11:1 VA YIPHTACH HA GIL'ADI HAYAH GIBOR CHAYIL VE HU BEN ISHAH ZONAH VA YOLED GIL'AD ET YIPHTACH
וְיִפְתָּח הַגִּלְעָדִי הָיָה גִּבֹּור חַיִל וְהוּא בֶּן אִשָּׁה זֹונָה וַיֹּולֶד גִּלְעָד אֶת יִפְתָּח
BN (BibleNet translation): Now Yiphtach the Gil'adi was a mighty man of valour, and he was the son of a harlot: and Gil'ad begat Yiphtach.
The story of Yiphtach is one of the most significant in all Bible Criticism, enabling us to see unequivocally the cross-cultural pollination of myths. Three parallels exist.
The first is Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia, recorded (inter alia) in Euripides' play "Iphigenia at Aulis". Agamemnon is told by Calchus that, in order for the winds to allow him to sail to Troy, Agamemnon must sacrifice Iphigenia to Artemis. When Iphigenia is brought to the altar to be slain, she willingly allows herself to be sacrificed, but in the event a deer is sacrificed in her place, exactly as a ram was substituted for Yitschak in the Akeda (Genesis 22) [though probably, in much older versions, and in both cases, the human sacrifice did take place].
The second is told by Apollodorus in his "Epitome" (6:10), and by Virgil in the "Aeneid": Nauplius has persuaded Idomeneus' wife to take a lover; she takes Leucus, but he murders her and her daughter. He then usurps the throne, in league with several other cities. Caught in a storm as he sails for Crete, he vows to dedicate to Poseidon the first person he meets, which in Apollodorus is his own son, in Virgil one of his daughters. At the moment of sacrifice a plague hits the country and the sacrifice is abandoned [though probably, in much older versions, and in both cases, the human scarifice did take place].
The third is recorded in Plutarch ("On Rivers", 9:1). Maeander vows to sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven the first person to congratulate him on the storming of Pessinus; this turns out to be Archelaus his son; Maeander performs the sacrifice, then throws himself into the river in remorse.
The story of Yiphtach is repeated in 1 Samuel 12:11.
YIPHTACH: from the root PATACH, meaning "open", which word occurs repeatedly as the "entrance to the gate of the city" in the Avi-Melech tale in Judges 8, and causes problems for translators, because it is an unnecessary word (my own translation actually leaves it out, but I held back on saying so until now)... as with so many key words in these tales, most of them eventually turn out to be the names of people, but they appear first as a passing oddity in the text, only to become significant and symbolic later on (I would use the technical term "foreshadowing", but that would lead us back into the world of Tsalmun'a and co, and it is a different kind of foreshadowing that I mean).
The story of Yiphtach is one of the most significant in all Bible Criticism, enabling us to see unequivocally the cross-cultural pollination of myths. Three parallels exist.
The first is Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia, recorded (inter alia) in Euripides' play "Iphigenia at Aulis". Agamemnon is told by Calchus that, in order for the winds to allow him to sail to Troy, Agamemnon must sacrifice Iphigenia to Artemis. When Iphigenia is brought to the altar to be slain, she willingly allows herself to be sacrificed, but in the event a deer is sacrificed in her place, exactly as a ram was substituted for Yitschak in the Akeda (Genesis 22) [though probably, in much older versions, and in both cases, the human sacrifice did take place].
The second is told by Apollodorus in his "Epitome" (6:10), and by Virgil in the "Aeneid": Nauplius has persuaded Idomeneus' wife to take a lover; she takes Leucus, but he murders her and her daughter. He then usurps the throne, in league with several other cities. Caught in a storm as he sails for Crete, he vows to dedicate to Poseidon the first person he meets, which in Apollodorus is his own son, in Virgil one of his daughters. At the moment of sacrifice a plague hits the country and the sacrifice is abandoned [though probably, in much older versions, and in both cases, the human scarifice did take place].
The third is recorded in Plutarch ("On Rivers", 9:1). Maeander vows to sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven the first person to congratulate him on the storming of Pessinus; this turns out to be Archelaus his son; Maeander performs the sacrifice, then throws himself into the river in remorse.
The story of Yiphtach is repeated in 1 Samuel 12:11.
YIPHTACH: from the root PATACH, meaning "open", which word occurs repeatedly as the "entrance to the gate of the city" in the Avi-Melech tale in Judges 8, and causes problems for translators, because it is an unnecessary word (my own translation actually leaves it out, but I held back on saying so until now)... as with so many key words in these tales, most of them eventually turn out to be the names of people, but they appear first as a passing oddity in the text, only to become significant and symbolic later on (I would use the technical term "foreshadowing", but that would lead us back into the world of Tsalmun'a and co, and it is a different kind of foreshadowing that I mean).
Worth exploring, as you follow this tale, that of the other YAPHET, the son of No'ach.
Exactly what Yiphtach's real name was we do not know, but we can assume from verse 35 (below) that it was not Yiphtach. Nor does it matter. Joshua 19:14 and 27 refer to a valley between Zevulun and Asher named Yiphtach-El, which allows us to see Yiphtach as a sacred-king name.
ZONAH: Reference to him as "son of a harlot" is the Redactor's way of derogating his priestly status, which was the same as Shemu-El's (Samuel's) and Jesus' - the sacred child conceived by hierodule marriage in the sacred rites of the moon-goddess, in this case most likely Anat. The derogation further confirms that Yiphtach was not originally Ben Yisra-El.
The verse itself is problematic. It claims he was the son of a "zonah", which can mean several things, as explained above (usually, in the Tanach, it is a way of removing the sacred duty from a hierodule and rendering her thereby a mere prostitute). But it also claims that his father was named Gil'ad, which sets him back in time a long way. There have been occasions when "ben", meaning "son", is used to denote membership of a clan, or a guild, or in the previous chapter the circuit judges in the "law-firm" of the sacred king; from which we could suggest that he was a son of Gil'ad in the geographical sense; but in fact "ben" is not used here; we are told first that he was from the region and/or the tribe, but then explicitly that VA YOLED GIL'AD ET YIPHTACH = "and Gil'ad bore Yiphtach". This is then made more emphatic in the verses that follow - so perhaps we are also reading the aetiological myth of the founding of the tribe of Gil'ad and the inhabitants of that region. Given that the region included the two-and-a-half tribes (Gad, Reu-Ven and half-Menasheh), until the conquest by Amon in the last chapter, this would be the logical point of the book to explain who the Beney Gil'ad were.
We are still in Gil'ad, so again this is probably not a Yisra-Eli story, but one which was necessary to include because the Tanach being created was a document of national unification.
GIL'AD: There is the man, and there is the region, which is the flatland along the summit of the Golan Heights, where Gad and Re'u-Ven made their tribal homes. The man first appears in Numbers 26:29, where we are given the tribal lists of Menasheh. One of his sons was "Machir, the clan of the Machiri - and Machir begat Gil'ad; of Gil'ad, the clan of the Gil'adi." The following verse then tells us that "These are the Beney Gil'ad: of I-Ezer, the clan of the I-Ezri; of Chelek, the clan of the Chelki..." none of which names Yiphtach as a son, so we can assume that the Gil'ad in this chapter is a later repetition of the ancestral name, and that being Ben Gil'ad means a member of the tribe, not the son of a specific individual.
GIBOR CHAYIL: GIBOR is used to mean "hero", which is generally a person of great physical strength who accomplishes great physical feats; CHAYAL is today's word for "a soldier", though anciently it too meant "strength", both physical (Genesis 47:6), but also spiritual (Ruth 3:11), intellectual (Psalm 18:33), and moral (Exodus 18:21 ,25). Leadership skills, in the broadest sense; role-models. Clearly Yiphtach is not yet such a person; but will become so by the middle of the tale (questionable how we will regard him at the end of the tale).
11:2 VA TELED ESHET GIL'AD LO BANIM VA YIGDELU VENEY HA ISHAH VE YAGARSHU ET YIPHTACH VA YOMRU LO LO TINCHAL BE VEIT AVIYNU KI BEN ISHAH ACHERET ATAH
וַתֵּלֶד אֵשֶׁת גִּלְעָד לֹו בָּנִים וַיִּגְדְּלוּ בְנֵי הָאִשָּׁה וַיְגָרְשׁוּ אֶת יִפְתָּח וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו לֹא תִנְחַל בְּבֵית אָבִינוּ כִּי בֶּן אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת אָתָּה
BN: And Gil'ad's wife bore him sons; and his wife's sons grew up, and they forced Yiphtach out, saying to him: "You will never inherit in our father's house; for you are the son of a foreign woman."
Echoing the expulsion of Yishma-El, but also, perhaps more significantly in the context, that of Yotam (Judges 9:5).
ESHET: Gil'ad's wife. If Gil'ad is the name of the town or region, and/or shrine, we can also regard "wife" as "high priestess". For those cynical or sceptical of these commentaries, this switch back and forth between name of person and name of town provides fuel for the counter-argument!
Echoing the expulsion of Yishma-El, but also, perhaps more significantly in the context, that of Yotam (Judges 9:5).
ESHET: Gil'ad's wife. If Gil'ad is the name of the town or region, and/or shrine, we can also regard "wife" as "high priestess". For those cynical or sceptical of these commentaries, this switch back and forth between name of person and name of town provides fuel for the counter-argument!
It may appear slightly odd to see the name ESHET, used here in this context, but it is correct, and is only connected to the Egyptian mother-goddess, who is known through her Greek name as Isis, because ESHET, in her case, was really a title not a name: "the Supreme Woman", or "The Woman of Women". ISHAH in Yehudit also means "woman", probably derived from the same root, which was ISHTAR in Chaldean, and "the woman of", or "the wife of", becomes ESHET grammatically. (And for those men questioning this: yes, one of the masculine words for "man" is ISH, which may have come first, and then ISHAH, or may have derived from ESHET: but note the plurals, which are ANASHIM for "men" and NASHIM for "women", so there were probably two different words originally, each entering Yehudit from a different language source, and then merged in this manner over time. ANASHIM was probably sourced in ENOSH, for whom see the link). (The other masculine word for "man" is progenitor Adam, in his case rooted - forgive the pun - in Adamah, which is the red earth of the region, and which would lead to the name of the county of Edom).
"They thrust out Yiphtach." The Redactor has added the phrase after the semi-colon. He was actually thrown out for the same reason as Yishma-El and Esav. In the matriarchal cults the youngest inherited, so there was no place for the elder brothers, who left to form their own clan elsewhere. Look at French laws on inheritance to see the closest modern example of this (here).
Interesting also to look at this tale in contrast with that of Tselaphchad's daughters in Numbers 26:33 ff, which is also a Gil'adi story.
11:3 VA YIVRACH YIPHTACH MIPNEY ECHAV VA YESHEV BE ERETS TOV VA YITLAKTU EL YIPHTACH ANASHIM REYKIM VA YETS'U IMO
וַיִּבְרַח יִפְתָּח מִפְּנֵי אֶחָיו וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ טֹוב וַיִּתְלַקְּטוּ אֶל יִפְתָּח אֲנָשִׁים רֵיקִים וַיֵּצְאוּ עִמֹּו
BN: Then Yiphtach fled from his brethren, and found some good land to live in, and many shallow men gathered around Yiphtach, and hung about with him.
TOV (טוב). Like Kayin's wandering in the land of Nod (LENADED is the verb for "to wander" and was used for the nomadic Bedou), Tov is not really a place but a description. TOV means "good".
"Vain men", or "shallow men", is probably the Redactor's value judgement once again, and what he actually gathered about himself were men who followed the same gods as him. But the text does not clarify that at this stage, and so I have gone with the derogatory but literal.
pey break
TOV (טוב). Like Kayin's wandering in the land of Nod (LENADED is the verb for "to wander" and was used for the nomadic Bedou), Tov is not really a place but a description. TOV means "good".
"Vain men", or "shallow men", is probably the Redactor's value judgement once again, and what he actually gathered about himself were men who followed the same gods as him. But the text does not clarify that at this stage, and so I have gone with the derogatory but literal.
pey break
11:4 VA YEHI MI YAMIM VA YILACHAMU VENEY AMON IM YISRA-EL
וַיְהִי מִיָּמִים וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ בְנֵי עַמֹּון עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And it came to pass, in due process of time, that the Beney Amon made war against Yisra-El.
We have gone back in time to the point where Judges 10:7 told us that the Beney Amon, inter alia, had occupied the land, and specifically to Judges 10:18, the moment when "the people, and the princes of Gil'ad, said to one another: What man is he who will begin to fight against the Beney Amon? He shall be the chief over all the inhabitants of Gil'ad." The answer is now going to be Yiphtach.
CHILDREN OF AMMON is a horrible translation, because it fails to reflect the way the Arab tribes have always named themselves. Banu or Beney Amon. This is true throughout the Tanach and reflected in TheBibleNet translation.
KJ: And it was so, that when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob
We have gone back in time to the point where Judges 10:7 told us that the Beney Amon, inter alia, had occupied the land, and specifically to Judges 10:18, the moment when "the people, and the princes of Gil'ad, said to one another: What man is he who will begin to fight against the Beney Amon? He shall be the chief over all the inhabitants of Gil'ad." The answer is now going to be Yiphtach.
CHILDREN OF AMMON is a horrible translation, because it fails to reflect the way the Arab tribes have always named themselves. Banu or Beney Amon. This is true throughout the Tanach and reflected in TheBibleNet translation.
11:5 VA YEHI KA ASHER NILCHAMU VENEY AMON IM YISRA-EL VA YELCHU ZIKNEY GIL'AD LAKACHAT ET YIPHTACH MEY ERETS TOV
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר נִלְחֲמוּ בְנֵי עַמֹּון עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּלְכוּ זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד לָקַחַת אֶת יִפְתָּח מֵאֶרֶץ טֹוב
BN: And so it happened that, when the Beney Amon made war against Yisra-El, the elders of Gil'ad went to fetch Yiphtach from his good land.
Why him? What credentials did he have to lead the armies of Yisra-El, or at least that of Gil'ad, against the regional superpower of the day, the Beney Amon? The illegitimate son of a whore, thrown out by his family, living the wild-life with his bum-friends on some patch somewhere - that is the reference we have been given by this job-applicant. But there was also GIBOR CHAYIL in verse 1, which suggests that he may already have served in the armed forces at some time; and there is also the reality behind the "whoreson", that he was a child of the hierodule-hierophant ceremonies of the fertility cult (which also ties into the "Land of Tov), and therefore, we can presume, dedicated to the shrine as a Nazir, or its Gil'adi equivalent, and so trained as a priest, an oracle, a shaman... I cannot be more specific because the text does not provide it.
KJ: And they said unto Jephthah, Come, and be our captain, that we may fight with the children of Ammon.
Why him? What credentials did he have to lead the armies of Yisra-El, or at least that of Gil'ad, against the regional superpower of the day, the Beney Amon? The illegitimate son of a whore, thrown out by his family, living the wild-life with his bum-friends on some patch somewhere - that is the reference we have been given by this job-applicant. But there was also GIBOR CHAYIL in verse 1, which suggests that he may already have served in the armed forces at some time; and there is also the reality behind the "whoreson", that he was a child of the hierodule-hierophant ceremonies of the fertility cult (which also ties into the "Land of Tov), and therefore, we can presume, dedicated to the shrine as a Nazir, or its Gil'adi equivalent, and so trained as a priest, an oracle, a shaman... I cannot be more specific because the text does not provide it.
11:6 VA YOMRU LE YIPHTACH LECHAH VE HAYIYTAH LANU LE KATSIN VE NILACHAMAH BIVNEY AMON
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְיִפְתָּח לְכָה וְהָיִיתָה לָּנוּ לְקָצִין וְנִלָּחֲמָה בִּבְנֵי עַמֹּון
BN: And they said to Yiphtach: "Come, and be our chieftain, that we may fight the Beney Amon."
KATSIN: "Captain", as per the KJ, sounds like 17th century England, or a cricket team. Chief? Sheikh? Leader? I am not entirely happy with "chieftain" either. In Joshua 10:24 there is no doubt that it was a military office, and the same is true in Daniel 11:18. But Isaiah (1:10, 3:6) uses the word, as does Micah (3:9), to mean a "judge", not in the sense of a "magistrate" - they are surely not asking Yiphtach to attorney a class action law suit for them against the Beney Amon? - but in the general sense of a "ruler". How words do change their meanings over time! In the Book of Proverbs (6:7 and 25:15), which probably dates midway between Judges and the Prophets, the word had already transitioned to mean "a prince", and our Yiphtach most certainly was not that either.
The first of the Proverbs links is probably the most useful to us, making as it does a very clear distinction between three types of ruler, the KATSIN, as here, the SHOTER (שֹׁטֵר) and the MOSHEL (מֹשֵׁל). For MOSHAL see my notes to Judges 8:10, where Gid'on is likewise invited to "rule over" the people, but his role is primarily priestly, even though he does lead the army. I am particularly pleased to have come across this reference to SHOTER, which is the precise Yehudit word for a magistrate, because I am also working on a history of the Jews of London in Norman times, where their Beth Din was officially known as the SHETAR HA YEHUDIM, and bequeathed an anglicised version of its name to a great English institution after the expulsion in 1290: the Star Chamber. Based on the above, I have satisfied my doubts about my original translation, and think we should indeed read KATSIN as "chieftain", a role that is equally princely and military, but has no judicial function.
NILACHAMAH: "Why is there a qamats under the the Chet?" asks my very bright Year 10 student. "Shouldn't it be NILCHAMAH?" And she draws my attention to NILCHAMTA in verse 8. But no, it really is NILACHAMAH. Abstruse grammar - this is LEHILACHEM. the Pi'el form, the intensive conjugation. They don't just mean war, they mean serious, bare-knuckle, to-the-last-man, all-out war.
Recap time: that they would send him for conscription makes sense, but there is no explanation of why they would call him to be their chief unless he has some experience, or special status with YHVH to elicit his help. Or indeed, why they would call him at all, given that they had supposedly kicked him out on the grounds that he was both a mamzer and a foreigner. So we now need to go back to those first verses, and consider again what was no doubt rejected at the time: my argument about matrilocal inheritance and his "Golden Bough" status as sacred king. And then ask: has his sojourn in the "land of Tov" made him so rich, and therefore powerful, that his adherence to YHVH, based on his sacred birth, has shown the people that YHVH is the god to follow, and not the Ba'alim and Ashterot? His disinheritance then is no longer an issue; he has actually done better for it, as Esav and Yishma-El both did.
But still we have to ask: if Amon has attacked Yisra-El, why are they asking a non-Yisrae-Eli to lead their fight. Or is it that - as I suggested in the previous chapter - Gil'ad has now absorbed both Gad and Re'u-Ven, perhaps even the half-tribe of Menasheh too, and so it is Yisra-Elim by default who are threatened?
11:7 VA YOMER YIPHTACH LE ZIKNEY GIL'AD HA LO ATEM SENE'TEM OTI VA TEGARSHUNI MI BEIT AVI U MADU'A BA'TEM ELAY ATAH KA ASHER TSAR LACHEM?
KJ: And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, Did not ye hate me, and expel me out of my father's house? and why are ye come unto me now when ye are in distress?
KATSIN: "Captain", as per the KJ, sounds like 17th century England, or a cricket team. Chief? Sheikh? Leader? I am not entirely happy with "chieftain" either. In Joshua 10:24 there is no doubt that it was a military office, and the same is true in Daniel 11:18. But Isaiah (1:10, 3:6) uses the word, as does Micah (3:9), to mean a "judge", not in the sense of a "magistrate" - they are surely not asking Yiphtach to attorney a class action law suit for them against the Beney Amon? - but in the general sense of a "ruler". How words do change their meanings over time! In the Book of Proverbs (6:7 and 25:15), which probably dates midway between Judges and the Prophets, the word had already transitioned to mean "a prince", and our Yiphtach most certainly was not that either.
The first of the Proverbs links is probably the most useful to us, making as it does a very clear distinction between three types of ruler, the KATSIN, as here, the SHOTER (שֹׁטֵר) and the MOSHEL (מֹשֵׁל). For MOSHAL see my notes to Judges 8:10, where Gid'on is likewise invited to "rule over" the people, but his role is primarily priestly, even though he does lead the army. I am particularly pleased to have come across this reference to SHOTER, which is the precise Yehudit word for a magistrate, because I am also working on a history of the Jews of London in Norman times, where their Beth Din was officially known as the SHETAR HA YEHUDIM, and bequeathed an anglicised version of its name to a great English institution after the expulsion in 1290: the Star Chamber. Based on the above, I have satisfied my doubts about my original translation, and think we should indeed read KATSIN as "chieftain", a role that is equally princely and military, but has no judicial function.
NILACHAMAH: "Why is there a qamats under the the Chet?" asks my very bright Year 10 student. "Shouldn't it be NILCHAMAH?" And she draws my attention to NILCHAMTA in verse 8. But no, it really is NILACHAMAH. Abstruse grammar - this is LEHILACHEM. the Pi'el form, the intensive conjugation. They don't just mean war, they mean serious, bare-knuckle, to-the-last-man, all-out war.
Recap time: that they would send him for conscription makes sense, but there is no explanation of why they would call him to be their chief unless he has some experience, or special status with YHVH to elicit his help. Or indeed, why they would call him at all, given that they had supposedly kicked him out on the grounds that he was both a mamzer and a foreigner. So we now need to go back to those first verses, and consider again what was no doubt rejected at the time: my argument about matrilocal inheritance and his "Golden Bough" status as sacred king. And then ask: has his sojourn in the "land of Tov" made him so rich, and therefore powerful, that his adherence to YHVH, based on his sacred birth, has shown the people that YHVH is the god to follow, and not the Ba'alim and Ashterot? His disinheritance then is no longer an issue; he has actually done better for it, as Esav and Yishma-El both did.
But still we have to ask: if Amon has attacked Yisra-El, why are they asking a non-Yisrae-Eli to lead their fight. Or is it that - as I suggested in the previous chapter - Gil'ad has now absorbed both Gad and Re'u-Ven, perhaps even the half-tribe of Menasheh too, and so it is Yisra-Elim by default who are threatened?
11:7 VA YOMER YIPHTACH LE ZIKNEY GIL'AD HA LO ATEM SENE'TEM OTI VA TEGARSHUNI MI BEIT AVI U MADU'A BA'TEM ELAY ATAH KA ASHER TSAR LACHEM?
וַיֹּאמֶר יִפְתָּח לְזִקְנֵי גִלְעָד הֲלֹא אַתֶּם שְׂנֵאתֶם אֹותִי וַתְּגָרְשׁוּנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמַדּוּעַ בָּאתֶם אֵלַי עַתָּה כַּאֲשֶׁר צַר לָכֶם
BN: Then Yiphtach said to the elders of Gil'ad: "Did you not hate me, and throw me out of my father's house? Why are you coming to me now in your time of need?"
Previously Gil'ad was the father and these men his sons, kicking him out to steal his inheritance; now they are the elders of the town, and Gil'ad the town not the eponymous father. Do we have two versions mixed up? Or actually three.
11:8 VA YOMRU ZIKNEY GILAD EL YIPHTACH LACHEN ATAH SHAVNU ELEYCHA VE HALACHTA IMANU VE NILCHAMTA BIV'NEY AMON VE HAYIYTA LANU LE ROSH LE CHOL YOSHVEY GIL'AD
KJ: And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, Therefore we turn again to thee now, that thou mayest go with us, and fight against the children of Ammon, and be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.
Previously Gil'ad was the father and these men his sons, kicking him out to steal his inheritance; now they are the elders of the town, and Gil'ad the town not the eponymous father. Do we have two versions mixed up? Or actually three.
11:8 VA YOMRU ZIKNEY GILAD EL YIPHTACH LACHEN ATAH SHAVNU ELEYCHA VE HALACHTA IMANU VE NILCHAMTA BIV'NEY AMON VE HAYIYTA LANU LE ROSH LE CHOL YOSHVEY GIL'AD
וַיֹּאמְרוּ זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אֶל יִפְתָּח לָכֵן עַתָּה שַׁבְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ עִמָּנוּ וְנִלְחַמְתָּ בִּבְנֵי עַמֹּון וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְרֹאשׁ לְכֹל יֹשְׁבֵי גִלְעָד
BN: And the elders of Gil'ad said to Yiphtach: "That is why we are turning to you now, that you will go with us, and lead us in the fight against the Beney Amon, and be our chief, over all the inhabitants of Gil'ad".
This does not answer his question; it simply repeats their request, but infers "because we need you". The answer to all these issues lies in his maternity, and her status as "zonah". To explain it, we simply need to go to the Jesus story. As a hierodule, who performed the sacred act of ritual copulation at the "easter" (Ishtar/Eshet - fertility) rites, she will have given birth to the "Risen Lord" at the mid-winter solstice, and dedicated the child as a Nazir (or its cultic equivalent) at the shrine, which is to say returning him to his solar and lunar parents, the god and goddess of the pantheon. Like Kayin, the Risen Lord is first rejected, so he can be sent into the wilderness carrying the people's sins (the Azaz-El, the Mark of Kayin). But in the future he will return to save his people (see the legends of Ar Thur, the "Once and Future" king). Comment has already been made that his departure for Tov was equivalent to the Land of Nod in the Kayin version. Those familiar with the Havdalah prayers will also recognise the connections between Yiphtach and Eli-Yahu (Elijah), who is another variant of the Risen Lord, the Beloved of the moon-goddess Yah; these will recur as the text progresses. The Jesus myth is of the same order.
GIL'AD: His name has been written throughout this commentary as GIL'AD, but perhaps it should be GIL-AD, or even perhaps GIL-ED, as a variant of GAL-ED. I have discussed this in my piece about him in the Dictionary of Names - click here.
KJ: And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, If ye bring me home again to fight against the children of Ammon, and the LORD deliver them before me, shall I be your head?
This does not answer his question; it simply repeats their request, but infers "because we need you". The answer to all these issues lies in his maternity, and her status as "zonah". To explain it, we simply need to go to the Jesus story. As a hierodule, who performed the sacred act of ritual copulation at the "easter" (Ishtar/Eshet - fertility) rites, she will have given birth to the "Risen Lord" at the mid-winter solstice, and dedicated the child as a Nazir (or its cultic equivalent) at the shrine, which is to say returning him to his solar and lunar parents, the god and goddess of the pantheon. Like Kayin, the Risen Lord is first rejected, so he can be sent into the wilderness carrying the people's sins (the Azaz-El, the Mark of Kayin). But in the future he will return to save his people (see the legends of Ar Thur, the "Once and Future" king). Comment has already been made that his departure for Tov was equivalent to the Land of Nod in the Kayin version. Those familiar with the Havdalah prayers will also recognise the connections between Yiphtach and Eli-Yahu (Elijah), who is another variant of the Risen Lord, the Beloved of the moon-goddess Yah; these will recur as the text progresses. The Jesus myth is of the same order.
GIL'AD: His name has been written throughout this commentary as GIL'AD, but perhaps it should be GIL-AD, or even perhaps GIL-ED, as a variant of GAL-ED. I have discussed this in my piece about him in the Dictionary of Names - click here.
11:9 VA YOMER YIPHTACH EL ZIKNEY GIL'AD IM MESHIYVIM ATEM OTI LEHILACHEM BIVNEY AMON VE NATAN YHVH OTAM LEPHANAY ANOCHI EHEYEH LACHEM LE ROSH
וַיֹּאמֶר יִפְתָּח אֶל זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אִם מְשִׁיבִים אַתֶּם אֹותִי לְהִלָּחֵם בִּבְנֵי עַמֹּון וְנָתַן יְהוָה אֹותָם לְפָנָי אָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לְרֹאשׁ
BN: And Yiphtach said to the elders of Gil'ad: "If you bring me home again to fight against the Beney Amon, and YHVH delivers them before me, shall I be your chief?
This is surely the wrong way around - or a very mistrustful Yiphtach; they want him to lead them to victory, not after victory. Is he perhaps being ironic? Wondering if he is going to be abandoned afterwards, as he was abandoned beforehand? The temptation is to alter the question to read "shall I still be your chief?"
The presence of YHVH in this tale is an addition by the Redactor.
KJ: And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, The LORD be witness between us, if we do not so according to thy words.
This is surely the wrong way around - or a very mistrustful Yiphtach; they want him to lead them to victory, not after victory. Is he perhaps being ironic? Wondering if he is going to be abandoned afterwards, as he was abandoned beforehand? The temptation is to alter the question to read "shall I still be your chief?"
The presence of YHVH in this tale is an addition by the Redactor.
11:10 VA YOMRU ZIKNEY GIL'AD EL YIPHTACH YHVH YIHEYEH SHOME'A BEYNOTEYNU IM LO CHIDVARCHA KEN NA'ASEH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אֶל יִפְתָּח יְהוָה יִהְיֶה שֹׁמֵעַ בֵּינֹותֵינוּ אִם לֹא כִדְבָרְךָ כֵּן נַעֲשֶׂה
BN: And the elders of Gil'ad said to Yiphtach: "Let YHVH be the witness between us, if we do not do according to your words."
The word "witness" is not there in the Yehudit; what it actually says is "YHVH will be the one who hears between us", which of course means exactly the same thing, but avoids using the word, which is ED (עד). Why avoid it? Because if you use it, then readers (or listeners) like me will recognise all manner of inferences inherent in the word, like EDAH, which is very specifically "the congregation of YHVH", and the "testimony" itself, the Ark of the Covenant by its other name, LUCHAT HA EDUT being the Ten Commandments contained in it (see Exodus 32:15), and at Shechem noch (see Joshua 24:1)... but it is unnecessary because, for this non Yisra-Eli tale, the author has scrupulously avoided even a hint of that word.
The word "witness" is not there in the Yehudit; what it actually says is "YHVH will be the one who hears between us", which of course means exactly the same thing, but avoids using the word, which is ED (עד). Why avoid it? Because if you use it, then readers (or listeners) like me will recognise all manner of inferences inherent in the word, like EDAH, which is very specifically "the congregation of YHVH", and the "testimony" itself, the Ark of the Covenant by its other name, LUCHAT HA EDUT being the Ten Commandments contained in it (see Exodus 32:15), and at Shechem noch (see Joshua 24:1)... but it is unnecessary because, for this non Yisra-Eli tale, the author has scrupulously avoided even a hint of that word.
But note, from a story-telling point of view, that Yiphtach is making them swear an oath, and establishing that they are morally obliged to keep it. So his own fate is foreshadowed.
KJ: Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the LORD in Mizpeh.
11:11 VA YELECH YIPHTACH IM ZIKNEY GIL'AD VA YASIYMU HA AM OTO ALEYHEM LE ROSH U LE KATSIN VA YEDABER YIPHTACH ET KOL DEVARAV LIPHNEY YHVH BA MITSPAH
וַיֵּלֶךְ יִפְתָּח עִם זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד וַיָּשִׂימוּ הָעָם אֹותֹו עֲלֵיהֶם לְרֹאשׁ וּלְקָצִין וַיְדַבֵּר יִפְתָּח אֶת כָּל דְּבָרָיו לִפְנֵי יְהוָה בַּמִּצְפָּה
BN: Then Yiphtach went with the elders of Gil'ad, and the people made him head and captain over them; and Yiphtach uttered all his words before YHVH in Mitspah.
LE ROSH U LE KATSIN: Is that the latterday, small-scale equivalent of the American "President and Commander-in-Chief"?
LE ROSH U LE KATSIN: Is that the latterday, small-scale equivalent of the American "President and Commander-in-Chief"?
What we are not given are the actual words, but clearly some sort of coronation or anointing ceremony takes place at Mitspah, and some sort of vow accompanies it. Mitspah was sacred to the white moon-goddess, as Gad (see notes to Mitspeh), not YHVH (assuming this is the same Mitspeh - verse 29 calls it Mitspeh of Gil'ad; it may be a different one, in which case: to whom was it dedicated?).
pey break
KJ: And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?
pey break
11:12 VA YISHLACH YIPHTACH MAL'ACHIM EL MELECH BENEY AMON LEMOR MAH LI VE LACH KI VA'TA ELAY LEHILACHEM BE ARTSI
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִפְתָּח מַלְאָכִים אֶל מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמֹּון לֵאמֹר מַה לִּי וָלָךְ כִּי בָאתָ אֵלַי לְהִלָּחֵם בְּאַרְצִי
BN: Then Yiphtach sent messengers to the king of the Beney Amon, saying: "What is the issue between me and you, that you have come to make war against me in my land?"
MAH LI VE LACH: "What's up twixt thee and me?" might catch the mix of slang and formal in this more readily. A Biblical Tweet, in the style and manner of Boss Tweet himself! I can imagine him sending something just like that to the leadership of North Korea, or Iran.
11:13 VA YOMER MELECH BENEY AMON EL MAL'ACHEY YIPHTACH KI LAKACH YISRA-EL ET ARTSI BA ALOTO MI MITSRAYIM ME ARNON VE AD HA YABOK VE AD HA YARDEN VE ATAH HASHIYVAH ET'HEN BE SHALOM
KJ: And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.
MAH LI VE LACH: "What's up twixt thee and me?" might catch the mix of slang and formal in this more readily. A Biblical Tweet, in the style and manner of Boss Tweet himself! I can imagine him sending something just like that to the leadership of North Korea, or Iran.
11:13 VA YOMER MELECH BENEY AMON EL MAL'ACHEY YIPHTACH KI LAKACH YISRA-EL ET ARTSI BA ALOTO MI MITSRAYIM ME ARNON VE AD HA YABOK VE AD HA YARDEN VE ATAH HASHIYVAH ET'HEN BE SHALOM
וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמֹּון אֶל מַלְאֲכֵי יִפְתָּח כִּי לָקַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת אַרְצִי בַּעֲלֹותֹו מִמִּצְרַיִם מֵאַרְנֹון וְעַד הַיַּבֹּק וְעַד הַיַּרְדֵּן וְעַתָּה הָשִׁיבָה אֶתְהֶן בְּשָׁלֹום
BN: And the king of the Beney Amon answered Yiphtach's messengers: "Because Yisra-El took away my land, when they came up out of Mitsrayim, from the Arnon as far as the Yavok, and all the way to the Yarden: now, therefore, restore those lands again peaceably."
ARNON: See the link.
YAVOK: See the link.
Then, to the Beney Amon anyway (but see verse 15), this is about the two and a half tribes, regardless of whether they have been absorbed into Gil'ad, regardless of who rules in Gil'ad. Illegal settlements have been established, in occupied territory on the East Bank of the Jordan, and the king of Trans-Jordanian Amon has no doubt tried BDS unsuccessfully, so now it's time for Qamas rockets. Ah, how doth history repeat itself!
ARNON: See the link.
YAVOK: See the link.
Then, to the Beney Amon anyway (but see verse 15), this is about the two and a half tribes, regardless of whether they have been absorbed into Gil'ad, regardless of who rules in Gil'ad. Illegal settlements have been established, in occupied territory on the East Bank of the Jordan, and the king of Trans-Jordanian Amon has no doubt tried BDS unsuccessfully, so now it's time for Qamas rockets. Ah, how doth history repeat itself!
11:14 VA YOSEPH OD YIPHTACH VA YISHLACH MAL'ACHIM EL MELECH BENEY AMON
וַיֹּוסֶף עֹוד יִפְתָּח וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמֹּון
BN: And Yiphtach sent messengers a second time to the king of the Beney Amon.
KJ: And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon
11:15 VA YOMER LO KOH AMAR YIPHTACH LO LAKACH YISRA-EL ET ERETS MO'AV VE ET ERETS BENEY AMON
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו כֹּה אָמַר יִפְתָּח לֹא לָקַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת אֶרֶץ מֹואָב וְאֶת אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמֹּון
BN: And they said to him: Thus says Yiphtach: Yisra-El did not take away the land of Mo-Av, nor the land of the Beney Amon...
This is about to be highly disingenuous; or should we simply say, this is how politicians always squirm and wriggle in order to appear right?
The use of the name Yisra-El is also both problematic and highly convenient. Because Yisra-El did indeed take those lands, or so we were told in both Deuteronomy and Joshua. Because this is Gil'ad, not Yisra-El, and therefore an anachronism; but necessary for the Redactor's agenda in his time.
KJ: But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness unto the Red sea, and came to Kadesh,
This is about to be highly disingenuous; or should we simply say, this is how politicians always squirm and wriggle in order to appear right?
The use of the name Yisra-El is also both problematic and highly convenient. Because Yisra-El did indeed take those lands, or so we were told in both Deuteronomy and Joshua. Because this is Gil'ad, not Yisra-El, and therefore an anachronism; but necessary for the Redactor's agenda in his time.
(Note that I have left out quotation marks on this occasion; by the time we reach verse 17 they will be quoting the king quoting Mosheh, and frankly there don't exist sufficient types of quotation mark to render this comprensibly.)
11:16 KI BA ALOTAM MI MITSRAYIM VA YELECH YISRA-EL BA MIDBAR AD YAM SUPH VA YAVO KADESHAH
כִּי בַּעֲלֹותָם מִמִּצְרָיִם וַיֵּלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עַד יַם סוּף וַיָּבֹא קָדֵשָׁה
BN: But when Yisra-El came up from Mitsrayim, and walked through the wilderness to the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh...
YAM SUPH: On this occasion, because the version that is being told is clearly the later-history one, and because they did indeed go down to the Red Sea, in year 39, en route to Midyan in order to access Kena'an via Gil'ad, I have translated this as the Red Sea, rather than the Reed Sea, of Goshen in the Nile Delta, where the original from Mitsrayim exodus actually took place (see my notes throughout thr Book of Exodus).
KADESH: See the link.
11:17 VE YISHLACH YISRA-EL MAL'ACHIM EL MELECH EDOM LEMOR E'BERAH NA VE ARTSECHA VE LO SHAM'A MELECH EDOM VE GAM EL MELECH MO'AV SHALACH VE LO AVAH VA YESHEV YISRA-EL BE KADESH
KJ: Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh.
YAM SUPH: On this occasion, because the version that is being told is clearly the later-history one, and because they did indeed go down to the Red Sea, in year 39, en route to Midyan in order to access Kena'an via Gil'ad, I have translated this as the Red Sea, rather than the Reed Sea, of Goshen in the Nile Delta, where the original from Mitsrayim exodus actually took place (see my notes throughout thr Book of Exodus).
KADESH: See the link.
11:17 VE YISHLACH YISRA-EL MAL'ACHIM EL MELECH EDOM LEMOR E'BERAH NA VE ARTSECHA VE LO SHAM'A MELECH EDOM VE GAM EL MELECH MO'AV SHALACH VE LO AVAH VA YESHEV YISRA-EL BE KADESH
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל מֶלֶךְ אֱדֹום לֵאמֹר אֶעְבְּרָה נָּא בְאַרְצֶךָ וְלֹא שָׁמַע מֶלֶךְ אֱדֹום וְגַם אֶל מֶלֶךְ מֹואָב שָׁלַח וְלֹא אָבָה וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקָדֵשׁ
BN: Then Yisra-El sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying: Please will you allow us to pass through your land. But the king of Edom would not listen to us. And in just the same way, they sent to the king of Mo-Av. But he would not consent either. And Yisra-El abode in Kadesh...
"Then Yisra-El" in the 3rd person singular; "Let me" in the 1st person; "they" in the 3rd person plural; "us" in the 1st person plural - and all four in the same sentence. Quite impressive really!
Nor is this a meaninful response to the argument of the Beney Amon. They are complaining that Yisra-El conquered them. At all. It doesn't matter why, or on what pretext, genuine or contrived. You conquered our land. You had no right to it. You can keep the land that you're entitled to. But not ours. Ours we want back.
Ah, how doth history repeat itself!
11:18 VA YELECH BA MIDBAR VA YASAV ET ERETS EDOM VE ET ERETS MO-AV VA YAVO MI MIZRACH SHEMESH LE ERETS MO-AV VA YACHANUN BE EVER ARNON VE LO VA'U BIGVUL MO-AV KI ARNON GEVUL MO-AV
KJ: Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab.
"Then Yisra-El" in the 3rd person singular; "Let me" in the 1st person; "they" in the 3rd person plural; "us" in the 1st person plural - and all four in the same sentence. Quite impressive really!
Nor is this a meaninful response to the argument of the Beney Amon. They are complaining that Yisra-El conquered them. At all. It doesn't matter why, or on what pretext, genuine or contrived. You conquered our land. You had no right to it. You can keep the land that you're entitled to. But not ours. Ours we want back.
Ah, how doth history repeat itself!
11:18 VA YELECH BA MIDBAR VA YASAV ET ERETS EDOM VE ET ERETS MO-AV VA YAVO MI MIZRACH SHEMESH LE ERETS MO-AV VA YACHANUN BE EVER ARNON VE LO VA'U BIGVUL MO-AV KI ARNON GEVUL MO-AV
וַיֵּלֶךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיָּסָב אֶת אֶרֶץ אֱדֹום וְאֶת אֶרֶץ מֹואָב וַיָּבֹא מִמִּזְרַח שֶׁמֶשׁ לְאֶרֶץ מֹואָב וַיַּחֲנוּן בְּעֵבֶר אַרְנֹון וְלֹא בָאוּ בִּגְבוּל מֹואָב כִּי אַרְנֹון גְּבוּל מֹואָב
BN: Then they went through the desert, and around the land of Edom, and the land of Mo-Av, and came via the east side of the land of Mo-Av, and pitched on the far side of the Arnon, but they did not cross the border of Mo-Av: for the Arnon was the border of Mo-Av...
And still this does not provide a meaningful counter-argument. The response of the Beney Amon to all this is simply going to be: so what?
And anyway, how accurate is this version of history? cf the Book of Joshua for details. It really does remind us just how circuitous the journey across the wilderness was, and augments the feeling that it never really happened like that. To arrive at the borders of Mo-Av from due east when you are coming from Mitsrayim (Egypt)!?
KJ: And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place.
And still this does not provide a meaningful counter-argument. The response of the Beney Amon to all this is simply going to be: so what?
And anyway, how accurate is this version of history? cf the Book of Joshua for details. It really does remind us just how circuitous the journey across the wilderness was, and augments the feeling that it never really happened like that. To arrive at the borders of Mo-Av from due east when you are coming from Mitsrayim (Egypt)!?
11:19 VA YISHLACH YISRA-EL MAL'ACHIM EL SIYCHON MELECH HA EMORI MELECH CHESHBON VA YOMER LO YISRA-EL NA'BERAH NA VE ARTSECHA AD MEKOMI
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל סִיחֹון מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבֹּון וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעְבְּרָה נָּא בְאַרְצְךָ עַד מְקֹומִי
BN: And Yisra-El sent messengers to Sichon, king of the Emori, the king of Cheshbon; and Yisra-El said to him: Please will you allow us to cross your land in order to get to ours...
SIYCHON: The original of all this can be found in Numbers 21.
EMORI: See the link.
CHESHBON: See the link.
At least this part of the history is relevant to the listening king of the Emori (assuming that he is still listening).
KJ: But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel.
SIYCHON: The original of all this can be found in Numbers 21.
EMORI: See the link.
CHESHBON: See the link.
At least this part of the history is relevant to the listening king of the Emori (assuming that he is still listening).
NA: Exactly the way this was expressed in the original version, back in Joshua. And isn't it splendid, as a way of phrasing your aggressive intents! "Dear Comrade Stalin, Aryan Germans are keen to return to their land of origin, in Persia, but fear that there may be opposition to them when they arrive, so they will travelling armed, and in military convoys. Please will you allow them to travel through Belarus, the Ukraine and Georgia, as this is the logical overland route. With thanks. Yours ever. Hitler."
11:20 VE LO HE'EMIN SIYCHON ET YISRA-EL AVOR BI GEVULO VA YE'ESOPH SIYCHON ET KOL AMO VA YACHANU BE YAHTSAH VA YILACHEM IM YISRA-EL
11:20 VE LO HE'EMIN SIYCHON ET YISRA-EL AVOR BI GEVULO VA YE'ESOPH SIYCHON ET KOL AMO VA YACHANU BE YAHTSAH VA YILACHEM IM YISRA-EL
וְלֹא הֶאֱמִין סִיחֹון אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלֹו וַיֶּאֱסֹף סִיחֹון אֶת כָּל עַמֹּו וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּיָהְצָה וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: But Siychon did not trust Yisra-El to cross his border; and Siychon gathered all his people together, and pitched camp at Yahats, and made war against Yisra-El...
YAHATS: rendered as Jahaz in most English versions. The town is also listed, in Joshua 13:18 - a text worth looking at in the light of the Beney Amon's complaint, because it is ... well, just read Joshua 13:15 and you will see the entire conflict explained.
Given the history of destruction that followed in that Numbers 21 tale, Siychon was quite right not to believe Yisra-El (Yehoshu'a, though unnamed here). If I were the king of the Beney Amon, I would have stopped listening a while ago to this long and pointless and tendentious rigmarole. Give me back my lands or come to war. What else is there to say?
KJ: And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country.
YAHATS: rendered as Jahaz in most English versions. The town is also listed, in Joshua 13:18 - a text worth looking at in the light of the Beney Amon's complaint, because it is ... well, just read Joshua 13:15 and you will see the entire conflict explained.
Given the history of destruction that followed in that Numbers 21 tale, Siychon was quite right not to believe Yisra-El (Yehoshu'a, though unnamed here). If I were the king of the Beney Amon, I would have stopped listening a while ago to this long and pointless and tendentious rigmarole. Give me back my lands or come to war. What else is there to say?
11:21 VA YITEN YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL ET SIYCHON VE ET KOL AMO BE YAD YISRA-EL VA YAKUM VA YIYRASH YISRA-EL ET KOL ERETS HA EMORI YOSHEV HA ARETS HA HI
וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת סִיחֹון וְאֶת כָּל עַמֹּו בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכּוּם וַיִּירַשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הָאֱמֹרִי יֹושֵׁב הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא
BN: And YHVH, the god of Yisra-El delivered Siychon and all his people into the hand of Yisra-El, and they defeated them. So Yisra-El possessed all the land of the Emori, the inhabitants of that country...
Except that the "tendentious rigmarole" is also a reminder of who won and who lost those battles! Las Malvinas may be claimed by you Argentines, but we won the war. This is basically the right-wing argument in Israel today. You Palestinians started the 1948 War, and lost; that gives us the land under international law by right of defensive conquest. And anyway, like every other conqueror in history, including innumerable others today - it's ours now, and we're keeping it... until you manage to become strong enough to defeat us in our turn, and spit the same argument back into our faces.
KJ: And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan.
Except that the "tendentious rigmarole" is also a reminder of who won and who lost those battles! Las Malvinas may be claimed by you Argentines, but we won the war. This is basically the right-wing argument in Israel today. You Palestinians started the 1948 War, and lost; that gives us the land under international law by right of defensive conquest. And anyway, like every other conqueror in history, including innumerable others today - it's ours now, and we're keeping it... until you manage to become strong enough to defeat us in our turn, and spit the same argument back into our faces.
11:22 VA YIRSHU ET KOL GEVUL HA EMORI ME ARNON VE AD HA YABOK U MIN HA MIDBAR VE AD HA YARDEN
וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֵת כָּל גְּבוּל הָאֱמֹרִי מֵאַרְנֹון וְעַד הַיַּבֹּק וּמִן הַמִּדְבָּר וְעַד הַיַּרְדֵּן
BN: And they took possession of all the borders of the Emori, from the Arnon all the way to the Yavok, and from the wilderness as far as the river Yarden...
Precisely the king of Cheshbon's point: they conquered it, they took possession of it.
Precisely the king of Cheshbon's point: they conquered it, they took possession of it.
11:23 VE ATAH YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL HORISH ET HA EMORI MIPNEY AMO YISRA-EL VE ATAH TIYRASHENU
וְעַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֹורִישׁ אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי מִפְּנֵי עַמֹּו יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַתָּה תִּירָשֶׁנּוּ
BN: So, now, YHVH, the god of Yisra-El, has dispossessed the Emori in favour of his people Yisra-El; and should he now give it back to you again?..
And at last, beyond the diplomatic language, Amon has said "it's ours; we want it back", and Yisra-El has replied, "it was; it's ours now; and we're keeping it". Publicised in the broadsheets of their day as "peace negotiations".
11:24 HA LO ET ASHER YORIYSH'CHA KEMOSH ELOHEYCHA OTO TIYRASH VE ET KOL ASHER HORIYSH YHVH ELOHEYNU MI PANEYNU OTO NIYRACH
KJ: Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.
And at last, beyond the diplomatic language, Amon has said "it's ours; we want it back", and Yisra-El has replied, "it was; it's ours now; and we're keeping it". Publicised in the broadsheets of their day as "peace negotiations".
11:24 HA LO ET ASHER YORIYSH'CHA KEMOSH ELOHEYCHA OTO TIYRASH VE ET KOL ASHER HORIYSH YHVH ELOHEYNU MI PANEYNU OTO NIYRACH
הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יֹורִישְׁךָ כְּמֹושׁ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹותֹו תִירָשׁ וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר הֹורִישׁ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מִפָּנֵינוּ אֹותֹו נִירָשׁ
BN: Why don't you just stick with the land that that your god Kemosh has given you? As far as we are concerned, if our god YHVH drives other people out on our behalf, then their land becomes ours...
CHEMOSH: Rendered here as Kemosh, but that is surely an error by the Pointer. Or is it that the loyal Yahwist will not even say the name of this foreign abomination of a deity, and evades doing so by mispronouncing it; or even stronger, the deliberate insult of so doing?
My translation on this occasion is loose, to say the least; but accurate. But we have seen that this is all diplomatic language, and I wanted to bring out what was really being said, the words behind the words, now that the point of tachlis is being reached.
11:25 VE ATAH HA TOV TOV ATAH MI BALAK BEN TSIPUR MELECH MO-AV HA ROV RAV IM YISRA-EL IM NILCHOM NILCHAM BAM
וְעַתָּה הֲטֹוב טֹוב אַתָּה מִבָּלָק בֶּן צִפֹּור מֶלֶךְ מֹואָב הֲרֹוב רָב עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם נִלְחֹם נִלְחַם בָּם
BN: And as to you, are you any better than Balak ben Tsipur, the king of Mo-Av? Did he ever do more than make words with Yisra-El? Did he ever go to war against them?..
BALAK: In Numbers 22, the continuation of the troubles with Siychon referenced above.
Don't you just love the word-games in this verse! Tov-Tov, Rov-Rav, Nilchom-Nilcham; none of them renderable in the English. But the point of the superior language is that Balak summoned Bil'am the oracle to pronounce curses against Yisra-El, but he got his language in a complete mess, and pronounced blessings instead - the ambassador is showing off how to do oracular language properly. And throwing down his gauntlet, or actually slapping it across the king's face, at the same time.
Does going on and on like this, and in such a "strongly assertive" manner, eventually constitute bullying?
BALAK: In Numbers 22, the continuation of the troubles with Siychon referenced above.
Don't you just love the word-games in this verse! Tov-Tov, Rov-Rav, Nilchom-Nilcham; none of them renderable in the English. But the point of the superior language is that Balak summoned Bil'am the oracle to pronounce curses against Yisra-El, but he got his language in a complete mess, and pronounced blessings instead - the ambassador is showing off how to do oracular language properly. And throwing down his gauntlet, or actually slapping it across the king's face, at the same time.
Does going on and on like this, and in such a "strongly assertive" manner, eventually constitute bullying?
11:26 BE SHEVET YISRA-EL BE CHESHBON U VIVNOTEYHA U VE AR'OR U VIVNOTEYHA U VE CHOL HE ARIM ASHER AL YEDEY ARNON SHELOSH ME'OT SHANAH U MADU'A LO HITSALTEM BA ET HA HI
בְּשֶׁבֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֶשְׁבֹּון וּבִבְנֹותֶיהָ וּבְעַרְעֹור וּבִבְנֹותֶיהָ וּבְכָל הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר עַל יְדֵי אַרְנֹון שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאֹות שָׁנָה וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא הִצַּלְתֶּם בָּעֵת הַהִיא
BN: While Yisra-El dwelt in Cheshbon and her suburbs, and in Ar'or and her suburbs, and in all the cities that are along the borders of Arnon, for three hundred years? Why did you never try to recover them within that time?..
ARO'ER: given here as AR'OR (עַרְעֹור), but in verse 33 below as ARO'ER (עֲרֹועֵר). One is obviously wrong, but which? Generally the city is known by the latter, as Aro'er. The root, like the TOV-TOV etc above, may in fact be another play on words, IR meaning "a village", or later an entire city. So, unpointed, we have IR-IR (the same root also gives ARUR, which means "naked").
Three hundred years? Wow, is it really three hundred years since Mosheh and Bil'am? Since Yehoshu'a? Fortunately I have been keeping a list of the Conquerors and the Judges:
KJ: Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.
ARO'ER: given here as AR'OR (עַרְעֹור), but in verse 33 below as ARO'ER (עֲרֹועֵר). One is obviously wrong, but which? Generally the city is known by the latter, as Aro'er. The root, like the TOV-TOV etc above, may in fact be another play on words, IR meaning "a village", or later an entire city. So, unpointed, we have IR-IR (the same root also gives ARUR, which means "naked").
Three hundred years? Wow, is it really three hundred years since Mosheh and Bil'am? Since Yehoshu'a? Fortunately I have been keeping a list of the Conquerors and the Judges:
a) Judges 3:8, Kushan-Rishatayim, 8 years; saved by At-Niel, then 40 years
b) Judges 3: 12, Eglon, no time period given; saved by Ehud, then 80 years
c) Judges 3:31, Shamgar fought off the Pelishtim; no time period given
d) Judges 4:2, Yavin, 20 years; Devorah and Barak; 40 years
e) Judges 7:1, Midyan, 7 years; Gid’on; then 40 years (8:28)
f) Judges 9:1 (and 22), Avi-Melech, 3 years; cursed by Yotam
g) Judges 9:26, still Avi-Melech but now also Ga'al ben Eved and quite unclear whether Zevul is good or bad, but no one in this saga is named as a Judge.
h) Judges 10:1, no conqueror, just the Judge: Tol’a ben Pu’ah, 23 years
i) Judges 10:3, Ya’ir ha Gil'adi, 22 years
j) Judges 10:10, Pelishtim and Beney Amon, 18 years; no saviour (they did it themselves)
h) Judges 11:1 Yiphtach
which does indeed make this very nearly 300 years, if we regard the tales as linear chronology, and allow for the gaps. And does that take us completely by surprise, and cause kerfuffle among the historians and archaeologists? It certainly should. The general consensus has the Exodus around 1300 BCE, so Yehoshu'a in the early 1200s; 300 years from that would take us more than a century beyond the known dates of King Shelomoh, and therefore pushes Mosheh and Yehoshu'a back to the 1500s BCE - pushes it that far, because we are only at chapter 11 in the Book of Judges, and, if this is indeed linerar chronology, we still have a good few more decades' worth of Judges yet to come.
But if this is not linear chronology...
11:27 VE ANOCHI LO CHATA'TI LACH VE ATAH OSEH ITI RA'AH LEHILACHEM BI YISHPOT YHVH HA SHOPHET HAYOM BEYN BENEY YISRA-EL U VEYN BENEY AMON
וְאָנֹכִי לֹא חָטָאתִי לָךְ וְאַתָּה עֹשֶׂה אִתִּי רָעָה לְהִלָּחֶם בִּי יִשְׁפֹּט יְהוָה הַשֹּׁפֵט הַיֹּום בֵּין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבֵין בְּנֵי עַמֹּון
BN: And even though I have done nothing to harm you, still you wrong me by threatening war against me. Let YHVH the Judge be the judge today between the Beney Yisra-El and the Beney Amon.
YHVH HA-SHOPHET: A phrase that is never, as far as I am aware, used in liturgy; nor is it the word used when YHVH's role as "judge", at Yom Kippur or during Selichot for example, is referenced. The Kocke Rebbe's famous complaint that "there is no Justice and there is no Judge", speaks of "Din" and "Dayan", not of "Shophet" or "Shephitah" - indeed, I suspect I may just have neologised the word "Shephitah" - and it is Din and Dayan, usually in quotation from the Psalms, that make YHVH the "Judge" in Jewish liturgy.
Given his previous reference to Chemosh, if he wanted negotiation he would invoke both gods to mediate, but here he is saying YHVH will decide; which is a one-sided ultimatum of war.
KJ: Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him.
YHVH HA-SHOPHET: A phrase that is never, as far as I am aware, used in liturgy; nor is it the word used when YHVH's role as "judge", at Yom Kippur or during Selichot for example, is referenced. The Kocke Rebbe's famous complaint that "there is no Justice and there is no Judge", speaks of "Din" and "Dayan", not of "Shophet" or "Shephitah" - indeed, I suspect I may just have neologised the word "Shephitah" - and it is Din and Dayan, usually in quotation from the Psalms, that make YHVH the "Judge" in Jewish liturgy.
Given his previous reference to Chemosh, if he wanted negotiation he would invoke both gods to mediate, but here he is saying YHVH will decide; which is a one-sided ultimatum of war.
11:28 VE LO SHAM'A MELECH BENEY AMON EL DIVREY YIPHTACH ASHER SHALACH ELAV
וְלֹא שָׁמַע מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמֹּון אֶל דִּבְרֵי יִפְתָּח אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח אֵלָיו
BN: But alas the king of the Beney Amon did not pay heed to the words of Yiphtach, which he had sent him.
pey break
11:29 VA TEHI AL YIPHTACH RU'ACH YHVH VA YA'AVOR ET HA GIL'AD VE ET MENASHEH VA YA'AVOR ET MITSPEH GIL'AD U MI MITSPEH GIL'AD AVAR BENEY AMON
KJ: Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over untothe children of Ammon.
pey break
11:29 VA TEHI AL YIPHTACH RU'ACH YHVH VA YA'AVOR ET HA GIL'AD VE ET MENASHEH VA YA'AVOR ET MITSPEH GIL'AD U MI MITSPEH GIL'AD AVAR BENEY AMON
וַתְּהִי עַל יִפְתָּח רוּחַ יְהוָה וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת הַגִּלְעָד וְאֶת מְנַשֶּׁה וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד וּמִמִּצְפֵּה גִלְעָד עָבַר בְּנֵי עַמֹּון
BN: Then the spirit of YHVH came upon Yiphtach, and he crossed through Gil'ad, and Menasheh, after which he crossed over Mitspeh of Gil'ad, and from Mitspeh of Gil'ad he crossed over to the Beney Amon.
RU'ACH YHVH: cf Judges 3:10 and Judges 6:34, where Atni-El and Gid'on have the same thing happen to them in mid-battle. The original can be found at Genesis 1:2, and there will be several more occurrences in the Book of Judges, and elsewhere. Exactly what it means is not entirely obvious, at least to a person like me who does not believe in the existence of an actual, physical god; but it is definitely the Ru'ach YHVH which is doing all this crossing-over, and obviously Yiphtach in his wake, or perhaps his inspiration.
The latter comment, because the spirit of YHVH on this occasion sounds rather more like a large noisy army than a "still small voice". And if it is not an army, then what exactly are we supposed to understand is happening here? Is a comet passing through the heavens? Or a lightning storm? Is he simply self-inspired by shouting Hallelu-Yahweh and singing some patriotic hymns? Given that every tale in Judges thus far has been a mythological explanation of some aspect of the cosmos...
RU'ACH YHVH: cf Judges 3:10 and Judges 6:34, where Atni-El and Gid'on have the same thing happen to them in mid-battle. The original can be found at Genesis 1:2, and there will be several more occurrences in the Book of Judges, and elsewhere. Exactly what it means is not entirely obvious, at least to a person like me who does not believe in the existence of an actual, physical god; but it is definitely the Ru'ach YHVH which is doing all this crossing-over, and obviously Yiphtach in his wake, or perhaps his inspiration.
The latter comment, because the spirit of YHVH on this occasion sounds rather more like a large noisy army than a "still small voice". And if it is not an army, then what exactly are we supposed to understand is happening here? Is a comet passing through the heavens? Or a lightning storm? Is he simply self-inspired by shouting Hallelu-Yahweh and singing some patriotic hymns? Given that every tale in Judges thus far has been a mythological explanation of some aspect of the cosmos...
AVAR: Not really the verb we would expect them to use, and three times in the same sentence, almost as if the sentence was deliberately constructed to enable it, naming places that don't need naming as a pretext: AVAR, the root of the word HABIRU, Ivri, Hebrew.
GIL'AD: very much a town here, not the name of a man, or a region.
MITSPEH/MITSPAH: the variation yet again; though note that the variation is added by the Masoretic text, dependent upon the choice of pointing, and is obviously not there in the unpointed original.
11:30 VA YIDAR YIPHTACH NEDER LA YHVH VA YOMER IM NATON TITEN ET BENEY AMON BE YADI
וַיִּדַּר יִפְתָּח נֶדֶר לַיהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אִם נָתֹון תִּתֵּן אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֹּון בְּיָדִי
BN: And Yiphtach made a vow to YHVH, saying: "If you will, without fail, deliver the Beney Amon into my hands...
And at last we get to the real point of this story, which is the sacrifice of his daughter. Note the terms of the vow. When Ya'akov set out on his epic journey (Genesis 28:20-22), and wanted the support of the deity, he promised an annual donation of 10% of his total earnings, which was quite sufficient for the deity to make an eternal commitment. That Yiphtach is voluntarily offering a human sacrifice infers that he believed in the validity of such things, like the Athenians who sent seven young men and seven young women every year as sacrifical tribute to Knossos to placate King Minos - click here for more on this - or the Beney Kena'an who took their first-born to the furnace of Moloch in Yeru-Shala'im. And if he believed in it, he can't really complain, and we can't really regard it as tragic, when it comes time to fulfill the vow later on.
And at last we get to the real point of this story, which is the sacrifice of his daughter. Note the terms of the vow. When Ya'akov set out on his epic journey (Genesis 28:20-22), and wanted the support of the deity, he promised an annual donation of 10% of his total earnings, which was quite sufficient for the deity to make an eternal commitment. That Yiphtach is voluntarily offering a human sacrifice infers that he believed in the validity of such things, like the Athenians who sent seven young men and seven young women every year as sacrifical tribute to Knossos to placate King Minos - click here for more on this - or the Beney Kena'an who took their first-born to the furnace of Moloch in Yeru-Shala'im. And if he believed in it, he can't really complain, and we can't really regard it as tragic, when it comes time to fulfill the vow later on.
11:31 VE HAYAH HA YOTS'E ASHER YETS'E MI DALTEY VEITI LIKRA'TI BE SHUVI VE SHALOM MI BENEY AMON VE HAYAH LA YHVH VE HA'ALIYTIHU OLAH
וְהָיָה הַיֹּוצֵא אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִדַּלְתֵי בֵיתִי לִקְרָאתִי בְּשׁוּבִי בְשָׁלֹום מִבְּנֵי עַמֹּון וְהָיָה לַיהוָה וְהַעֲלִיתִהוּ עֹולָה
BN: "Then it shall be, that whoever is the first to come out of the front door of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from fighting the Beney Amon, shall surely be YHVH's, and I will offer that person up for a burnt offering."
HA'ALITIHU: Is technically masculine, though the masculine is used for the neutral and therefore implicitly includes the feminine.
Having done the diplomatic with my comment above, let us now be brutally frank and honest: this must, surely, be the most immoral, despicable, disgusting and even criminal vow that any human being has ever made, and it is simply shocking to find it presented as some kind of holy act, for which we are meant to laud him, and regard him as a role-model of righteous and religious obedience (but of course, it is no diferent from "the old lie, Dulce Et Decorum Est, Pro Patra Mori", which is the same act of sacrifice, only during the battle, instead of in its aftermath). "Whatever comes forth" - might be his dog or one of his servants (and that would be bad enough), but looking through a window and seeing him approach, the most likely is a member of his family: "daddy's home". And then we are supposed to feel sorry for him, later on, when he feels obligated to carry through his vow. For poor Iphegenia, yes. But for him? (And how many sons, of other parents, have been "sacrificed" in the battle to achieve this victorious triumph?)
pey break
KJ: So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
HA'ALITIHU: Is technically masculine, though the masculine is used for the neutral and therefore implicitly includes the feminine.
Having done the diplomatic with my comment above, let us now be brutally frank and honest: this must, surely, be the most immoral, despicable, disgusting and even criminal vow that any human being has ever made, and it is simply shocking to find it presented as some kind of holy act, for which we are meant to laud him, and regard him as a role-model of righteous and religious obedience (but of course, it is no diferent from "the old lie, Dulce Et Decorum Est, Pro Patra Mori", which is the same act of sacrifice, only during the battle, instead of in its aftermath). "Whatever comes forth" - might be his dog or one of his servants (and that would be bad enough), but looking through a window and seeing him approach, the most likely is a member of his family: "daddy's home". And then we are supposed to feel sorry for him, later on, when he feels obligated to carry through his vow. For poor Iphegenia, yes. But for him? (And how many sons, of other parents, have been "sacrificed" in the battle to achieve this victorious triumph?)
pey break
11:32 VA YA'AVOR YIPHTACH EL BENEY AMON LEHILACHEM BAM VA YITNEM YHVH BE YADO
וַיַּעֲבֹר יִפְתָּח אֶל בְּנֵי עַמֹּון לְהִלָּחֶם בָּם וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוָה בְּיָדֹו
BN: So Yiphtach crossed over to the Beney Amon to fight against them; and YHVH delivered them into his hands.
YA'AVOR: The fifth time, at least, that this verb has been used, in just the last few verses; in case you missed the carefully made point, the reclamation of the derogatory term as one that now conveys pride. I have known people of distant-African origin, who address each other with the N-word, for the same reason: it's mine now, you can't hurt me with it. And Spurs fans, singing their "other anthem" - click here.
11:33 VA YAKEM MEY ARO'ER VE AD BO'ACHA MINIT ESRIM IR VE AD AVEL KERAMIM MAKAH GEDOLAH MEO'D VA YIKAN'U BENEY AMON MIPNEY BENEY YISRA-EL
KJ: And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
YA'AVOR: The fifth time, at least, that this verb has been used, in just the last few verses; in case you missed the carefully made point, the reclamation of the derogatory term as one that now conveys pride. I have known people of distant-African origin, who address each other with the N-word, for the same reason: it's mine now, you can't hurt me with it. And Spurs fans, singing their "other anthem" - click here.
11:33 VA YAKEM MEY ARO'ER VE AD BO'ACHA MINIT ESRIM IR VE AD AVEL KERAMIM MAKAH GEDOLAH MEO'D VA YIKAN'U BENEY AMON MIPNEY BENEY YISRA-EL
וַיַּכֵּם מֵעֲרֹועֵר וְעַד בֹּואֲךָ מִנִּית עֶשְׂרִים עִיר וְעַד אָבֵל כְּרָמִים מַכָּה גְּדֹולָה מְאֹד וַיִּכָּנְעוּ בְּנֵי עַמֹּון מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And he smote them all the way from Aro'er to the entrance to Minit, twenty cities in total, and as far as Avel Keramim, an immense slaughter. Thus the Beney Amon were subdued before the Beney Yisra-El.
ARO'ER: see the note to verse 26 above.
MINIT: See the link.
AVEL KERAMIM: Why do English translations sometimes render the original name (Minnith), and sometimes translate it ("the plain of the vineyards")? Perhaps it's because, with the English ones anyway, they learned their skills at the cattle ferry, or at the bridge on the river Granta - sorry, I meant Oxford or Cambridge.
pey break
KJ: And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
ARO'ER: see the note to verse 26 above.
MINIT: See the link.
AVEL KERAMIM: Why do English translations sometimes render the original name (Minnith), and sometimes translate it ("the plain of the vineyards")? Perhaps it's because, with the English ones anyway, they learned their skills at the cattle ferry, or at the bridge on the river Granta - sorry, I meant Oxford or Cambridge.
pey break
11:34 VA YAVO YIPHTACH HA MITSPAH EL BEITO VE HINEH VITO YOTS'ET LIKRA'TO BE TUPHIM U VIMCHOLOT VE RAK HI YECHIDAH EYN LO MIMENU BEN O VAT
וַיָּבֹא יִפְתָּח הַמִּצְפָּה אֶל בֵּיתֹו וְהִנֵּה בִתֹּו יֹצֵאת לִקְרָאתֹו בְתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹות וְרַק הִיא יְחִידָה אֵין לֹו מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּן אֹו בַת
BN: And Yiphtach came to Mitspah, to his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
We were told he had found "good land", or at least done well for himself; now we are told that he settled in Mitspah of Gil'ad; but verse 29 had him "leave his house" and go "by way of Mitspah of Gil'ad"... do we again have two versions not very well assimilated? In this second version, he clearly found, not land, but a shrine; and from this we can begin to understand why they chose him. As noted above, the sacred child dedicated to the temple: so a trained priest, or seer. And if he was truly a "mamzer", the son of a "whore", in that sense of "zonah", he would never have been allowed at Mitspah anyway.
But now the sacrifice of a girl takes on even greater significance. Which cult was he following at Mitspah at that time, that a female sacrifice was regarded as having higher status than a male? Obviously a matriarchal cult. Which goddess? Chemosh's wife, presumably - but we simply don't have enough historical information on him to know who that might have been.
We can go further though. Girls do not usually walk around the streets playing on the timbrel and dancing; anywhere. In a major shrine like Mitspah they might well do so in religious procession, but definitely not on their own. We know from the Psalms, from Kena'ani documents, from other Biblical references, that dancing and timbrel playing accompanied the ceremonies of the Ark, and other rituals of prayer and solemnity. At Mitspah - alongside Gil-Gal, as we have seen repeatedly, the major gathering place of the nation before Yeru-Shala'im was established - there would have been a college of players and choristers, of the type Shemu-El (Samuel) had Sha'ul establish when he became king. The girl would have been a priestess, and Yiphtach's return obviously the pretext for the town to be celebrating. So her status as his "only child" is the same as his at the opening of this story; she is the "Risen Lady" so to speak, Queen Guinevere to his Arthur, Mary Magdalene to his Jesus, Eurydice to his Orpheus... the list is endless. Her sacrifice will be a thanksgiving offering for the victory in war, exactly as he promised. Though it is entirely plausible that he didn't know, in his long absence at war (taking so many cities must have taken many years, even though the text manages it in two verses), that his own daughter had been elevated to this position: assuming that "daughter" here is biological rather than conventual.
All of which somewhat qualifies my remarks to verse 31 (but only somewhat).
(Can we deduce that Chemosh is the Mo-Avi or Amoni name for Moloch, given that Moloch is a generic name for "ruler"? The form of the sacrifice seems to be very similar).
MIMENU: A minor point, in the circumstances, but MIMENU is grammatically incorrect; she is feminine and so it should be MIMENAH (ממנה).
11:35 VA YEHI CHI RE'OTO OTAH VA YIKRA ET BEGADAV VA YOMER AHAH BITI HACHRE'AH HICHRA'TINI VE AT HAYIYT BE O'CHRAY VE ANOCHI PATSIYTI PHI EL YHVH VE LO UCHAL LASHUV
KJ: And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
We were told he had found "good land", or at least done well for himself; now we are told that he settled in Mitspah of Gil'ad; but verse 29 had him "leave his house" and go "by way of Mitspah of Gil'ad"... do we again have two versions not very well assimilated? In this second version, he clearly found, not land, but a shrine; and from this we can begin to understand why they chose him. As noted above, the sacred child dedicated to the temple: so a trained priest, or seer. And if he was truly a "mamzer", the son of a "whore", in that sense of "zonah", he would never have been allowed at Mitspah anyway.
But now the sacrifice of a girl takes on even greater significance. Which cult was he following at Mitspah at that time, that a female sacrifice was regarded as having higher status than a male? Obviously a matriarchal cult. Which goddess? Chemosh's wife, presumably - but we simply don't have enough historical information on him to know who that might have been.
We can go further though. Girls do not usually walk around the streets playing on the timbrel and dancing; anywhere. In a major shrine like Mitspah they might well do so in religious procession, but definitely not on their own. We know from the Psalms, from Kena'ani documents, from other Biblical references, that dancing and timbrel playing accompanied the ceremonies of the Ark, and other rituals of prayer and solemnity. At Mitspah - alongside Gil-Gal, as we have seen repeatedly, the major gathering place of the nation before Yeru-Shala'im was established - there would have been a college of players and choristers, of the type Shemu-El (Samuel) had Sha'ul establish when he became king. The girl would have been a priestess, and Yiphtach's return obviously the pretext for the town to be celebrating. So her status as his "only child" is the same as his at the opening of this story; she is the "Risen Lady" so to speak, Queen Guinevere to his Arthur, Mary Magdalene to his Jesus, Eurydice to his Orpheus... the list is endless. Her sacrifice will be a thanksgiving offering for the victory in war, exactly as he promised. Though it is entirely plausible that he didn't know, in his long absence at war (taking so many cities must have taken many years, even though the text manages it in two verses), that his own daughter had been elevated to this position: assuming that "daughter" here is biological rather than conventual.
All of which somewhat qualifies my remarks to verse 31 (but only somewhat).
(Can we deduce that Chemosh is the Mo-Avi or Amoni name for Moloch, given that Moloch is a generic name for "ruler"? The form of the sacrifice seems to be very similar).
MIMENU: A minor point, in the circumstances, but MIMENU is grammatically incorrect; she is feminine and so it should be MIMENAH (ממנה).
11:35 VA YEHI CHI RE'OTO OTAH VA YIKRA ET BEGADAV VA YOMER AHAH BITI HACHRE'AH HICHRA'TINI VE AT HAYIYT BE O'CHRAY VE ANOCHI PATSIYTI PHI EL YHVH VE LO UCHAL LASHUV
וַיְהִי כִרְאֹותֹו אֹותָהּ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲהָהּ בִּתִּי הַכְרֵעַ הִכְרַעְתִּנִי וְאַתְּ הָיִיתְ בְּעֹכְרָי וְאָנֹכִי פָּצִיתִי פִי אֶל יְהוָה וְלֹא אוּכַל לָשׁוּב
BN: And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said: "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have added one more grief to me: for I have opened my mouth to YHVH, and I cannot go back."
And given that his vow was made very loud, and very publicly, when the Ru'ach YHVH was upon him, presumably while leading the worship at the shrine, it would have been known, by all the town, including his "daughter", so she could easily have made sure she was not the first he saw - unless she wanted to be sacrificed, because she believed in the doing of it... and we know from much archaeological evidence that human sacrifice was an accepted norm in many parts of the ancient world.
Which statement takes us back, of necessity, to the Akeda, the Yisra-Eli version of this tale (Genesis 22:1-19). Av-Raham likewise accepted the sacrifice of Yitschak as a requirement of YHVH, as a proof of his faith and commitment, and we witness Yitschak willingly carrying his own "cross" to the calvary on the summit of Mount Mor-Yah, just as Jesus will do in his "necessary" sacrifice. As J.P. Hartley wrote in "The Go-Between": "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." The difference between this tale and the one in Genesis, which may well also be an indicator that this is the more ancient of the two, is that YHVH relents and has Av-Raham sacrifice a ram instead. No such redemption here (I have chosen the word very deliberately: redemption is Ge'ula, from the root Ga'al - see Judges 9:26).
YIKRA ET BEGADAV: And of course this is what he would have to do, once the sacrifice has been made, as the first act in the ritual of mourning; KERI'A is the technical term - click here, and see Genesis 37:34.
And given that his vow was made very loud, and very publicly, when the Ru'ach YHVH was upon him, presumably while leading the worship at the shrine, it would have been known, by all the town, including his "daughter", so she could easily have made sure she was not the first he saw - unless she wanted to be sacrificed, because she believed in the doing of it... and we know from much archaeological evidence that human sacrifice was an accepted norm in many parts of the ancient world.
Which statement takes us back, of necessity, to the Akeda, the Yisra-Eli version of this tale (Genesis 22:1-19). Av-Raham likewise accepted the sacrifice of Yitschak as a requirement of YHVH, as a proof of his faith and commitment, and we witness Yitschak willingly carrying his own "cross" to the calvary on the summit of Mount Mor-Yah, just as Jesus will do in his "necessary" sacrifice. As J.P. Hartley wrote in "The Go-Between": "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." The difference between this tale and the one in Genesis, which may well also be an indicator that this is the more ancient of the two, is that YHVH relents and has Av-Raham sacrifice a ram instead. No such redemption here (I have chosen the word very deliberately: redemption is Ge'ula, from the root Ga'al - see Judges 9:26).
YIKRA ET BEGADAV: And of course this is what he would have to do, once the sacrifice has been made, as the first act in the ritual of mourning; KERI'A is the technical term - click here, and see Genesis 37:34.
VE AT HAYIYT BE O'CHRAY: More word-games. HACHRE'AH HICHRA'TINI derives from the root CHAR'A (כרע), meaning "to bend" or "to bow"; BE O'CHRAY derives from the root ACHAR (עכר), the same letters but in a different order, and meaning "to cause difficulty" or "make trouble".
PATSITI: The phrase is very careful not to use the obvious verb, which would be PATACHTI, giving the meaning of his name. Instead it uses PATSITI... which has two somewhat variant meanings in the Tanach. Properly the root, PATSAH (פצה), means "to break" or "to tear" (though there is also PATSACH - פצח - for "to break"); however, in Psalm 66:14 (where there is also much accompaniment of timbrel and harp, and an account of the crossing a river for the purposes of a war) "the vows that my lips pronounced were uttered in distress); and in Job 35:16 he "mouths empty words, and piles up words without knowledge", both of which statements could equally apply to Yiphtach.
Does this confirm my earlier suggestion that YIPHTACH was not his name but perhaps his title as sacred-king?
11:36 VA TOMER ELAV AVI PATSIYTAH ET PIYCHA EL YHVH ASEH LI KA ASHER YATS'A MI PIYCHA ACHAREY ASHER ASAH LECHA YHVH NEKAMOT ME OYEVEYCHA MIBNEY AMON
KJ: And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
BN: And she said to him: "My father, if you have opened your mouth to YHVH, do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth; for as much as YHVH has taken vengeance for you of your enemies, even of the Beney Amon."
The phrase "opened your mouth to YHVH" leads us to the opening of the Amidah, the only prayer we know for certain to have been recited in the Temple. It begins with a phrase from Psalm 51:17: "Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare your praise", and on this occasion it is most definitely the sincerity of TIPHTACH and not the anguish of PATSAH: אֲ֭דֹנָי שְׂפָתַ֣י תִּפְתָּ֑ח וּ֝פִ֗י יַגִּ֥יד תְּהִלָּתֶֽךָ - Adonai sephatai tiphtach u phi yagid tehilatecha.
What is clear is that the girl knew her fate, and was ready for it; had presumably been preparing herself ever since word reached the town that the Beney Amon had been defeated. There is no tragedy here, though in our world it is hard to understand. To her this act of sacrifice is an honour, exactly like the young men who will not be returning from the war. We have to imagine how hard she may have had to work to get the honour. Go back to Iphigenia and to Antigone and re-read their stories; the three versions are remarkably similar, and yet remarkably different. This is not a female Yitschak; it is much more a female Jesus, who knows that crucifixion is essential to the fulfillment of his mission, and so does what is necessary to achieve it.
KJ: And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
11:36 VA TOMER ELAV AVI PATSIYTAH ET PIYCHA EL YHVH ASEH LI KA ASHER YATS'A MI PIYCHA ACHAREY ASHER ASAH LECHA YHVH NEKAMOT ME OYEVEYCHA MIBNEY AMON
וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אָבִי פָּצִיתָה אֶת פִּיךָ אֶל יְהוָה עֲשֵׂה לִי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָצָא מִפִּיךָ אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ יְהוָה נְקָמֹות מֵאֹיְבֶיךָ מִבְּנֵי עַמֹּון
KJ: And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
BN: And she said to him: "My father, if you have opened your mouth to YHVH, do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth; for as much as YHVH has taken vengeance for you of your enemies, even of the Beney Amon."
The phrase "opened your mouth to YHVH" leads us to the opening of the Amidah, the only prayer we know for certain to have been recited in the Temple. It begins with a phrase from Psalm 51:17: "Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare your praise", and on this occasion it is most definitely the sincerity of TIPHTACH and not the anguish of PATSAH: אֲ֭דֹנָי שְׂפָתַ֣י תִּפְתָּ֑ח וּ֝פִ֗י יַגִּ֥יד תְּהִלָּתֶֽךָ - Adonai sephatai tiphtach u phi yagid tehilatecha.
What is clear is that the girl knew her fate, and was ready for it; had presumably been preparing herself ever since word reached the town that the Beney Amon had been defeated. There is no tragedy here, though in our world it is hard to understand. To her this act of sacrifice is an honour, exactly like the young men who will not be returning from the war. We have to imagine how hard she may have had to work to get the honour. Go back to Iphigenia and to Antigone and re-read their stories; the three versions are remarkably similar, and yet remarkably different. This is not a female Yitschak; it is much more a female Jesus, who knows that crucifixion is essential to the fulfillment of his mission, and so does what is necessary to achieve it.
11:37 VA TOMER EL AVIYHA YE'ASEH LI HA DAVAR HA ZEH HARPEH MIMENI SHENAYIM CHADASHIM VE ELCHAH VE YARADETI AL HE HARAIM VE EVKEH AL BETULAI ANOCHI VE RE'OTAY
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל אָבִיהָ יֵעָשֶׂה לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה הַרְפֵּה מִמֶּנִּי שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים וְאֵלְכָה וְיָרַדְתִּי עַל הֶהָרִים וְאֶבְכֶּה עַל בְּתוּלַי אָנֹכִי [וְרַעִיתִי כ] (וְרֵעֹותָי
BN: And she said to her father: "Let this thing be done for me: leave me be for two months, that I may go down to the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my sisters."
YE'ASEH LI: "For" me, not "to" me; again, she is a willing participant in a holy ceremony.
VE ELCHAH VE YERADETI: KJ, and others, translate this as "going up and down" the mountains, but the text only has the "going" (ELCHAH), and the "down" (VE YARADETI). There is no "up" here; the final proof that this has all been mythological, and not historical: she will go "down" to the mountains, something that only an inhabitant of the heavens could do. This is not a request for time, in order to "bewail" the fact that she has died without an opportunity for love and marriage; she is the predecessor of the "Virgin Mary"; as her "father" is the Risen Lord, born of the virgin mother... if you have been following these commentaries from the beginning, you should be able to fill in the remainder of this explanation for yourself.
With one exception: why two months? The month belongs to the moon goddess, and we have already deduced that we are in moon goddess territory. But why 2? It can only be the space between two Mo'adim, two feast-days or fasts or festivals, the bookends of this particular ceremony, perhaps an equivalent of the Lenten period between Pesach and Shavu'ot, or the 23-day cycle between Rosh ha Shanah and Shemini Atseret. She wants to be sacrificed at the Mo'ed, the feast or fast or festival, so that the act can contain its full symbolic significance, and not some random day chosen at haphazard to fulfill a foolish pledge.
RE'OTAY: And who are these "fellows" or "companions"? I have translated it as "sisters", despite verse 3), but in the sense of "fellow priestesses" that I have explained there, and for two reasons. First, because I am wondering what she intends to do in the mountains for these two months, and I am presuming it is the priestess preparations for the full ceremony of sacrifice - which is why she met Yiphtach carrying her timbrel. Second, because "fellows" seems to me a very male word, but RE'OTAY is entirely feminine (the masculine would be RE'EH, and generally, when there are both males and females, the masculine is used); we find it, and very significantly for this tale, repeatedly in the Song of Songs (1:9 and 15, 2:2, 10 and 13, 4:7...), and elsewhere in the Tanach as RE'UT, again female (Exodus 11:2 et al). The root, somewhat oddly, and like the name Rachel, has to do with sheep - a RO'EH is a shepherd and RE'I is pasture; Re'u in Genesis 11:18 takes his name from this root, as does Mosheh's father-in-law Re'u-El . My mentioning of Rachel is deliberate for a secondary reason; go to the link and you will find a paragraph about the ancient sacrificial practices, that just happen to coincide with what is happening here. It adds weight to my conviction that the Yiphtach tale precedes that of Yitschak in chronological time.
11:38 VA YOMER LECHI VA YISHLACH OTAH SHENEY CHADASHIM VA TELECH HI VE RE'OTEYHA VA TEVCH AL BETULEYHA AL HE HARIM
KJ: And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
YE'ASEH LI: "For" me, not "to" me; again, she is a willing participant in a holy ceremony.
VE ELCHAH VE YERADETI: KJ, and others, translate this as "going up and down" the mountains, but the text only has the "going" (ELCHAH), and the "down" (VE YARADETI). There is no "up" here; the final proof that this has all been mythological, and not historical: she will go "down" to the mountains, something that only an inhabitant of the heavens could do. This is not a request for time, in order to "bewail" the fact that she has died without an opportunity for love and marriage; she is the predecessor of the "Virgin Mary"; as her "father" is the Risen Lord, born of the virgin mother... if you have been following these commentaries from the beginning, you should be able to fill in the remainder of this explanation for yourself.
With one exception: why two months? The month belongs to the moon goddess, and we have already deduced that we are in moon goddess territory. But why 2? It can only be the space between two Mo'adim, two feast-days or fasts or festivals, the bookends of this particular ceremony, perhaps an equivalent of the Lenten period between Pesach and Shavu'ot, or the 23-day cycle between Rosh ha Shanah and Shemini Atseret. She wants to be sacrificed at the Mo'ed, the feast or fast or festival, so that the act can contain its full symbolic significance, and not some random day chosen at haphazard to fulfill a foolish pledge.
RE'OTAY: And who are these "fellows" or "companions"? I have translated it as "sisters", despite verse 3), but in the sense of "fellow priestesses" that I have explained there, and for two reasons. First, because I am wondering what she intends to do in the mountains for these two months, and I am presuming it is the priestess preparations for the full ceremony of sacrifice - which is why she met Yiphtach carrying her timbrel. Second, because "fellows" seems to me a very male word, but RE'OTAY is entirely feminine (the masculine would be RE'EH, and generally, when there are both males and females, the masculine is used); we find it, and very significantly for this tale, repeatedly in the Song of Songs (1:9 and 15, 2:2, 10 and 13, 4:7...), and elsewhere in the Tanach as RE'UT, again female (Exodus 11:2 et al). The root, somewhat oddly, and like the name Rachel, has to do with sheep - a RO'EH is a shepherd and RE'I is pasture; Re'u in Genesis 11:18 takes his name from this root, as does Mosheh's father-in-law Re'u-El . My mentioning of Rachel is deliberate for a secondary reason; go to the link and you will find a paragraph about the ancient sacrificial practices, that just happen to coincide with what is happening here. It adds weight to my conviction that the Yiphtach tale precedes that of Yitschak in chronological time.
11:38 VA YOMER LECHI VA YISHLACH OTAH SHENEY CHADASHIM VA TELECH HI VE RE'OTEYHA VA TEVCH AL BETULEYHA AL HE HARIM
וַיֹּאמֶר לֵכִי וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹותָהּ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים וַתֵּלֶךְ הִיא וְרֵעֹותֶיהָ וַתֵּבְךְּ עַל בְּתוּלֶיהָ עַל הֶהָרִים
BN: And he said: "Go". And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
What exactly does this mean, and what is going on here? There is a suggestion, and it may not be well-liked, but it is logical: to be sacrificed she must be a priestess by training, so she will go willingly and in full understanding of what she is accepting. She must also be a virgin. And what if there were rumours or suspicions or physical signs that perhaps she wasn't a virgin. Bad in itself, but unacceptable for the sacrifice. Ultimately you cannot prove virginity; there are many ways the hymen can break open besides intercourse. And one month is not enough to see if she is pregnant. But after two months, and the menstrual cycle has not ceased...and then we understand "bewailing" her virginity not as a way of expressing regrets about still being one, but of "proving" her virginity.
Having said which, I actually don't think that this is what was going on here - but it is our job as scholars to explore all viable explanations, and it is certainly not one that can be rejected entirely, especially in the light of the verse that follows.
What exactly does this mean, and what is going on here? There is a suggestion, and it may not be well-liked, but it is logical: to be sacrificed she must be a priestess by training, so she will go willingly and in full understanding of what she is accepting. She must also be a virgin. And what if there were rumours or suspicions or physical signs that perhaps she wasn't a virgin. Bad in itself, but unacceptable for the sacrifice. Ultimately you cannot prove virginity; there are many ways the hymen can break open besides intercourse. And one month is not enough to see if she is pregnant. But after two months, and the menstrual cycle has not ceased...and then we understand "bewailing" her virginity not as a way of expressing regrets about still being one, but of "proving" her virginity.
Having said which, I actually don't think that this is what was going on here - but it is our job as scholars to explore all viable explanations, and it is certainly not one that can be rejected entirely, especially in the light of the verse that follows.
11:39 VA YEHI MI KETS SHENAYIM CHADASHIM VA TASHAV EL AVIYHA VA YA'AS LAH ET NIDRO ASHER NADAR VE HI LO YAD'AH ISH VA TEHI CHOK BE YISRA-EL
וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים וַתָּשָׁב אֶל אָבִיהָ וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ אֶת נִדְרֹו אֲשֶׁר נָדָר וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה אִישׁ וַתְּהִי חֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow which he had made. And she had never known a man. So it became the rule in Yisra-El...
VE HI LO YAD'AH: Virginity in the female being the equivalent of an animal, bound for sacrifice, or a man intended for the priesthood, needing to be free of blemishes (Leviticus 22:19 et al).
Does this then prove the case that I remain reluctant to accept?
VA TEHI: This is not a Vav Consecutive, or it would be VA YEHI; this is the future tense; and it is therefore an incomplete sentence. In fact it enjambs into the next verse; but in doing so it requires KJ and others to correct "and it was a custom in Yisra-El" to "so it became...", as I have done.
11:40 MI YAMIM YAMIMAH TELECHNAH BENOT YISRA-EL LETANOT LE VAT YIPHTACH HA GIL'ADI ARBA'AT YAMIM BA SHANAH
מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה תֵּלַכְנָה בְּנֹות יִשְׂרָאֵל לְתַנֹּות לְבַת יִפְתָּח הַגִּלְעָדִי אַרְבַּעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה
BN: That the daughters of Yisra-El went yearly to lament the daughter of Yiphtach the Gil'adi for four days every year.
MI YAMIM YAMIYMAH: Means "from this day forth"; and yes, that would have been annually, to commemorate the event, as the women would go to the north gate of the Temple to wail for the sacrificed Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14), as the later sacrifice of Jesus is always on Good Friday, as Jews to this day go to the Western Wall, to wail for the loss of the Temple; but the point here is the initiation, not the scheduling.
And why four days? Because when the moon wanes, there are three days of darkness before it is "resurrected" - from Good Friday to Easter Monday in the Christian version. And which four days? That is more difficult to answer, though a guess should be obvious by now.
Which leaves two final questions. First, it has become clear that Yiphtach was a Gil'adi, and not a Yisra-Eli - so why did this ever become a custom in Yisra-El? And secondly, was it an approved and accepted custom, or simply tolerated, or even railed against? Easter was celebrated across the world as the spring rites of Babylonian Ishtar, millennia before it became Christian; or Purim, in the Jewish version. To this day Israeli women go to the tomb of Rachel and implore her to give them children; the residue of the fertility cult if ever there was one. And it is not officially approved.
How many of these tales in Judges were never Yisra-Eli tales in the first place, but the local myths and legends of the Goyim, absorbed into the Yisra-Eli cult in the way that European pagan gods and heroes became Christian saints or were reduced to bedtime fairy tales? I would suggest, up to this point in the Book of Judges anyway - all of them.
samech break
MI YAMIM YAMIYMAH: Means "from this day forth"; and yes, that would have been annually, to commemorate the event, as the women would go to the north gate of the Temple to wail for the sacrificed Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14), as the later sacrifice of Jesus is always on Good Friday, as Jews to this day go to the Western Wall, to wail for the loss of the Temple; but the point here is the initiation, not the scheduling.
And why four days? Because when the moon wanes, there are three days of darkness before it is "resurrected" - from Good Friday to Easter Monday in the Christian version. And which four days? That is more difficult to answer, though a guess should be obvious by now.
Which leaves two final questions. First, it has become clear that Yiphtach was a Gil'adi, and not a Yisra-Eli - so why did this ever become a custom in Yisra-El? And secondly, was it an approved and accepted custom, or simply tolerated, or even railed against? Easter was celebrated across the world as the spring rites of Babylonian Ishtar, millennia before it became Christian; or Purim, in the Jewish version. To this day Israeli women go to the tomb of Rachel and implore her to give them children; the residue of the fertility cult if ever there was one. And it is not officially approved.
How many of these tales in Judges were never Yisra-Eli tales in the first place, but the local myths and legends of the Goyim, absorbed into the Yisra-Eli cult in the way that European pagan gods and heroes became Christian saints or were reduced to bedtime fairy tales? I would suggest, up to this point in the Book of Judges anyway - all of them.
samech break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment