Talk:Jephthah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is this page "Jephtha" and not "Jephthah"? Google return more results for the latter, which is also found in Dictionry.com. -- Itai 00:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The "with an h" spelling is the KJV spelling. Perhaps the spelling without is simply more correct. God, contrary to some opinions, did not dictate the text of the KJV (as he did the Book of Mormon) <g>.
--In response to the nonsense posted by <g>, God did not dictate any book, especially the Book of Mormon, which is riddled with unfulfilled prophecies and numerous historical and geographical inaccuracies. The name Jephthah is simply an English rendering of the Hebrew name "Yiftakh", which ends in a pronounced velar fricative. Spelling the name Jephthah without an "h" is incorrect and reveals a lack of understanding of where the name comes from and what it means.. [User 68.226.228.6]
- My NASB also uses the spelling of his name with an 'h'. The article itself only seems to use the spelling Jephthah, not Jephtha. I think either the article should reflect the title, or the title should be changed. It would seem, regardless, that Jephthah is more common than Jephtha. 76.48.50.127 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] More detail
A quick scan of the Book of Judges suggests that this article is lacking the main information about Jephtha, instead concentrating on one curious incident and exploring that: it's very interesting, but the Biblical account suggests he was famous for many other things. Also, he is mentioned very briefly in the New Testament's Letter to the Hebrews, 11:32.
Can someone with more time add the relevant information, and rearrange the article so it doesn't just talk about him "killing" his daughter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] 42,000 Ephraimites killed?
Anyone able to corroborate this? I always understood that the Gileadites killed "forty and two thousand" Ephraimites (as per the King James Version). This, given the size of communities in those days, makes more sense. "Forty and two thousand" is 2,040. 42,000 would have been most of the entire population of Judea at that time, I would imagine.
Any thoughts? Jfbcubed 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is a failure to comprehend Jacobean English; if you have any real qualms, consult a more recent translation, but "forty and two thousand" is 42,000 just as "forty and two years' would be 42 years. (The figure is likely to be unhistoric, just as Herodotus' figures are; but this is what is meant.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of this discussion was to move this article --Lox (t,c) 11:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Requesting move from Jephtha to Jephthah, per consistent use of latter spelling at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011%20 and other editions.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- See previous discussion above, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Jephtha/Jephthah.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jephthah is certainly more common, and almost certainly more widely understood. The difference is between translations chiefly from the Hebrew, which use Jephthah, and translations from the Vulgate, in Latin, which use Jephtha because a final h is impossible in Latin and so avoided in loan words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Neıl ☎ 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A couple weaknesses
This is a great little article, however I have some comments.
First, it needs to cite the references it is drawn from, and to do so properly. Can you guys start supplying those? I'm no wikipedia expert...but know this is needed. I don't jump to the extreme some do and say "uncited, delete everything uncited!", but say "provide the sources and start integrating the citations"!
Second, could it be more specific? For instance, it says that it was widely held among the "Fathers" (I don't really like that label, by the way) that this was a typology. Wacky, I think, but it would be nice to know the specifics on this, or have a link to the source to check this out (as well as other details). For instance, Josephus is quoted...but none of the matter needed to check Him on this is available: not good!
Third, I'm glad there was a guy who understood the proper spelling (with an "h" at the end) because of pronunciation; that's just cool. : )
Fourth, from where did the quoted passage come from? What translation? Perhaps a more widely read version as a source (perhaps literal too to reduce the sectarian possibilities) is in order? Why in the world is that translation so eccentric as to use "holocaust" like this? Seriously. (Seriously.) I know it can...but WHY!?
tooMuchData
11:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)