John Kesler

I would neither dismiss nor embrace an argument just because someone is an "evangelical author." Rather than mischaracterizing this as a scholar-versus-scholar debate, let's see some of these alleged arguments from these evangelicals. Dr. Niditch, for example, presents arguments in her book; she doesn't just say that because she's a scholar we should accept what she says. My comment about academics was in response to your assertion that what "comes to people's minds" counts as an argument. As Dr. Niditch demonstrates, the Israelites did view what they were doing as a sacrifice to their deity, Yahweh.

Dr. Niditch addresses this very case on pp. 61-62 of her book:

In the quote above, Dr. Niditch refers to the offering of animals as "regular sacrifices" and points out that animal sacrifices were eaten, whereas humans were to be put to death as God's portion alone. There are differences, but they are differences in how the sacrifice was to be made. You really should read War in the Hebrew Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) before you continue defending your position.

spamandham

There's nothing in the command in Leviticus to indicate such vows pertain only to war, and we have the example we are discussing, of Jepthah murdering his daughter as the result of such a vow, that demonstrates the contrary.

spamandham

If he existed at all, it's possible I suppose. But it's also possible he was originally named 'Osiris', 'Apollonius', 'Tutahnkamen', 'Julius', or 'John'.

spamandham

But you already agreed that Judges was not simply a political excercise to support the idea of monarchy. So, it is not simply a collection of counter examples of what happens in the absense of a king. So you can't reasonably conclude that the case involving Jepthah and his daughter is such a counter example.

I don't read it that way at all. A straightforward read, IMHO, makes two major points.

1) You must carry out all vows to the lord regardless of cost, to include human sacrifice
2) Don't make such vows in the first place, for that reason

Both of these ideas are consistent with the Law.

Gundulf

Negative - Jephthah's sacrifice was clearly in the context of a 'burnt offering' - not a case of Leviticus of 'devoting' someone to the Lord. Correct me if I'm wrong, (don't have the text right in front of me) - but I believe the language used is of 'burnt offering' - NOT of 'devoting' his daughter to the Lord.

In other words, he was NOT following the prescription in Leviticus previously mentioned - he was DISOBEYING the express command not to offer children as burnt offerings that is referenced in Deuteronomy.


(Also - just for clarity - I agreed that Judges is not merely - that is - only - an apologetic for the monarchy with its negative examples. I never denied that it was this. It is more than this, I'll agree. But not less.)

Gundulf

Fair enough - my point still remains, though, that when anyone - scholar or not, uses phraseology that the general population will understand in an entirely different way - either the scholar has been locked away in academia too long and has forgotten how to communicate with the rest of the world... or there is a less than pure motive driving the desire to refer to this practice in such a way.


As I think I'd mentioned, I have no particular objection to the idea that these devotions were 'sacrifices' in the general sense of the word sacrifice. And sure, the context of these particular sacrifices happened to be (among other things) humans.

My objection is that there is a particular implication to the term 'human sacrifice' in and of itself. So when someone uses the facts that the Israelites were making 'sacrifices' (in the broad sense of the word) of humans (which I don't disagree with) - and then uses this base fact to toss out the phrase, "The Bible condones human sacrifice" -

Either the person using the phrase "The Bible condones human sacrifice" is terribly unaware that he is using a phrase that will be understood by almost all his hearers differently than the exact facts being referenced...

Or, as I suspect, there is an agenda involved - to make the Bible look 'primative' or the like by using a loaded phrase like 'human sacrifice.'

As I mentioned repeatedly - there is a reason that no historical scholar (to my knowledge) would ever refer to the battle of Agincourt as an example of 'human sacrifice' - even though, according to strict definitions - the English were making a 'sacrifice' (again, in the broad sense) of 'humans'.

The same reason I don't go around telling people that the Medieval English condoned 'human sacrifice' is the same reason I object to the phraseology being used for the Hebrews. Because the phrase 'human sacrifice' implies more than the sum of its parts.


Well, don't have time to read it - though I think I imagine I know where she's going, and wouldn't significantly disagree. When people/cattle/stuff was 'devoted' to the Lord - it was a significant 'sacrifice' of the spoils of war, etc. King Saul was told to have devoted all the sheep (and the captured king) - but they kept some of the tastier sheep for a BBQ. Sure, it would have been a 'sacrifice' on their part to give up the sheep.

And, sure, in a religious context, one is making a 'sacrifice' to the Lord, by giving up something good (either the sheep, the potential wives, slaves, or whatever) by going in and wiping out everything - it was a statement to some degree that this was in fact a 'holy' war - because the warriors were not fighting in order to get the spoils - in fact, they got absolutely NOTHING out of the fighting whatsoever - all the 'spoils' of the war belonged purely to God. This is a significant sacrifice.

In this context, I agree with all of that. But taking these things out of their context and labeling this with the loaded phrase 'human sacrifice' is where I object.

Do answer me this, if you want to continue the discussion:

If a historian made a claim that King Henry V practiced 'human sacrifice' at the Battle of Agincourt.... do you think this would be an appropriate wording/explanation of what occured - or do you think that using such language would lead to confusion?

spamandham

Leviticus 27:28-29.

28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes [l] to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [m] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

The context is clearly 'sacrifice', since the person "devoted" must be put to death. Jephthah vowed to sacrifice to god whoever came to greet him first. He followed through with his vow as commanded here in Leviticus. I don't see how there's any room to argue that point.

"devote" = "promised for sacrifice" in the context of Leviticus 27:28-29 , as Leviticus 27:29 explicitly states people so "devoted" must be killed.

I've posted the passage 3 times now in this thread. I don't see how you can reasonably interpret it any other way, and what Jephtah did fits the command in Leviticus precisely.

Not only that, but Jephthah's daughter insists that her father carry out the vow, thus cementing the case that Jephthah had not misapplied the rules. If what Jephthah had done were unusual and illegal, wouldn't we expect the daughter to argue that case, instead of willingly giving herself up to be killed?

This suggests the story is older than Deuteronomy.

Gundulf

No argument that the person 'devoted' was put to death. Whether or not this is understood as a 'sacrifice' is what we are debating. Leviticus (nor anywhere in the Bible, to my knowledge) does not use the terminology of 'sacrifice' to describe things 'devoted' to the Lord - correct me if I'm wrong. The Bible uses the term 'sacrifice' for many things - these 'devotions' to the Lord not being one of them. Further, things 'devoted' to the Lord were NOT offered as burnt offerings.


So, to sum up:

-A burnt offering is not a 'devotion' to the Lord.
-a 'sacrifice' is not a 'devotion' to the Lord.
-Jephthah 'sacrificed' his daughter as a 'burnt offering'.
-(And, incidentally, nothing in Judges 12 refers to a 'devotion')

Ergo.... What Jephthah was doing was not a 'devotion' in the context of Leviticus 27.


No, "devote" = "promised for destruction" in the context of Leviticus 27. You're interpreting it as a 'sacrifice', but this is absent from the text.



If you are to 'devote' something to the Lord, then you don't offer it as a burnt offering - you just kill it. A lesson King Saul learned the hard way, no?


And that Jephthah's daugher is just as confused as her father proves what, exactly? She was also victim to the warped, syncratistic worship that was epidemic in Israel at the time? Micah in ch 17 insisted that a Levite Priest was to become his personal priest, and live with him in his house complete with shrines and images and idols - at which point he said, "Now I know that the Lord will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest."

I see a very consistent narrative showing, in case after case, that the entire population had become very, very confused about the laws of God.

This suggests the story is older than Deuteronomy.[/QUOTE]


That, or it suggests that the story was written with Deuteronomy in mind, to show that Jephthah had become so warped in his understanding of the Mosaic law, and so entrapped with syncratistic practices from the religions of neighboring countries, that he would so obviously disobey the clear teaching of the Mosaic law.

John Kesler

When a scientist states that evolution is a theory, is it his or her fault that the "general population" may think that "theory" means a hunch or unsubstantiated guess? By the same token, just because the popular conception of "human sacrifice" may be limited to the killing of one person at a time doesn't change the fact that herem, as understood by its practitioners, was human sacrifice--the killing of people for a deity.

Let me ask you this: Were the Moabites "primitive" when they believed that killing humans was pleasing to their god Chemosh? (See my post in which I quote from the Moabite Stone.) If not, why not? If so, then it is nothing but special pleading to argue that killing people as a sacrifice to Yahweh isn't primitive, but killing for Chemosh is.


These comments show that you don't understand the way in which "sacrifice" is used. It is not a synonym for mass killing of enemy forces, nor is it strictly a "sacrifice" in the sense that the conquering army is "sacrificing" the right to the spoils. Herem entails taking something out of the human realm, where it can be bought, sold, or used by humans, and devoting it strictly to the deity's use. War in the Hebrew Bible is not a very big book; you would do well to invest a few hours of your time to read it.

cajela

So Gundulf, if Jephthah was such a bad guy in making this promise, why is he so highly praised in the New Testament? Hebrews ch 11.