was a virgin. The words only gain their proper sense if we connect them with the previous clause [...] i.e., he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord [...] in a lifelong chastity." -- ibid




JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER [Index]

Why is Jephthah distraught when he sees his daughter coming out of his house?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p900641

Did Jephthah kill his daughter
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p900389

Various Commentaries
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p900478

Did the Mosaic law authorize human sacrifice?
viewtopic.php?p=1020695#p1020695

Burnt Offering: Literal or Methaphoric
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 93#p900493

[Justin108]

No it does not. If you read the rest of the account, you will see that she served at the temple and was visited by friends every year. (Judges 11:40)

Judges 11:40
"From year to year, the young women of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jephʹthah the Gilʹe·ad·ite four days in the year"

commendation
kɒmɛnˈdeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
formal or official praise.

Someone doesn't need to be alive in order for you to commend them.

Offering her up as a literal burnt sacrifice is not the case. It would be an insult to Jehovah---a disgusting thing in violation of his law, to make a literal human sacrifice.

Essentially what you're saying is "it would be disgusting, and therefore it didn't happen". In other words, you're essentially dismissing it based on your own disapproval. This is what is known as selective interpretation. There is nothing within the text itself that suggests it was meant to be metaphorical.

He commanded Israel: "You must not learn to do according to the detestable things of the nations. There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire...For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you." (Deut.18:9-12) Jehovah would curse such a person.

So instead of accepting the fact that the Bible is being inconsistent, you just explain it away as "oh that's just a metaphor". Nice save. That way, no matter how many contradictions there are, you can just call them "metaphors".

The "burnt" sacrifice was the giving up of the daughter's chances of having a marriage mate and children.

When has "burnt sacrifice" ever meant this?

She wept, not over her death, but over her perpetual virginity, because it was the desire of every Israelite woman to have children and to keep the family name and inheritance alive. (Judges 11:37,38)

Yes, and since she was going to die a virgin, she would fail to do any of this.

[Justin108]

No, Judges chapter 11 v 40 explains that after He dedicated his daughter to God the her female companions would go and visit her once a year.

Quote:
Young's Literal Translation reads:
"from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year."

Wow. The Young's Literal Translation? Really? Instead of using the New World Translation, the one Jehovah's Witnesses wrote themselves, you instead go for the Young's Literal Translation. I wonder why.

My guess would be because the NWT doesn't say a damn thing about talking to Jephthah's daughter.

"Judges 11:40 From year to year, the young women of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jephʹthah the Gilʹe·ad·ite four days in the year."
- New World Translation

Although many bibles render this verse "lament" the Hebrew verb תָּנָה (tanah, “to tell; to repeat; to recount�) is defined in A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (edited by B. Davies, 1957, p. 693) as “to repeat, to rehearse.� At Judges 11:40 the King James Version renders the term “lament,� but the margin reads “talk with.�

Why are you even considering different translations? Are you suggesting that the NWT is flawed?

"the still further clause in the account of the fulfilment of the vow, "and she knew no man," is not in harmony with the assumption of a sacrificial death. This clause would add nothing to the description in that case

Dying a virgin is often considered to be particularly tragic. Pointing out that not only will she die, but she will die a virgin adds to the tragedy. And it's not an assumption of a sacrificial death when it is clearly spelled out that Jephthah fulfilled his vow to sacrifice as a burnt offering whoever came out of his house (in this case, his daughter). How can you call this an assumption?

The words only gain their proper sense if we connect them with the previous clause [...] i.e., he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord [...] in a lifelong chastity." -- ibid

What if instead of his daughter, his wife came out the door? How would he possibly have fulfilled his vow of giving up someone for a lifelong chastity (since... apparently, that's what "burnt offering" means), if a non-virgin came out of the house?

If "burnt offering" means "give someone up for a lifelong of servitude", then surely you can reference a different instance of "burnt offering" being used this way? Otherwise, it becomes an ad hoc assumption.

[brianbbs67]

JPS Tanakh 11:39-40 After 2 months' time, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he vowed. She had never known a man. So it became a custom in Isreal (40) for the maidens of Isreal to go evey year, for four days in the year, and chant dirges for the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

So, he did it. But, the thing to remember is God did not ask or require it. He did.

This is one of 2 human sacrifices to God, unrequested, in the OT.

[JehovahsWitness]

Young's Literal Translation reads:
"from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year."

Wow. The Young's Literal Translation? Really? Instead of using the New World Translation, the one Jehovah's Witnesses wrote themselves, you instead go for the Young's Literal Translation. I wonder why. My guess would be because the NWT doesn't say a damn thing about talking to Jephthah's daughter.

There is no need to guess, The New World Translation, published by Jehovah's Witnesses is available online for free consultation:

From year to year, the young women of Israel would go to give commendation* to the daughter of Jephthah ... four days in the year.

NWT Reference Bible: footnote: .... "go to answer (to converse with)"

BIBLE COMMENTARIES

Benson Commentary

Jdg 11:40. The daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah — The Hebrew word lethannoth, here rendered, to lament, occurs nowhere else in Scripture, but Jdg 5:11, where it is rendered rehearse, or celebrate, namely, There shall they rehearse, says Deborah, the righteous acts of the Lord, surely not lament them. And the word might certainly be much more properly rendered to celebrate, or talk with, here, than to lament.

Buxtorf interprets it thus, on the authority of the Jewish rabbi, Kimchi, allowed to be the best Hebrew grammarian the Jews ever had, and famous as a commentator on the Old Testament. His words on the passage are rendered To converse with her, according to Kimchi, namely, that by friendly discourses they might comfort her concerning her virginity, and the solitary condition of her life. Houbigant translates the words, they went to the daughter of Jephthah to console her, four days in a year. If we render the clause thus, the matter is put beyond dispute; for they could neither converse with, nor console her, after she was sacrificed: but if we translate the expression, to celebrate, or even to lament, its being repeated four times every year, plainly indicates that she was alive, because we nowhere find that the Israelites ever had any custom of celebrating or lamenting the dead after the funeral obsequies were performed. Their law rather tended to prohibit every thing of the kind, and inspire them with an abhorrence of it, by representing the dead as unclean, and those who came near and touched them as defiled thereby. So that there is not the least reason to conclude that the daughters of Judah went yearly, much less four times every year, either to lament or praise the daughter of Jephthah after she was dead; but rather that they went while she lived, to visit and converse with her, and comfort her with their company and discourses.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite,.... the word (p) used may signify to talk and discourse with her, to hold a confabulation with her, and comfort her, as Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret it; to bring her some news, and tell her some diverting stories, to cheer and refresh her in her solitude. [...] The meeting of the daughters of Israel, so long as the custom lasted, which perhaps was only during the life of Jephthah's daughter

Clarkes Commentary

To lament the daughter of Jephthah I am satisfied that this is not a correct translation of the original [word lethannoth] ... This verse also gives evidence that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed: nor does it appear that the custom or statute referred to here lasted after the death of Jephthah's daughter.

RELATED POSTS

Did Jephthah kill his daughter
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p900389

Various Commentaries
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p900478

Why is Jephthah distraught when he sees his daughter coming out of his house?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p900641

Did the Mosaic law authorize human sacrifice?
viewtopic.php?p=1020695#p1020695

Burnt Offering: Literal or Methaphoric
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 93#p900493

[Justin108]

Young's Literal Translation reads:
"from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year."

Wow. The Young's Literal Translation? Really? Instead of using the New World Translation, the one Jehovah's Witnesses wrote themselves, you instead go for the Young's Literal Translation. I wonder why. My guess would be because the NWT doesn't say a damn thing about talking to Jephthah's daughter.

There is no need to guess, The New World Translation, published by Jehovah's Witnesses is available online for free consultation

You clearly missed what I was trying to say. What I meant was that my guess as to why you chose to reference the Young's Literal Translation rather than the NWT is because the NWT doesn't say what you want it to say (that is, that people would on occasion go talk to Jephthah's daughter).

If the NWT is so rightly available and you agree with what the NWT says, why did you feel the need to reference the Young's Literal Translation?

From year to year, the young women of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jephʹthah the Gilʹe·ad·ite four days in the year.

And "commendation" means "talk to" according to your understanding?

commendation
NOUN
mass noun
1Formal or official praise.

‘the film deserved the highest commendation’
‘the book gives commendations for initiative’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... mmendation

Notice the examples given by the definition.
"the film deserved the highest commendation"
‘the book gives commendations for initiative’

If "commendation" means "talk to" then the examples above would suggest that "the film deserves to be... talked to" and "the book was talked to for its initiative". Clearly one can be commended without being spoken to. The fact that Judges 11:40 states that Jephthah's daughter was commended doesn't mean that she was still alive.

because we nowhere find that the Israelites ever had any custom of celebrating or lamenting the dead after the funeral obsequies were performed.

And nowhere do we find that Israelites ever used the term "burnt offering" to mean "give up the person in lifelong service to God". So if your argument is "well it's never been done before", then there goes your "burnt offering = lifelong servitude to God" argument.

Their law rather tended to prohibit every thing of the kind, and inspire them with an abhorrence of it, by representing the dead as unclean

So no Biblical figure ever revered the dead?

2 Peter 2:5
if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

2 Peter 2:7
and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless

Are these not examples of the dead being revered and commended?

and those who came near and touched them as defiled thereby.

Who ever said anything about touching her corpse?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by Justin108]

Jephthah's Burnt Sacrifice literal or Methaphoric?

Whether one concludes that Jephthah's daughter became a literal human sacrifice or that the reference to "burnt sacrifice" was applied metaphorically, under the Mosaic law both would have been unique in nature. Thus any the call for scriptural precedent will in both cases go unanswered. There is no precedent under the law for the sacrifice of a human neither is there one for the devotion of a child to perpetual virginity. Thus we are obliged from necessesity to translate the call for scriptural precedent to an appeal for contextual coherence.

While both a "metaphoric" and a literal "burnt sacrifice" would have been considered socially and personally extreme, only one would have been strictly and explicitly illegal and spiritually repugnant. To offer God a literal human sacrifice, killing someone to please or apease God was illegal (see Deut 12:31). The devotion or giving to God items, or live people for his service, was not.

BURNT SACRIFICES

The Israelites offered various types of sacrifices, some were animals the flesh of which was to be eaten either by the priests or even shared between the priests and the offerer himself. Burnt Sacrifices were offered to God in their entirity, no part was redeemed by the offerer. If we do understand then that Jephthah's vow covered both any literal legitmate* offering and any "burnt sacfifice" in a metaphoric sense, then that sense would that the individual be offered entirely to God without hope of redemption or repurchase. Thus the "burnt" in the "burnt sacrifice" , rather than describing a method of execution, was a fittingly metaphr for the permanent, irreversible nature of the girls devotion ( fire in scripture is often used as a symbol of consuming zeal)


PAGAN VOW OR GODLY SACRIFICE?

Short of suggesting Jephthah said a burnt sacrifice but meant "a pagan illegal offering" ( in which case it would STILL be a metaphor - calling it one thing when it is in fact literally something else) we should more reasonably take him to be speaking within the accepted cultural and religious context of the narrative

*NOTE: It should be noted that a literal burn sacrifice only qualified as such if it were legal; a literal burn sacrifice could not by definition include that which the law prohibited from being offered.

For example unclean animals such as dogs or pigs could not be offered as a burn sacrifice and the offering of such would not be considered a burnt sacrifice at all; Just as a drug is, by definition any substance that when taken into the body causes a physiological and/ or psychological change therein, if the substance for example water, does not have this effect it is not by definition "a drug".

In a similar way there is nothing in the context that leads us to conclude that Jephthah was using the expression "burnt sacrifice" in anything but within the accepted understanding of the words, whther literal or metaphoric. In short for an Israelite the idea would never have included the notion of sacrificing a pig a snake or a human. (Under the law any attempt to do so would have been considered an act of idolatry and would normally have resulted in the execution of the indivudual in question.)

A closer look at Jephthah's vow might here be in order:

Judges 11:31 reads in part : "it shall be Jehovah's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering" - ESV

Here Jephthah mentions two elements [1] being given (devoted) to God and [2] being offered as a burnt offering or sacrifice. All "burn sacrifices" were, by definition offered wholely to God, so the first clause would have been somewhat redundant if his vow is to be read in an exclusively literal sense. Also, as has been mentioned above, legitmate literal sacrifices were selective by nature excluding that which were unclean and illegal. By saying he would give whoever came out of his house to Jehovah and that that one would be a "burnt sacrifice" Jephthah opened the scope of his vow up to cover any human that greeted him, automatically shifting the second element ([2] the "burn sacrifice") to be taken either literally or metaphorically.

SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES

While there are no scriptural examples of legally supported human sacrifices or devotional offerings of perpetural virginity, the idea of devoting a child to God's service is of course found in scripture, notably in the case of Hannah who vowed to offer her firstborn samuel to God. Further, the idea of a person "belonging" to Jehovah was ever present in the example of the Levitical Priests who reprented metaphorically the nations "sacrifice" of each firstborn son. Exodus 13:2 reads "Dedicate to me every firstborn among the Israelites. The first offspring to be born, of both humans and animals, belongs to me." (NLT). So the notion of a living "offering" or sacrifice, metaphorically referring not to a person's death but by their continued life in God's service, was not foreign to Hebrew law culture or worship.

CONCLUSION The case of Jephthah and his daughter is not only unique in scripture but is presented with language that forces us to draw conclusion from the wider religious, cultrual and historical context. While the Israelites where not adverse to deviating from scripture, the context presents Jephthah as someone fully familiar with Hebrew law and history as well as respectful of Divine mandate. An examination of the narrative in this light leads us to the reasonabe conclusion that Jephthah did not attempt to kill his daughter but dedicated her to perpetural virginity in God's service.

RELATED POSTS



RELATED POSTS

Did Jephthah kill his daughter
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p900389

Various Commentaries
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p900478

Why is Jephthah distraught when he sees his daughter coming out of his house?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p900641

Did the Mosaic law authorize human sacrifice?
viewtopic.php?p=1020695#p1020695

Burnt Offering: Literal or Methaphoric
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 93#p900493

[Justin108]

Whether one concludes that Jephthah's daughter became a literal human sacrifice or that the reference to "burnt sacrifice" was applied metaphorically, under the Mosaic law both would have been unique in nature. Thus any the call for scriptural precedent will in both cases go unanswered. There is no precedent under the law for the sacrifice of a human neither is there one for the devotion of a child to perpetual virginity.

Whether there is a precedent law for human sacrifice is irrelevant. The fact is, given the text, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. If you insist that what is written down does not mean what it says, you would need to justify it. Or else what's stopping someone from just claiming the entire Bible is one big metaphor? Why insist this is a metaphor while believing that Jesus' resurrection is not a metaphor?

And while we're on the topic of legal precedence...

The book of Judges closes with this.

Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

Which means that, even though there may not have been any legal precedence, since everyone did as they saw fit, it stands to reason that Jephthah saw it fit to sacrifice his daughter.

Thus we are obliged from necessesity to translate the called for scriptural precedent to an appeal for contextual coherence.

What context within the book of Judges necessitates a metaphorical interpretation?

The Israelites offered various types of sacrifices, some were animals the flesh of which was to be eaten either by the priests or even shared between the priests and the offerer himself. Burnt Sacrifices were offered to God in their entirity, no part was redeemed. If we do understand then that Jephthah's vow covered both any literal legitmate* offering and any "burnt sacfifice" in a metaphoric sense, then that sense would that the individual be offered entirely to God without hope of redemption or repurchase.

When has this metaphor ever been used outside of Judges 11?

NOTE: It had to be legal to count: It should be noted that a literal burn sacrifice only qualified as such if it were legal

Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

a literal burn sacrifice could not by definition include that which the law prohibited from being offered.

That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying a literal drug could not by definition include that which the law prohibited from being used.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it can no longer be understood as literal. You might make the argument that Jephthah's burnt offering was illegal, but you cannot make the argument that "it would have been illegal, and so it was therefore metaphorical". That's like saying Ozzy Osbourne never literally used illegal drugs because that would be illegal. Therefore, Ozzy only metaphorically used drugs.

For example unclean animals such as dogs or pigs could not be offered as a burn sacrifice and the offering of such would not be considered a burnt sacrifice at all

Of course it would. It may not be a sanctioned sacrifice or a legal sacrifice, but it is still a sacrifice.

indeed any attempt to do so would have been considered an act of idolatry and resulted in the execution of the indivudual.

Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

A closer look at Jephthah's vow might here be in order:

Judges 11:31 reads: "it shall be Jehovah's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering" - ESV

Why did he say "burnt offering" if he did not mean burnt offering? Why not just say "it shall be Jehovah's in it's entirety"?

All "burn sacrifices" were, by definition offered wholely to God

They were also, by definition, burned.

so the first clause would have been somewhat redundant if his vow is to be read literally.

And this is unheard of in the Bible?

Luke 22:42
Saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.�

"If you are willing, let your will be done". This isn't redundant? And so what if it's redundant? A redundant verse may be poorly written, but a verse that is so unclear as to whether it was intended to be literal or metaphorical is far worse. If you want to criticize the author, do so for using such a poorly defined and unclear metaphor.

Also, as has been mentioned above, legitmate literal sacrifices were selective by nature excluding that which were unclean and illegal.

Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

But by saying he would give whoever came out of his house Jehovah and that that one would be a "burnt sacrifice" Jephthah opened the scope of his vow up to cover any human that greeted him, automatically shifting the second element to [2] the "burn sacrifice" to be taken either literally or metaphorically.

Wait so what you're telling me is that Jephthah intended to literally sacrifice something if it were, say, an animal. But if it was a person, then the meaning would automatically shift to metaphorical sacrifice?

So basically what Jephthah said was "I will literally sacrifice as a burnt offering anything that comes out of that door, unless it is a human person, in which case I will only metaphorically sacrifice said person"? Am I understanding you correctly?

SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES

While there are no scriptural examples of legally supported human sacrifices or devotional offerings of perpetural virginity, the idea of devoting a child to God's service is of course found in scripture

Yes, but for some reason it has never been called a burnt sacrifice, except in this instance. Why? Why refer to a lifelong devotion to God as a burnt offering in this instance and this instance only? This is by definition an ad hoc excuse.

notably in the case of Hannah who vowed to offer her firstborn samuel to God.

Yet Hannah offering Samuel to God wasn't called a burnt sacrifice. Why not?