Amaleq13

Jephthah is also depicted as a valiant warrior who was blessed by the spirit of God. (11:1, 29)

And, unfortunately, GW's reluctance to read is typical of a sizeable number of U.S. citizens, if not the majority.

dado

again, Jephthah is set up from the beginning as a flawed individual. he clearly felt keeping the vow - even though it meant killing his only daughter - was more important than, not killing her. i think we're in agreement up to that point. if from that you want to conclude there possibly were other flawed individuals who also thought human sacrifice was something G-d might want, ok, i can agree with that, as well.

but to draw from the story of one screwed up person a conclusion about the society at large or beliefs in general, that path i can't walk with you. if his beliefs were common, this wouldn't even have been a story.

the story isn't about G-d, it's about Jephthah. what the community came to think of Jephthah can be inferred from the fact that people mourned his daugher - but there is no mention of mourning him.

Amaleq13

If this story was found on a random scrap of goat skin in the desert, you would have a point. Unfortunately, it was included in the Bible and that suggests it has a bit more relevance than to just a small number of flawed individuals. The stories ancient cultures valued tell us a lot about the values of those cultures. This story seems to suggest that human sacrifice was considered acceptable to God.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Assuming human sacrifice as acceptable to God doesn't make it less traumatic when it is your daughter being sacrificed. The core message of being careful about your vows to God remains intact

dado

"flawed" means imperfect, not "nothing but bad". if he had no redeeming qualities, it would make for a pretty dull story, too. he is specifically drawn as an imperfect character leading an imperfect life of imperfect choices.

stories are recorded because they are somehow different from the rest of what is going on at the time. to then look back at a story written specifically because it was different for the purpose of generalizing is, imo, inappropriate.

and with that i suspect we've reached an impasse, so i will bow out and leave the Jephthah floor to you. hope you have a nice evening, i enjoyed the discussion.

ciao!

Amaleq13

Speaking of generalizations lacking substantiation... This is probably true of some stories but certainly not all. There are many stories that are retained because they reflect exactly what was going on at the time. That is where spin's favorite kind of evidence comes in handy.

Upon what basis do we assume that this particular story was retained because it was different? Your preference isn't sufficient. I would agree that this story, alone, would also be insufficient but not when you take into account the other evidence already mentioned in the previous posts by the Doctor et al.

Doctor X

Dado:

You would do well to know about the subjects you claim others are ignornant.

No. Those who try to "reason out of" the herem get destroyed. What you refuse to confront is that the story depicts a god that not only welcomes a human sacrifice, he requires it.

Simply stating "it is not so" and trying to imply that if posters just read the texts incorrectly they will find your unique understanding is most unseemly.

Argumentum ad vertitatem obfuscandam with a dash of Poisoning the Well. On the contrary:

you have done little else than foist your beliefs. Thus, you pretend far later commentary such as Mishnah some how changes the intent of the writers of the texts. You may believe that, but the facts remain otherwise.

Jump up and down saying it; it will still not change the facts. "Oral Torah" is late commentary and apology. Period. Sorry. Johnny, tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes. . . .

Then this individual engages in further argumentum ad hominem, the last refuge of the failed debator.

Ipse dixit and wrong.

Really? Since when has modern Judaism worshipped Mrs. YHWH--Asherah? Have they sacrificed anyone recently?

If the individual wishes to bury his head in the sands of the shores of the River DeNile, it remains his error and his error alone.

Amaleq13:

Indeed, that is the point. The OT gives considerable evidence of what happens when an individual does not give sacrifice to YHWH--such as Saul.

Of course, how can we complain, the individual knows so much more about scholarship than tenured Judaic scholars. Wonder how they missed the fact that late commentary can rewrite the intent of the authors of the text they apologize for?

Must be a conspiracy. . . .

--J.D.

rlogan

just a minor point from an amateur -

That Jesus was sacrificed for mankind should somehow weigh in the discussion, should it not?

Doctor X

That will depend upon "when" in "Christian" theology. Leave aside the whole messy "did the execution happen, did Junior exist, why is that growth there" questions, exactly when did the death become part of the theology?

This has a rather interesting similarity to the arguments before. Dado tried to apply later traditions to the intent of the texts. Christian commentators attempted the same.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I've used that when "discussing" this point with Christians and they consider Jesus to be a special circumstance since he isn't/wasn't entirely human and was basically sacrificing himself.

Special pleading for certain.