Sheshbazzar

While it is rather easy to find professed Bible believers that are readily persuaded to change their view of Jephthah, as an idea that is seen to be beneficial to their faith.

It is much better to receive support from a fellow declared Atheist! Thank you.

Sheshbazzar

Just to clarify a few points that some would rather forget.

I do not acknowledge that the text is "ambiguous", when it is properly read with its words informed by a working knowledge and comprehension of the intricacies of The Law.
The vow, was fully founded and bounded in Jephthah's knowledge of and application of The Law, and of his obedience to his attendant obligations thereunder.

His "vow" could only be accomplished within the framework of The Law;
Thus, when the text states that Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed:" It can mean nothing more than that Jephthah kept his word and turned her over to the Priests of The Levites because the stipulations of The Law would allow him no other options.

Thus, even if his daughter was made a "burnt offering" (and I AM NOT allowing here that such was the case) it would not have been performed by the hands of Jephthah himself, but rather by The Priests of The Levites.
His handing her over to the Priesthood would have fulfilled the obligation of his vow.
He did not need to, and was in any event, by The Law, barred from the act of making a "burnt sacrifice" of her by himself. ( Deut. 12:30-32, 18:10 and Lev. 10:1-7, Num. 3:4-10 )

makerowner

You're assuming that you're the only one reading it properly. Many other people, who had no bias against the text and in fact a bias towards presenting the text in the best light possible, have interpreted it in the same way I have. What makes you so sure that they're all wrong, and you're right?
From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

mens_sana

Really not much for nuance are you, Sheshbazzar. Despite the Deuteronomist's cleanup job, human sacrifice was a not uncommon practice among the Hebrews down into the time of Josiah. And it was consistent with the practices of the Canaanites, Moabites, and Phoenicians.

Exekiel 20:25-26. I, in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts—that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord.

In other words, Ezekiel is telling us that human sacrifice was being practiced because the Lord had given the Israelites "laws that were not good." Jeremiah (19:5-6) blames the practice on Baal. Ezekiel admits the Israelites were doing it because God had commanded it, even though it was a punishment.

Are these two prophets preaching against a practice that was nonexistent? Hardly.

Sheshbazzar

No, I certainly am not assuming that I'm the only one reading it properly, In fact I have made that fact very clear several times in this thread. Remember those links that I posted? These men also read it and interpret it very much as I do, as is self evident to anyone reading their writings.

A significant portion of my posts in this thread have dealt with that very thing, trying to give you some warning of how quickly this persuasion is growing, hour by hour the numbers of those accepting, and holding this "new" interpretation as being the correct understanding, is growing; The Leaders, teachers, and believers out of all denominations have every reason to seek to find a "better" explanation of this story to refute that constant bombardment of heckling and ridicule that is being heaped on them, and the grating accusations daily being made against their God.
All that they have to lose with this, is a small "loss of face", in the stating that their past leaders had been misled or mistaken, which when it comes down to it only makes THEM, by accepting this change, and "New" interpretation, look all the better, better learned, and superior in knowledge to those who went before.
Or they can just claim that it is part of "God's ongoing revelation to the faithful that love Him", so by pardoning all who formerly believed the "old way" excused, because "God had not yet revealed it to them".
Others will claim that this interpretation "has been there all along" (as it has) but that "nobody would listen to THEM", and present volumes of evidence to support that claim.

If It were only me that was holding this interpretation, being an Atheist and an unbeliever, I would likely resign myself that the subject was not even worthy of the time to debate it here with you. But the reason I am putting in this effort is because I AM NOT ALONE in this persuasion. tens of thousands, maybe millions, I know not, but that the number IS increasing daily.
I look, and I see, and I hear that rising and growing tidal wave bearing down on you, and on all who would bury their head in the sand, reciting over and over to themselves all of their reasons that it cannot be so.
In post after post I warn, you are only going to end up doing great damage to the Atheist cause by stubbornly clinging to this now outdated, and increasingly discredited position.

As for that excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia, what have you really got? A bunch of contradictory, and sometimes even ridiculous musings.
Make no mistake, even the Jewish faithful will find reason to revise their views, as they have before, and they will yet again. They are no longer so naive as to just continue to buy into every old and moldy "explanation" of the fathers. Devout believers among the Jews do not like hearing their Elohim being slandered and mocked through this either
The day is coming when the contents of that excerpt will be considered no more than the quaint ramblings of a group of poorly informed old men.

DBT

The law appears to have its own difficulties and contradictions...and apparently only applies to the Israelites, but that's another issue.

And yes, I do have problems with the sematics, namely the contradictions in wording between the given explanations and the text itself.

Take an example from your link;

''..that is, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough

''If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering; and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them''

Yet we are told in the text itself that Jepthath said, ''whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house'' - and whatsover does in fact cover anything and anyone that's capable of locomotion. That can mean his dog, goat, cow, neighbor, or daughter...can you see my problem with the semantics? Why would he make such a vow to God while knowing that he cannot legally fulfill it?

Sheshbazzar

You know, I am not going to even make any further attempts to correct your misconceptions, and misappropriate interpretations and applications of Bible texts. You won't listen or change, so be it.
It will be suffice that soon enough the believers will be addressing every one of these verses, and handing you your ass on a platter.
As for me, mine is now well covered.
Too bad about what you are doing to Atheism though, but I accept that I cannot stop you, so have at it.

Jack the Bodiless

What an extraordinary attitude to take!

So a new apologetic gains in popularity among the believers. And we're supposed to swallow it because of an argumentum ad populum?

Surely all that should matter here is what the original author meant to say? Shoudn't a committment to discerning the truth (insofar as we are able) trump any desire to "follow the crowd"?

Now, I don't know enough about the Hebrew to definitively confirm or deny what your source is saying about the Hebrew. But we are being asked to "accept on faith" a controversial re-interpretation of Judges 11:31 that pretty much everyone before this has missed: including both secular scholars, AND Jews and Christians with an ideological motivation to use this new interpretation.

And is all this coming from a scholarly source? Apparently not:
Whoops!

And there are quite a few "red flags" in the article itself:
...Emphasis mine. That part, at least, is complete BS. As has already been pointed out, human sacrifices were once required: we know this because Judaism is an offshoot of the Caananite religions, and Ezekiel confirms that it did happen (with a different "spin" on things, of course). And the "conquest of Caanan" is fiction. This author is using bogus arguments to justify his position: he is far from objective, and is working with incorrect information.

And it remains true that the ONLY specific condemnation of human sacrifice, ANYWHERE in the Bible, is the ban on Caananite-style infant sacrifice. Like other apologists, this guy has no actual Biblical basis for any assumption that human sacrifice in general would be unacceptable: this is still extrapolation based on wishful-thinking. As I pointed out before, a case COULD perhaps be made for extending this specific law to Jepthath's adult daughter (though it's somewhat dubious), but trying to invoke a general principle that "God hates all human sacrifices because he's just not that sort of guy" is complete BS.

Another example:
A blatant appeal to the (presumed) nature of the modern Christian conception of God.

Now, the articles does go on to make a distinction between "redeemable" and "irredeemable" vows. And it is true that Judges is somewhat vague about the exact nature of Jepthath's vow. However, it seems that Jepthath was unable to redeem his daughter: and Leviticus is clear on the point that humans subject to the irredeemable variety must be put to death. So the context indicates that this was a likely fate for Jepthath's daughter.

The following passage is interesting:
The author fails to notice a rather significant flaw in this argument (though he almost grasps it):

If Jepthath had no right to pledge his daughter's life, then he also had no right to pledge her virginity either. Hence the notion that latter could not have been "against her will". This is an argument which, if valid and applicable, would make Jepthath's entire vow null and void: regardless of which fate was intended for his daughter! It's a "practical dificulty" argument which hits BOTH interpretations!

But this is only a problem for the inerrantist, who is required to believe that this event actually happened. As an "urban legend", this still works: the author either didn't know, or didn't care, about this problem.

Indeed, this brings up another issue where the author's religious views are blinding him. The author is assuming that Jepthath WAS an expert on "the law". Why? Because the author of Judges is telling him so. No consideration is given to the possibility that the author of Judges was himself ignorant of the fine details of the law!

Jack the Bodiless

I've noticed another contextual problem for the new interpretation:
Now, if she was put to death, this makes perfect sense. She is given two months reprieve to "bewail her virginity", then killed: as a result, she "knew not man".

But, if she was pledged to remain a virgin: this doesn't make sense.

She was given two months reprieve before becoming a virgin? How does that work, exactly?

She couldn't "bewail her virginity" after the pledge was enforced? Er, why not?

Why did she need two months to "bewail her virginity" before the pledge was enforced? According to this interpretation, her virginal status did not change when the pledge actually took effect. Under the circumstances, the only thing she could have achieved in those 2 months (but not afterwards) was to go out and have sex: yet she "knew not man".

:huh:

makerowner

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that you were the only one. My point though, was that you're so sure that your interpretation is correct, but there are many others, even those who would be biased towards your interpretation, who hold to mine. If the text is so clear, shouldn't everyone see that your interpretation is obvious, except for hopelessly biased fools like me?
And you accuse me of argumentum ad populum?

Your argument now seems to be that believers will use this interpretation, so if we want to argue against them we have to follow it. Sorry, I don't buy it; I'm trying to find out what the author meant, and so far nothing you've said makes me think differently than I did at the start.

Yes, exactly. These interpreters obviously had trouble with the passage, and some of them agreed with my interpretation. The passage is obviously not as clear as you've been claiming, or these rabis would all follow it.

So because they don't like hearing their god mocked, we should interpret the text whatever way they want it? Doesn't make sense.

That's what I do consider them, but I wanted to show you that it's not just infidels who follow this interpretation.