-
Articles/Ads
Article JEPHTHAH'S VOW CONSIDERED. ← Page 2 of 5 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Jephthah's Vow Considered.
the doors of his house to meet him , since it was possible for him to have been met by several things , which it would have been sacrilegious for him to have offered to the Lord , and indeed the event sufficiently proves the propriety of this interpretation , since he was met by that which no vow , however solemn , could justify him in offering up . " Mr . Locke is also of this opinion . In D'Oland Mant ' s Bible we find the following confirmation : —
yy " The more true translation of these words may be— ' Shall be the Lord ' s , or else 1 will offer it up for a burnt-offering , ' for so the Hebrew particle is often used ( see the marginal note ) . The sense of the vow will then be , whatsoever cometh out of the house to meet me shall be the Lord ' s ; if it be a human person , servant , & c , it shall be dedicated to his service ; or , if it be a beast fit to be offered , it shall be offered for a burnt-offering . "—P # & , Br . Wall ,
Glassius , in bis Philologia Sacra , favours the change of and into or ; so does Drusius ; but in Jennings' Jewish Antiquities , we find the following objection to such a view of the subject : — - ' But to this it is replied , that every thing sacrificed was offered or devoted to God , but every thing devoted to God was not sacrificed . Therefore it would be as improper to say , ' I will either devote it to God , or offer it in sacrifice , ' as it would be to say , ' Animal aut homo , ' or ' Homo aut Petrus , ' or ' I
will ride on a four-footed beast or a horse , because a horse is a fourfooted beast . ' Besides , in other parallel texts , where vows are expressed , like this of Jephthah ' s , and where the ) ( vau ) is used in the same manner as it is here , nobody will suppose it should be taken disjunctively . As
in Hannah ' s vow , 1 Sam . i . 11 , ' I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life , and there shall no razor come upon his head ; ' nobody understands it thus , ' I will either give him to the Lord , or no razor shall come upon his head ; ' so in Jacob ' s vow , ' Then shall the Lord be my God , and this stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be God ' s house . '" To such arguments in support of the objection it is quite unnecessary to reply . Another objection is foundStaclchouse ' s History of the Biblep . 436
, , , " That this vow is delivered in general and indefinite terms , viz . ' that whatsoever should come forth of the doors of his house to meet him , that should surely be the Lord ' s , and it should be the Lord ' s by being offered up for a burnt-offering ; ' that though the particle " ) ( vau ) be sometimes used in disjunctive sense , yet it can only be so , where things are really distinct and different from each other , but cannot be admitted where the one manifestly includes the other , as it is in the passage
before us ; that , therefore , it is much more congruous to all the rules of good sense to understand the words of Jephthah so , as that , by promising , whatsoever he met should be the Lord ' s , he obliged himself in general to consecrate it to God , and that by promising further , that he would offer it up for a burnt-offering , he specified the manner in which he intended to make his consecration . " The deduction from the textas stated aboveis quite sound ; but b
, , y what principles of translation the writer arrived at such a rendering of the original we are at a loss to account . Objecting , then , to his view of the text , we cannot assent to his conclusions . With respect to the phrase proposed , " I will offer to him a burntoffering , " let us analyze the terms of the original , " nbty ^ iTirbynV " Had Jephthah meant as translated in the authorized version , " / will
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Jephthah's Vow Considered.
the doors of his house to meet him , since it was possible for him to have been met by several things , which it would have been sacrilegious for him to have offered to the Lord , and indeed the event sufficiently proves the propriety of this interpretation , since he was met by that which no vow , however solemn , could justify him in offering up . " Mr . Locke is also of this opinion . In D'Oland Mant ' s Bible we find the following confirmation : —
yy " The more true translation of these words may be— ' Shall be the Lord ' s , or else 1 will offer it up for a burnt-offering , ' for so the Hebrew particle is often used ( see the marginal note ) . The sense of the vow will then be , whatsoever cometh out of the house to meet me shall be the Lord ' s ; if it be a human person , servant , & c , it shall be dedicated to his service ; or , if it be a beast fit to be offered , it shall be offered for a burnt-offering . "—P # & , Br . Wall ,
Glassius , in bis Philologia Sacra , favours the change of and into or ; so does Drusius ; but in Jennings' Jewish Antiquities , we find the following objection to such a view of the subject : — - ' But to this it is replied , that every thing sacrificed was offered or devoted to God , but every thing devoted to God was not sacrificed . Therefore it would be as improper to say , ' I will either devote it to God , or offer it in sacrifice , ' as it would be to say , ' Animal aut homo , ' or ' Homo aut Petrus , ' or ' I
will ride on a four-footed beast or a horse , because a horse is a fourfooted beast . ' Besides , in other parallel texts , where vows are expressed , like this of Jephthah ' s , and where the ) ( vau ) is used in the same manner as it is here , nobody will suppose it should be taken disjunctively . As
in Hannah ' s vow , 1 Sam . i . 11 , ' I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life , and there shall no razor come upon his head ; ' nobody understands it thus , ' I will either give him to the Lord , or no razor shall come upon his head ; ' so in Jacob ' s vow , ' Then shall the Lord be my God , and this stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be God ' s house . '" To such arguments in support of the objection it is quite unnecessary to reply . Another objection is foundStaclchouse ' s History of the Biblep . 436
, , , " That this vow is delivered in general and indefinite terms , viz . ' that whatsoever should come forth of the doors of his house to meet him , that should surely be the Lord ' s , and it should be the Lord ' s by being offered up for a burnt-offering ; ' that though the particle " ) ( vau ) be sometimes used in disjunctive sense , yet it can only be so , where things are really distinct and different from each other , but cannot be admitted where the one manifestly includes the other , as it is in the passage
before us ; that , therefore , it is much more congruous to all the rules of good sense to understand the words of Jephthah so , as that , by promising , whatsoever he met should be the Lord ' s , he obliged himself in general to consecrate it to God , and that by promising further , that he would offer it up for a burnt-offering , he specified the manner in which he intended to make his consecration . " The deduction from the textas stated aboveis quite sound ; but b
, , y what principles of translation the writer arrived at such a rendering of the original we are at a loss to account . Objecting , then , to his view of the text , we cannot assent to his conclusions . With respect to the phrase proposed , " I will offer to him a burntoffering , " let us analyze the terms of the original , " nbty ^ iTirbynV " Had Jephthah meant as translated in the authorized version , " / will