John Kesler

In discussing Judges 11, one needs to go back to chapter 10 to get the full context. The Israelites had been oppressed by the Ammonites and Philistines for eighteen years (10:8). Desperate for someone to fend off an attack by the Ammonites (11:5), Jephthah, the son of a prostitute (11:1), and leader of a band of outlaws (11:3), was drafted for the job. After Jephthah's attempts for a diplomatic solution failed (vv 12-28), in desperation he vowed that in exchange for a military victory, he would give Yahweh a human "burnt offering." How do we know that Jephthah intended a human sacrifice? For one thing, as previously mentioned, the Israelites had been oppressed for eighteen years, and were on the verge of being militarily confronted. Would a single animal sacrifice in any way compensate for a military victory under such circumstances? "Hey God, let me win and I'll sacrifice a goat or sheep to you." Second, as Susan Niditch and John J. Collins--both of whom I quote in this thread about human sacrifice--have noted, the syntax of Jephthah's vow is nearly identical to another promise to kill humans for Yahweh in exchange for victory. Compare:

As Niditich points out, in both texts the idea is that humans, or a human, will be offered to the deity in exchange for victory. Now, if Yahweh was willing to grant a victory in exchange for the promise of a human sacrifice, why is it so unbelievable to think that he would allow the sacrifice to go forth?

As Jack the Bodiless has alreay pointed out, the fact that Jephthah's daughter requested two months to "bewail her virginity" is good evidence that she was killed after this, because otherwise, she would have her whole life to "bewail" this fact. But also look at verse 39b:

Why mention that she "had never" had sex if this was to be her fate for the remainder of her life? The NIV mitigates this difficulty by translating the verse as, [A]nd she was a virgin," but as the annotations for the NET Bible state, the Hebrew construction is better understood as indicating "her condition at the time the vow was fulfilled."

It's quite understandable why she would "bewail" the fact that she would die a virgin, because in that day and age, to die childless was considered a horrible fate. (Recall, for instance, that Sarah was so desperate for a child that she requested for her husband to sleep with Hagar.) It is telling that every commentator of note prior to Rabbi Kimchi (who was born in the 12th century!) thought that the text clearly indicated that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. If the non-sacificed interpretation is so obvious, why did it elude Josephus and every other Jewish interpretor prior to the 12th century? :huh:

DBT

That's right. The wording, semantics, and context of the story, in spite of whatever the law may say, all point to a human sacrifice, Jepthath's promised burnt offering.

The apologetics fail because they are only achieved at the expense of key elements in the account.

mens_sana

Sorry I bothered you, Sheshbazzar. I did not realize I was speaking to the equivalent of a KJV Onlyist. That kind of dialogue is singularly unrewarding.

Sheshbazzar

Hardly by any stretch a "KJV Onlyist", as I usually go directly to the Hebrew for the reading, then compare that reading with the LXX.
But in discourse supplying quotes from the NKJV, or whatever of those several versions that seem to most accurately convey the text under consideration.
On some occasions I'll supply my own translation directly from the original languages if I believe that there is a more appropriate English word choice than what is customarily supplied. (sometimes the TOPIC being discussed is better illuminated by a reading with word choices that conform or relate more closely to the subject)
On very rare occasions, I may choose to supply a reading that is drawn from any one of my several rarer 'Versions", although this is usually only to support the point that a particular variant reading or understanding does actually exist independent of my personal claims.

mens_sana

I see, should there be a next time, I will have to emphasize certain key words — as above — in order to facilitate your reading comprehension and understanding of metaphor.

Sheshbazzar

I see, anyone whose interpretation or opinion does not agree with your own, regardless of -any- text they may employ, is the "equivalent of a KJV Onlyist".

DBT

Why does it require our interpretation? Do all our stories and descriptions need endless dissection and analysis in order to determine their meaning? Does every account actually mean something other than what it says? Or is this just a bible thing?

Craigart14

Sure. But literature isn't always that simple. Jephthah makes a rash vow. But the Old Testament--and later, Christianity--gives God credit for everything, including victory in battle. Jephthah promises a burnt offering if the Lord will "give the Ammonites into [his] hand" (Judges 11:30-31), and "the Lord gave them into his hand" (32). Yahweh didn't ask for human sacrifice here, but he clearly accepted it. The idea that Jephthah just sent his daughter away to a life of celibacy is nonsense. She went away for four months, then came back, and he kept his vow, which was to kill the first thing that greeted him: his daughter. Remember that Jephthah was one of the Judges; "the spirit of the lord came upon Jephthah, and . . . [he] made a vow to the lord" (Judges 11:29-30). Another coincidence, or did the spirit of the Lord motivate him to make that vow?

When believers insist on altering what the text clearly says, they are doing so because the text conflicts with conclusions they have already reached--or been taught. This is begging the question, i.e., using one's conclusion as support for one's argument. I know from the Bible that God is good, so this part of the Bible must be wrong; I have to change what it clearly says or reach a new conclusion about God. In scientific method, when one finds conflicting evidence, one modifies one's conclusion. In theology, one modifies the evidence to protect one's precious conclusion. If you can't reason forward, then reason backwards.

Craig

Sheshbazzar

First, in reply to DBTs above questions,

When reading ancient documents, texts, letters, and accounts, should everything that is written be taken at simple face value, with a total (or selective) neglect of, and disregard for, any other pertaining information that might affect or alter our understanding or comprehension of the intent of the material that we are reading?

I cannot give an answer to this question, -for anyone else-, but I am certain of my own answer.


In reply to,
I reiterate a few points.
Firstly,
I am not any longer a "believer". When I was a believer, however, it was then that I was accepting of that "simple" reading that you and others here have been endorsing.
It was only after my "deconversion" that I recognized and accepted the fact that this particular story was commonly being treated in a manner quite different than that which is employed when examining most other sections of the Bible.
Normally, the contents of other, and earlier, passages of text are given a careful consideration in the determining if they have any influence or bearing on providing an accurate understanding of latter texts.
But in this case, there seems to be an unwarranted insistence on a "face value" simple reading, coupled with an adamant resistance to giving any real consideration at all to any such foregoing texts as might be found to be supportive of a different understanding.
Secondly, Again, from a non-believer, I do not "alter" the text in the least, I just don't read into it, those words and ideas that are being supplied by others to support their interpretation.

Thirdly, and relating back to the previous,
Again, as a NON-believer, The conclusion that I reached, was only reached after I became an atheist.
In all my previous years as a believer, I had been "taught" by the churches that I attended, and had accepted, the "accepted" simple reading and interpretation, The same one that you are still holding.
Funny thing here is, YOU are the one supporting that position and understanding advocated by my old religious teachers, while I have rejected and abandoned both them and their position.

As to the;
I post in a lot of threads here, and the cumulative evidence of my posts clearly indicate that I most certainly DO NOT hold to any such position as you are here alleging.

I find "God" as is presented in the Bible to be paranoid, unjust, tyrannical, immoral, unethical, and generally despicable. His "character", to be the creation of, and a reflection of, the mentality and morals of the semi-savage Bronze Age culture that he was invented for.

As to the;
I do not even suggest that "this part of the Bible" is "wrong", my objections have never been about the actual Hebrew text, it says what it says,
and I accept that it was very carefully crafted.
I do not "change what it says", I only draw a different conclusion regarding the motivations and the INTENT of what was written.

My objection is to what is being "read into" (human sacrifice) the narrative, and that such "reading into" it, IS (always in the present tense) reflective of such biases and prejudices as are held by individuals.
This is why I have stated over and over that it is a trap, a snare, and a pitfall, DELIBERATELY fashioned in words, and laid for the unwary. It is a "SET-UP", made all the more subtle, by appealing to your pride, so seducing you into the disparaging and disregarding of any warnings.
The ancient "mind" that contrived this, took a particular delight at the prospect of setting up traps, deviously "snaring" people "by their own words."

I can only ask here, that you take time to look up some of those verses scattered throughout the entire OT, about "snares" and "traps" that reveal the "mindset" that was at work while engaged in the compiling much of the OT text.
The Bible is often accused of "being a cleverly devised fable", Well, if you already know that, then why insist that it IS NOT "cleverly devised"?

This is not an easy thing to explain, or to convey even under the best of circumstances, and attempting to do so to an audience that has already reached an agreed "conclusion" and is hostile to the reception of, or consideration of, any additional information that might overturn their long held "article of faith conclusion" is doubly difficult. But I do try.

DBT

Obviously not, but 'interpertation' of a text should not be difficult if the writer intends the meaning to be understood. When I want to convey a meaning, I do not want it to be interpreted, I want it to be understood...Even though it may be in the form of a metaphor, satire, or sarcasm, it should be recognized as such, and understandable by anyone with average intelligence.

An account of events cannot logically mean something other than what it says because that obvious meaning does not happen to agree with other verses, as that just makes another contradiction.