A brief description of the defeat of the Ammon- ites is all that is given (v.*"-). The course of the battle cannot be determined exactly, but it prob- ably went in a direction E. of Kahliah (see Jos 13* Aroer), into the territory of the Ammonites.il Jephtliah returns in triumph to his home at Mizpah ; the first person wlio comes to meet him is his only daughter, accompanied by a chorus of women (cf. Ex IS'-™-, 1 S IS"-). The overwhelming grief of the father, the noble self-surremler of the daughter, and her courageous resignation to her fate, are told with admirable skill and reserve. 'He did to her what he had vowed to do.' It
• 11U»-S ore not part of the original story. V.'h la modelled on tlie ^pnealoK'ioal formH of Hand Ch ; v.* tfl t)C8t explained aa
due to a MiiMurnierst.indinif of v.7.
ilk;
ionn inlerjwialion, n-**'.
t The Bequel of v. 31 Ih lib ; the text haa i*con dlaonlered by the
t ' Wliosocver conioUi forth,' ' from the doora of rov house,* 'I will offer him up' : these exprcmionM are inapplicauie to an animal.
$ IV'rhans the inleipolation waa made at some moment when the Irimulilea wanted to aasert their title to Gilead. ^loore su^>:etiu sueh an oiva^ion aa the intniifion of the Ammonites at the liecinninK of the (Ilh cent. (Jer 41>1 *).
II V.& meiitioiiH various movements, the reason for which is not clear. Jephtliali's olijeot could not have lieen to raiao tiie tril»ce: for llie iM.,,nle are all ossembletl in v.II», In "<> Jephliiah is ntill at Micjialt ; no is still there in *o, and thence seta out in due i^urae in ^K V.^ la, in fact, an attempt to pick up the threarl of the narrmtiTe after the long interpolation, >'J* (iloore).
568
JEPnUXNEH
JEREMIAH
became henceforth a custom in Israel to celebrate
the tragedy of Jcphthah's daughter by four diij's' mourning every year.*
That Buch sacrifices were possible in fsrael mav be fratbered from 1 S nwr« lya. 2 S 'Jie-f; cf. Ezk 2ua» wiili Ex 2ir-», Alic C. In times of desperation or relijrioua (ie^jradation thi-y became more frt-quent {Jer 7-", 2 K 10=* 17^' 21''. 1*8 UMJ^f- etc. SeeSchultz.OrTVifof. i. 101; Dillmann, OViiciufl.isat. ; Nowack, Ueb. Arch. ii. 206 1. ; Ottlej, UL, l!>«7, 170 f.).
The narrative poes on to describe a severe con- flict between Jephthah and the tribe of Ephraini, who, with characteristic arrogance (8"-), complained tliat they had not been invited to take part in the war. After extwstuhitinL' with them, Jephthah collected his (jileailite forces, which had been dispersed when tlie war was ended, and went to battle. Ue held the Jordan fords against them ; every fugitive who attempted to cross was retiuired to pronounce the test-word Shihholeth ('flood'); an<f if he betraj'ed liis Ephraimile origin by pro- nouncing it Sibbulcth, he was put to death. +
The historical character of this narrative has been questioned by Wellh. {Composition, 229), wlio treats it as a mere replica of 8'"'. His arguments, however, are not conclusive j the episode at tiie Jordan fords is too original to be imaginary ; and the majority of modern critics support the genuine- ness of these verses. It is probalile that the num- bers in v.* are exaggerated ; but tliis does not con- demn the whole story. J The narrative of Jephthah is brought to a close with the formula wliicli is used of the minor judges (10-" 12"'"- ").§
Tlio account of Jephtiiaii's home and settled life at Mizpah (1134if.) does not seem to agree with his outlawry in ll^ir.. The conf\ision of the Ammonites and Moahites in 1113-28 is also remarkable. Accordingly, Budde (.Commentary on Juiijes, 1897). following an unpublished treatise by Holzi'nger, attempts to work out a double narrative, as in the case of Gideon. He postulates a Moabite document, and assijjns it to E, and an Ammonite document, J. The suggestion is ingenious, but the data are hardly distinctive enough. The contratiictions in the accounts of Jephthah 's antecedentfi are not irreconcilable: while, with regard to the interpolation (llis-'ffl), the explanation itbove satisfies the case.
iJTBRAtmtB. — See, above all, Moore, Judges, 2S2ff. ; cf. also Budde, Itichter, ad loc., Richt. u. Sam. 125ff. ; Klttel, Hut. of Uehrewt, ii. 89 f.; Wellhausen, Comp. 228 1.; Noldeke, Vntrr- rurhurwen, 195 n. ; Kuenen, Huit. Biich. d. AT, 18 f. ; Goldziher, Der ifythot bei den Uebraem, 113 fl.; Stade, GVl i. 08; Baudissin, Stud. z. teinit. Relidionsgenchichte, i. 55 ff. ; Smend, Alttesl. Rrlinwmgeechu:hte, 9l')IT. ; Baethgen, Beitrage, 13ff. ; Driver, LOPS 168; Cornill, EiiUeilung'', 96 f.
G. A. Cooke. JEPHUNNEH (n|£;).— 1. The father of Caleb (Ka 13«). 2. A son of Jether an Asherite (1 Ch 1").
JERAH (rn;), son of Joktan, Gn 10=" (1 Ch 1»). The Arabic geographers knew of places named Yurakh and Yarcih in Yemen and ^ijaz respectively (Ya^ut and Hamdani) ; and the geographer Yaljut quotes from Al-Sulaibi (a usurper who obtained control of Yemen in the 11th cent., and was well versed in S. Arabian geography), a verse in which Wardkh is mentioned as a iilace of importance : ' What excuse have I, now I am lord of Warakh, for failing to meet the foe ? ' There are several
• See W. R. Smith, TIS 395.
f Two historical parallels are quoted by the commentators : the 'Sicilian Vespers,' .Mar. 31, 1282, when the French were made to betray themselves by their pronunciation of ceci. e ciceri ; and again, during the revolt against the French in Flanders, May 25, 1302, when no one was allowed to pass out of the gates who could not pronounce scitt emie friejulf