AtheistGamer

Ha ha. Thanks for catching that mistake of mine Andrew. It's pretty obvious what I already think of yahweh when I jump to conclusions like that without even thinking it through. I'll have to be more careful in the future.

Jayrok if Holding goes the peer-reviewed credentials route I'll have to simply remind him that it doesn't matter where the aurguement is coming from, but the aurguement itself. I doubt he'll provide a real response to any of this but it's only fair to give the other side a chance. I don't want to just stick my head in the sand and make myself a prisoner of my own opinions.

I'll have to look at the she-bears/elisha thing. I've noticed that whenever you have apologists cornered they go the calvinist route of saying "What do we know!? God has an IQ of a billionity and one, so whatever he does won't make sense to us mere humans!" (I don't think I need to point out the flaws in that logic, on these boards lol).

Ben C Smith

Would you apply this understanding to the entire book of Judges, or only to the concluding chapters (17-21)? The presence of a priest said to be the grandson of Aaron in Judges 20.28 seems to presume a time period not long after the exodus from Egypt, yet these five chapters are set in place after an entire series of judges that prima facie must have spanned many more than a mere two generations.

What is interesting is that Josephus summarizes these chapters in book five of the Antiquities right after the death of Joshua. Do you think that Josephus attainted this placement by reasoning from the internal contents of this section? Or do you think he was privy to a different textual tradition, one that either located this section earlier in Judges or kept it separate as its own unit?

Ben.

bacht

Here's the framing of the story in Judges ch 11:

Jephthah is said to be the son of a harlot (v 1)
J is excluded from his family inheritance (v 2)
J leaves home and falls in with troublemakers (v 3)
His kinsmen approach him for help against the Ammonites and agree to give him authority over them (v 5-11)

Then J makes his vow:

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering." (v 30-31)

J beats the Ammonites but loses his daughter, his only child (v 34)

And the tagline:
And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year. (v 39-40)

So either the story is etiological, providing a back-story for some ritual of Jewish virgins, or it's a warning about making rash vows, or it's some kind of divine justice for a son of a whore (?)

IamJoseph

No digress. The issue of human sacrifice was first forbidden in the Hebrew bible - talk about mind boggling gospel spins to fullfill away whatever it cannot swallow! More boggling is that such spinage was gleefully accepted by club Europa.

The Hebrew bible also forbid all forms of sacrifice - first decreeing sacrifice as limited to accidental sins only - catering to the then tradition of people for 1000s of years, elimanting via natural process. This was done with the added proviso it can only be performed in the temple: this eliminated 99.9% of all animal sacrifice around the country. The temple's destruction signalled the time all sacrifices came to an end.

According to the Hebrew bible - this is God's law - and this is what the world has enshrined in all its institutions, which was totally corrupted by the Gospels:

'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER'

The Gospels hyped up one Jews' sacrifice - with a grotesque dementia of over a million who did so voluntarilly against brutal, nazi-like Rome. And club Europa accepted it. :huh:

IamJoseph

This is an opening verse from one of the prophetic books, which Josephus seems to have adapted to his context, wherein there was inter-fighting in Judea owing to Roman political interfearences. Many of the Judges were good.

That there was discourse following the return from Egypt, signals authenticity of the text's validity. It is quite normal that in-fighting would occur who can assume leadership roles in a newly freed nation. Nothing other than garden variety politics on display here. The period of the Kings was ushered in to eliminate such discourse and have on ruling sector in the only way it was possible at this time: it is akin to a centralised federal government.

IamJoseph

If one selects what they like from a text, one can also turn wine back to water. The text does not indicate Abraham was 'planning' such a thing at all. Nor does the text indicate Abraham was of such a nature [Earlier, he grieved sore when asked to send his oldest son away]. In fact the texts display that Abraham was regarded the kindest man who ever lived.

Incidently, the forbiddence of all sacrifice started at this juncture; the point. It was later eronously brought back by another religion.

Patrick F

It is irrefutable if you’re sane and rational.

I’ve been over this a few times with apologists. I’ve had them say all kinds of rubbish and they all seem to have their own apologetic spin.

I’ll make a few points.

1) The text is clear that Yahweh gave Jephthah the victory even knowing what Jephthah had vowed. The comments by her daughter confirm this. She said God gave him the victory and he cannot go back on his word to God

2) The vow was a “burnt offering” and the Bible clearly says he “did with her according to the vow he had vowed”. The vow was NOT stopping her from marrying. It couldn’t have been that because he was shocked and saddened when he realized what he’d have to do.

3) It makes no sense that the women of the village would get together every year to “celebrate her accomplishments”. What did she “accomplish”? This is what’s so funny about Holding. He is very selective with his personally favored “translations”.

4) There are passages in the Bible that seem to condemn human sacrifice. All this does, though, is display yet another inconsistency in the Bible. There’s lots of passages that seem to contradict other passages: you can’t see god’s face and live, sons will be punished for sins of the father, etc.

5) This is a guy who tried, on his site, to make sense of the Gaderene demoniac contradiction by saying that there were two demoniacs. One of the gospels only seems to say there was one. He just didn’t bother mentioning the other one because he probably stayed back and didn’t make too much noise. It’s just terribly selective reading. The version with two demoniacs has them both accosting Jesus. One didn’t “hide in the bushes” as Holding so deceptively claims.

Amaleq13

Apologists will argue that it is not clear that Yahweh did any such thing. It is only clear that Jephthah and his daughter believed Yahweh had given him victory.

What cannot be denied, however, is that Yahweh allowed them to believe their vow was accepted and acted as though it was.

As far as I can see, even if one assumes that Yahweh never actually accepted the vow, there is no escaping the fact that Yahweh failed to correct the misperception Yahweh's actions created and, as a result, should be held responsible for the resulting sacrifice.

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

I regard 17-21 as being in large part a product of the Deuteronomic (post-Josiah) redaction of the traditions of the period of the Judges. I think the there was no king in Israel... sentiment was intended to apply to the whole book and is part of the attempt by the Deuteronomic redactor to come to terms with the deep moral ambivalence in these ancient traditions. However, I think that the reference to Phinehas in 20:28 is a gloss ultimately deriving from P (priestly) material.

(I am aware that many, on and off this forum, will be uneasy with this type of documentary source analysis of the Heptateuch, even if they accept it for the Pentateuch itself.)
This is an interesting point about Josephus but I think it unlikely that he had access to a different textual tradition. LXX and MT both have the same (conventional) order here.

Andrew Criddle

Patrick F

Well not really. The Bible is pretty clear about it. Right after Jephthah made the vow, it says:

Not only do Jephthah and his daughter believe it, according to the Bible, that's the way it was.