Cege

cajela, that's a very good question!

Gundulf, what say ye?

Gundulf

Jephthah was highly praised in the New Testament because of his faith, even in spite of his sins?!?!? Noooo! Say it isn't so!!!




Of course, so was Noah, who had a habit of getting seriously wasted...
And so was Moses, who was guilty of murder and who had a short tempter with the Lord at times...
And so was Abraham, who was guilty of pimping his wife...
And so was Rahab, who was a whore...
And so was David, who conspired to commit murder to cover up his sleeping around...
And so was Sampson, of whom I don't have time to describe all of his bad habits....


:Cheeky:

Gundulf

You're not trying to avoid answering my question, are you? Of course the Medieval English weren't operating with a concept of 'herem.' That isn't my point, however. My question is simple:

The English did, in at least this battle, make a significant 'sacrifice.' What they sacrificed was 'humans'.

So, would it or would it not be proper to refer to King Henry and the English at Agincourt as having practiced "human sacrifice"?

John Kesler

No, I answered it. I can't say that you did the same with my question about whether it was "primitive" for Moabites to kill people for their god Chemosh.

This is the point, however. A mass killing of people does not equal human sacrifice. Herem involved the devotion of things or people for a deity's use.

No, it would not be "proper." What deity did the English devote humans to in exchange for victory? I'll tell you what. Unless you are willing to read Niditch's book, or that by another scholar, which discusses what herem entailed in its ANE context, I have no desire to continue this discussion. If you still want to discuss the topic after educating yourself about the topic, then fine. But I have no desire to plow the same ground.

Gundulf

I must have missed it somehow, it seems like you only responded by saying that I didn't get it...

Easy enough - no, not primitive; but still wrong.



Sure, herem is a particular kind of sacrifice - a sacrifice to a deity, so in a specifically religious context - but how does this come to mean that there aren't other kinds of sacrifices?

A mass killing does not equal human sacrifice - but a mass killing wherein the killers were making a sacrifice to something - regardless of whether their sacrifice was 'to' a deity, or just a sacrifice of potential wealth... then like it or not, it is a 'sacrifice'.

And if humans were the victims, then it is a 'human sacrifice', no?



[/QUOTE]

The English were making the sacrifice to no deity - but how does this mean that they made no 'sacrifice'? They made no sacrifice in the specific religious context, sure. But they certainly made a significant 'sacrifice.' Every history book on the subject I've ready concurs with that - that the English soldiers were hesitent to carry out Henry's orders, at least in part, because they'd be losing money. This was a sacrifice. Not to a god, so not a 'religious' sacrifice in that specific sense, but a sacrifice nonetheless.

And since humans were the victims, then it was a 'human sacrifice'. I fail to see on what basis you object that this would be improper terminology? Just because it isn't a 'religious human sacrifice'?

Sure, I've studied the term and the concept and the ANE context. Granted it's been a while. Which is why, I mentioned, I have no particular problem calling it a sacrifice, properly understood - one was sacrificing one's rights to the object/person in question, devoting it entirely over to the Lord and thereby gaining no benefit from it whatsoever, and as such it was a 'sacrifice' on the part of the faithful follower to God - and why it was so often, though not exclusively, referenced in the context of holy wars. If you feel I need further refresher, I'll look into it.

This isn't my objection, though - my objection is in using the obviously loaded term 'human sacrifice' to describe the concept. Which is why I'm making such a big deal about Agincourt in this context. If 'human sacrifice' is an accurate way to describe the religious 'devotion' of people to the Lord; then it is an accurate way to describe the non-religious sacrifices made by King Henry's men when they slaughtered the French POWs.

You now seem to be telling me that we shouldn't use the term 'human sacrifice' to describe Agincourt because of what the term implies to the average listener, no?

spamandham

This thread is about whether or not the Bible condones human sacrifice in the sense we understand it today, not about whether the Bible explicitly uses the word 'sacrifice' when it talks about such things.

Promising someone to be killed for a god, and then killing them, counts as sacrifice regardless of whether or not the text uses the word 'sacrifice' to describe it. A rose by any other name...

This isn't a valid conclusion unless you can show that the writers made a distinction between burnt sacrifices and burnt offerings, and a further distinction between a burnt offering and other types of offerings (aka devotions) resulting in death.

Animal and human sacrifices (Abraham was preparing to kill and burn his son, but the ram took the son's place) are always depicted as burned in the Pentateuch, so it isn't necessary to spell out that a death offering involves burning it.

An offering (devotion) is a subset of sacrifices - it's a free will sacrifice rather than a mandatory one. This is the context of Jeptha's daughter.

It proves that the author of the story views what Jephthah does as ordinary, since all those involved in the story see it as normal behavior.

Gundulf

Everyone seemed to think that decimating the Benjamites, then kidnapping girls for them to marry, was ordinary, normal behavior too... As did the Levite think that being hired to be a personal priest to a guy with a house full of idols seemed to think this was ordinary, normal behavior as well...

And that was exactly the problem...

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that God did not want anyone to kill Jesus? If no one had killed Jesus, how would sins have been forgiven?

Is it your position that God does not commit murder?

spamandham

You've already agreed that Judges is not merely a polemic against the kingless period. That being the case, your argument that the story of Jephthah is an example of what happens without a king doesn't hold water.

Magdlyn

Thank you! I can't believe it took 57 posts for someone to make this point. Deut was written by priests during Josiah's rule, as a last ditch attempt to please YHWH to prevent the Babylonian conquest. It didn't work.

Gundulf, the word, BTW, is spelt syncretistic. Thank you.

And the practice of human or animal sacrifice was not, ahem, syncretistic. It was just a general practice of the entire region, as was polytheism. The Hebrews worshipped Baal, Tammuz, Asherah and Anat. They worshipped the Canaanite gods along with YHWH, and followed the usual procedures to do so. Later books, like Deuteronomy and the prophets, condemned this in retrospect, as monotheism developed. It was a long and imperfect process. Sacrifice is both promoted and condemned in various books in the Bible, from various centuries, as was said earlier. It's a clear contradiction. It's undeniable. To deny it is just intellectually dishonest, which you, Gundulf, seem to be comfortable with. But most here are not.

It wasn't "warped" and it wasn't "syncratistic." It was common and ordinary by the standards of the time and the entire region.

I see you mean Judges 17. That is a weird story.

How could a Levite, of the tribe of Levi, be of the tribe of Judah? How could a Levite be a priest in any way? How could a priest officiate in a private home? The descendants of Aaron were to be priests, the Levites were caretakers and musicians, and this was to be in the Jerusalem Temple and nowhere else. The story includes the making of a molten image of YHWH as well. Obviously this story comes from a time before the Hebrews had the "Torah," Leviticus or Deutoronomy.

No, it wasn't syncretistic or warped. It was just from an earlier time when images were not forbidden and worship was not centralized in Jerusalem.


No. The laws were not written yet, despite what the Bible makes it out to be, retroactively. There was no Moses, there was no slavery in Egypt and exodus, there were no tablets handed down from Mt Sinai. The laws were written during the time just prior to, and after, the Babylonian conquest and exile of the Judahite elite.


No, they "sacrificed" money. Monetary gain. Economics. God had nothing to do with it.

And my final point, was Jesus a sacrifice? No, IMO, he was not. He was not bound with his throat slit and laid on an altar to be burnt. I suggest he was a martyr. Martyrdom-- the torture/killing of one for the many, had become a Jewish attempt at propitiation, as shown in the Maccabees books. Again, retrofitting caused Xians who knew little about Jewish burnt offerings, to call Jesus' death a sacrifice, but it was not.