Talk:Jephthah

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Spelling: why Jephtha?

message: 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)
thread_title:  More detail 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  42,000 Ephraimites killed? 

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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.
 Neıl ☎ 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
thread_title:  A couple weaknesses 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Recommend protect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yearly, remembering the daughter of Jephtah? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Idomeneus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  not not acceptable 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Bullinger's grammatical objection makes no sense in the context of the text's meaning. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of cited U.S. Supreme Court decision 

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

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image