AtheistGamer

Hey everyone. I used to think that Jephthah's daughter being burnt alive was something that was plain as day, and irrefutable by any apologist. But then I read tektonics.org's article on jephthah. A site called Ebon's Musings, and the tektonics site go back and forth on this issue. The tektonics site is the last one to update it's page with rebuttals. It looks to me like the apologist has won unless someone picks up the torch.

Anyway here are some key things that I'd like to look into, regarding tektonic's article.

They claim that only male animals are to be sacraficed according to mosaic law. So jep's daughter couldn't have really been offered up. I've read the OT and I can't find anything wrong with their statement here. Help?

They claim that burnt offerings are only for giving to God after you've done something bad. Not for giving praise of God's help, so Jep's daughter couldn't have really been sacraficed. Once again I'm pretty sure this claim of theirs is true.

They claim that the original word for lament in hebrew "really" means to happily celebrate someone's accomplishment. I have no clue how to check this. Does anyone have a good site that does english/hebrew translations?

Anyway I'd like help dismantling their aurguements. BTW if anyone thinks I'm just a christian in disguise, feel free to PM me on youtube. My username is notwhollysane. I have tons of favorites, and have left tons of comments on videos. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm some sort of christian in disguise due to my lack of posts here.

Here's the link: www.tektonics.org/gk/jepthah.html

Toto

Glen Miller's comments

Ebonmusings

I'm not sure what is so persuasive about Holding's arguments. You say:

The story probably refers to old customs that have been covered up. It is not in accord with the law, but there it is.

There are some comments on the Hebrew translation here

AtheistGamer

If the story refers to old customs that have been covered up then, do we have any evidence of these old customs? It would do a lot to destroy Holding's aurguement, about only males being burnt, and burnt offerings only being for atonement.

I noticed that the lexicon on that site has the hebrew word for lament to somehow mean both lament and Holding's definition. So at least Holding can't claim that the hebrew word for lament/praise/commemorate cannot possibly mean lament.

IamJoseph

This story does not concern any other factor than the giving of one's word in public, as an oath to do something. This is specially impacting when a King does so - he cannot change his word. Its lesson is one must beware making an oath voluntarilly.

Jayrok

The guy at tektonics likes to pick a verse here and there and claim victory on a given point in his arguments. The idea that only male animals are to be sacrificed according to Mosaic Law is just silly.

Leviticus 3:1 -- " 'If someone's offering is a fellowship offering, and he offers an animal from the herd, whether male or female, he is to present before the LORD an animal without defect.

Leviticus 4:32 -- " 'If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he is to bring a female without defect.

Just two examples of instances one can use a female animal for sacrifice. Incidentally, if Jesus was the "Lamb" of sacrifice, why wasn't he female in accordance with Lev 4:32? But I digress.

Jephthah's offering wasn't a "sin" offering. It was more of a fellowship offering because he promised God he'd offer it. So it seems it would fall in line with Leviticus 3 and can be male or female.

Nonsense. Fellowship offerings were also burnt on the altar (Leviticus 3:5;11 and 16).


The apologist will do everything he can to steer criticism away from his faith. This particular one likes to overwhelm his readers with texts. The more words he puts into his articles the less likely someone will actually read what he is trying to say.

There is no reason to believe the story of Jephthah isn't anything other than what the author meant... for whatever reason.

AtheistGamer

Hey thanks a lot! I'll e-mail him to see what his reply is.

Jayrok

You'll email who, Holding at tectonics? He'll probably come back with something like "What are the credentials of the person who told you all this? If he isn't a peer-viewed scholar on ancient Hebrew texts and the ANE then he isn't qualified to comment, much less be right on this subject"... or something similar to that.

Or he may point you to another obscure verse somewhere and claim that "Burnt offerings" are different than offerings that are burnt on the altar.

But when the smoke clears there isn't much reason to listen to much he has to say. This is the same apologist that claims the kids who made fun of Elisha were a gang of thugs that would have killed Elisha had the she-bears not been summoned to maul them.

andrewcriddle

Why burnt alive ?

Animal sacrifices were killed then burnt.
Abraham was planning to kill Isaac with the sacrificial knife.
I can see no reason why Jephthah's daughter would be different.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Oh that makes it so much better. . .

andrewcriddle

It is, as you imply, peripheral to the moral issues of the passage (I only queried it because the OP referred to it as being plain as day.)

The more fundamental question about the passage and others in Judges is that in Judges various characters do drastic things to please God/Yahweh but it is unclear whether they are actually doing what God really wants. It is IMO central to understanding the book of Judges that it is recording stories from a period when there was no king in Israel: every man did what was right in his own eyes.

Andrew Criddle