This is the third essay on Jephthah’s daughter.
This final essay on Jephthah’s daughter will deal with the issue of her virginity. There is no question that she was a virgin to the day of her death. On this issue, all scholars agree. The issue of her virginity is directly related to the manner in which she died. The translation of Judges 11:39 affects the way her death is interpreted. What follows is the way the RSV and the NIV translate Judges 11:39:
“And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man” (Judges 11:39 RSV).
“After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin” (Judges 11:39 NIV).
To the average reader, the two translations are identical. The only difference in the two translations is found in the words translators use to describe her sexual condition: “she had never known a man” and “she was a virgin.” However, for the interpreter of the text, the way the text is translated affects the way the text is interpreted.
C. J. Goslinga (p. 391, note 182) explains how the translation of Judges 11:39 affects the interpretation of the text. Goslinga wrote:
It is hard to translate these words without opting for a particular interpretation of the text. The most obvious translation would be “and she had never known a man” (cf. RSV), but the preceding clause would then have to mean that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. A more neutral but equally permissible translation would be “she had no relations with a man,” or “she was a virgin.” The meaning would be that she remained celibate her entire life and died a virgin. Such translation is therefore preferable. It does not contradict the thought that she was killed, but it also leaves open the possibility that she lived on as a virgin.
Goslinga is very clear: the translation of the RSV, “she had never known a man,” which he calls “the most obvious translation,” implies that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. The translation of the NIV, “she was a virgin,” means that she was not sacrificed, but rather, that she remained celibate for the rest of her life.
The ambiguity of the text forces the interpreter to ask questions. Is the text saying that after she returned from her retreat she knew no man after that, that is, she never had sex until she died? Or is the text saying that she was sacrificed as a virgin?
C. F. Keil (p. 392) takes the former view. In his commentary of Judges, he wrote: “To mourn one’s virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin.”
Keil then (p. 393) explains the words “and she knew no man”:
The 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, he “did with her according to the vow which he had vowed,” and understand them as describing what the daughter did in fulfilment of the vow. The father fulfilled his vow upon her, and she knew no man; i.e., he fulfilled the vow
through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord, as a spiritual burnt-offering, in a lifelong chastity.
Even Goslinga struggled in deciding what happened to Jephthah’s daughter. He waivered between the fact that the text requires her death and the view that it was hard to understand “how a man like Jephthah could have taken a vow that obligated him to offer a human sacrifice” (p. 395). He then concluded:
In my view the words of verse 39, which conceal more than they reveal, do not absolutely rule out the possibility of permanent separation. Jephthah’s daughter could indeed have been put to death, but there could also have been a mournful ceremony in which she was sent off into the desert to wither and die. The words “and she was a virgin” would then make clear what Jephthah’s decision did to her, and the custom reported in verse 40 could have been a means to lighten her unbearable fate a little by allowing her to have company for four days a year.
I sympathize with people who are uneasy with the outcome of this passage. It is hard to believe that a man endowed with the Spirit of God would offer human sacrifice to the God of Israel, but he did. Jephthah’s action should not be interpreted in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ. After all, Jephthah was a B.C. man.
The near sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 reveals that the reality of human sacrifice was a possibility in the world in which ancient Israel lived. However, if Genesis 22 is a polemic against human sacrifice, then the greatest lesson to be learned from the near sacrifice of Isaac is that human sacrifice was not to be a part of the religion of the God of Abraham.
Jephthah’s daughter, unfortunately, was sacrificed as a burnt offering. The dedication of Samuel to God in 1 Samuel 1:11-28 is not a good precedent for the view that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter was just a “spiritual sacrifice.”
The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter is not the focus of Jephthah’s narrative; the real focus of the story is the irrevocability of a vow. As Boling wrote (p. 209): “The fact of human sacrifice in Jephthah’s story is secondary to the theme of the irrevocability of the vow.” Although Boling believed that the “whatever” of verse 31 could be a reference to a domesticated animal, his view that the writer of the book of Judges is sympathetic with Jephthah, and his conclusion that the focus of the story is the writer’s portrayal “of Jephthah’s integrity in fulfilling his vow” (p. 210) is correct.
Christians will continue to discuss the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter and whether Jephthah actually offered his daughter as a burnt offering to God. Those who reject the view that she was not sacrificed, do so without much textual support.
The issue of how one views the fate of Jephthah’s daughter also affects the manner in which the text is translated. Bible translators cannot allow personal preferences to influence the way a text is translated. However, this is easier said than done.
Each translation is an interpretation of the text. The responsibility of the translator is to translate the text as the text appears in the manuscripts without conveying a meaning that is not present in the text.
For instance, to translate 2 Samuel 21:19, that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, as the TNIV does, is wrong because those words are not in the text. The words of Judges 11:31 and 11:39 are more difficult to translate because of the ambiguity already present in the text. The translator here must be faithful to the text and leave it to the interpreter yo decide what the text means.
Posts on Jephthah’s Daughter
Rereading Judges 11:31: The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter
Judges 11:39: The Fate of Jephthah’s Daughter
Judges 11:39: The Virginity of Jephthah’s Daughter
NOTE: For other studies on the Book of Judges, read my post Studies on the Book of Judges.
Boling, Robert. Judges. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1975.
Goslinga, C. J. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Bible Student’s Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.
Keil, C. F. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950.
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
VISIT MY AMAZON AUTHOR’S PAGE
BUY MY BOOKS ON AMAZON (Click here).
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter or Tumblr so that others may enjoy reading it too!
I would love to hear from you! Let me know what you thought of this post by leaving a comment below. Be sure to like my page on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, follow me on Tumblr, Facebook, and subscribe to my blog to receive each post by email.
If you are looking for other series of studies on the Old Testament, visit the Archive section and you will find many studies that deal with a variety of topics.
>I agree that every translation is an interpretation. Language, by its very nature, is ambiguous and full of metaphor, thus adding to its impreciseness. Good series of posts!
>Thanks so much for your post and so timely! I would have to agree with your deductions.
>Dear Friend,Thank you for visiting my blog and for your comment. I am glad that you enjoyed my study on Jephthah’s daughter.I hope you will visit again.Claude Mariottini
>I want to thank you for your essays on this passage. I am the leader of a small guild of Biblical Storytellers and understanding what the text is actually trying to say is very important to our presentation of the text. Your writings have been of great help. I look forward to reading more in the future.Shalom
>Dennis,Thank you for your comment on my post on Jephthah’s daughter. I am happy to know that my post was helpful to you in providing a better understanding of the text. If you have any suggestion for future posts that might help you, let me know. I am very interested in Biblical Storytelling. Maybe you could send me some additional information about your guild and the work you do. Claude Mariottini
>Interesting thoughts – I certainly agree with your conclusion, as you can see here. It seems to me rather incredible that a custom of mourning would develop over a girl that simply was forced to become the Israelite equivalent of a vestal virgin. That tips the scales, for me.
>How do you think this narrative relates to Leviticus 27:28-33, especially verse 29? Can you give some insight into the translation of the word “devoted” (versus “dedicated,” which is used earlier in the chapter)?How does the Lord’s holiness play into the irrevocability of a vow?
‘a burnt offering’ is hard to get around. I’d like to suggest a discussion on the gift of tongues. I was raised in the conservative Baptist denomination but believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as separate from salvation. Also, I have discussed this topic of tongues and listened to sermons on tongues being a known language someone is given without learning but don’t buy it at all. It is just not logical to me. I attended Multnomah School of the Bible in Portland and sat under great teachers like John Mitchell, and have been studying the Bible for decades. So, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
Thank you for your comment. I am sorry, but a discussion on the gift of tongues is beyond the scope of my blog. I wish you well in your journey to discover what the Bible has to say about this very controversial topic. While I was the pastor of a Baptist church, about half of my members were Pentecostals. So, I have many true stories about speaking in tongues but my blog is not the place to have a discussion on the gifts of tongues.
Though it’s hard to believe that anyone that is connected with God would actually sacrifice a human life by burnt offerings. we also have to look at the fact that the two women in the Bible where one of them boils her son and they ate him together with the other.that this actually happened Which that would be considered cannibalism so it’s not hard for me to believe that
Jephthah actually sacrifice his daughter by burnt offering because the point was that he kept his vow to God. and he vowed that whatever ran out of his door first that he would sacrifice to go in as a burnt offering So what is your thought about the two women that boiled the son and ate him .
Thank you for your comment. Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter. As for the two women, they actually committed an act of cannibalism. In times of war, when famine is severe, people go to extreme in order to survive. And this is not the only act of cannibalism in ancient Israel.