Gundulf

I agreed that Judges is not only a polemic against the kingless period. I do think it is a polemic against the kingless period. Although it is more than this, it isn't less.

Gundulf

Obviously? You are making some assumptions if you find that to be the 'obvious' interpretation. I would concur that the idea that this particular story came from before Leviticus or Deuteronomy (or Exodus?) is, perhaps, a possible interpretation.

On what basis are you suggesting that the alternate interpretation - that this is an example of disobeidence (or ignorance, or both) to an extant law - is absolutely false?

You really think that, after the prohibition of images of Yahweh, that every single individual in Israel obeyed that law completely - and that on no occasion in the centuries afterwards, that people grew ignorant or apathetic aout that law?

I don't see it as being that far-fetched. You seem to be suggesting that this event must have taken place before the prohibition against images of Yahweh was established.... because no one would ever have sinned after the law was introduced.....???



Nor did I suggest that God had anything to do with it. But it was a 'sacrifice.' And the sacrifice included killing humans (that could have been used for aforementioned monetary gain).

Hence, a sacrifice - of humans. A "human sacrifice." Sure, not a 'religious' human sacrifice.... but a 'human sacrifice.'




Speaking from a strictly naturalistic view, I would have to agree. Whether or not God himself intended it as a sacrifice is much more important a question. Of course, that depends on whether this God exists, reveals truth, etc., etc.

spamandham

But since it is not only such a polemic, it isn't valid to broad stroke the story of Jephthah as if that's what it is. There's nothing in the story to indicate any such thing. Notice that "in those days, Israel had no king" is not found in the story, as it is in other stories within Judges that do in fact appear to be such polemics.

The story opens with "Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior." and closes with "From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite."

The story portrays Jephthah as a hero, and his daughter as worthy of commemoration!

Magdlyn

Obvious, to me. If you will at least consider it as an option, my job is done. Great!

If you just read the Bible (New Oxford Annotated) you will see that monotheism was imposed, late, and the scriptures were rewritten (and many invented) to make the public think YHWH had always wanted to be worshiped in Jerusalem with lots of goodies for the Levites and kohein. (Surely you've read about the documentary hypothesis?) On the contrary, polytheism and local altars were the norm all over the region, as you can see from the huge majority of Hebrew kings who are listed as having been polytheists (not doing what was right in the sight of YHWH, repeated ad infintum), all the altars and high places Josiah felt he had to destroy, all the priests of Asherah and Baal, all the qudesha in the temple, the holy place Beth El (house of god), etc., etc. Polytheism was everywhere. Goddess worship was universal (as shown by the thousands of small clay Asherim found in Israel by modern archeologists). There is just far too much of this kind of thing to have had it been a "warped" and illegal practice for all those centuries.

Much of the OT is written from a Judaean perspective. The elite wanted worship to be centralized and created a religion to further their political and economic goals. Greed. Power. Politics as usual. They invented myths (a tablet of law handed down from some sort of spurting volcano! of all things; a hero with a snake on his staff!-- wait a minute-- Moses had a snake? I thought snakes were evil. Whoops.) to force the public to let go of their beloved Asherah. They even co-opted El Shaddai, the "breasted" god (dess), who is always referred to in terms of fertility, as a "name" of YHWH El.


Because I just don't take myth literally. I have read many books on Biblical history where these conclusions are well supported. If I thought you'd read them, I'd list them. LMK.

Depends on when the "law" was created. Seems to me, it was not until Babylon stood at the door ready to strike around 700 BCE. Everything before that is myth written and/or rewritten retroactively. And so, Josiah had Deuteronomy read, but Babylon struck anyway, all the elite, including the Levites, were carted off, they wrote more "law" while they were away (as slaves, how convenient it was they said their great and powerful god would not let them work on Saturdays!), a minority of them came back after Persia took over from Babylon, the elite tried to rebuild the temple, tried to impose this "old" (ie: new) law, forced all the peasant men to turn away their "foreign" (ie: local) wives and their offspring in a horrible kind of genocide, etc., etc. It's fucking ugly.

Well, I'm not bringing "sin" into it, darlin.' It's just not relevant.


No. You're really stretching. Not a good analogy. Give it up.



Yeah, and that's not really my problem. "God's intentions" indeed. :Cheeky: This is a board of skeptics here, on that subject, in case you haven't noticed.