neilgodfrey

Why is Abraham a hero for being willing to kill his son because of his obedience to his faith that it's God's will, and why is God thought to be the best god because he did kill his son to save the world, yet everyone gets all shuffle footed and looking for alibis at the mere hint that Jephthah did the same?

Would the rabbis and Christians have put a different spin on the story if Jephthah's daughter was a boy?

makerowner

Sheshbazzar, I don't understand why you think that Jephthah didn't kill his daughter. It seems quite clear to me: "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. (עלה)" The word `olah is translated in the KJV as 'burnt offering' 264 times, and 'burnt sacrifice' 21 times, with one each for 'go up' and 'ascent'; it's translated as something to do with ritual sacrifice more than 98% of the time!
Jephthah goes on to say "And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot take back my vow." (Judges 11:35 RSV) Then just to make sure, the author adds: "And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. [...]" (Judges 11:39 RSV)

Sheshbazzar

Yep, just like the U.S. Calvary inflicted on the Native Americans.

Well, if they were to retain their "trade value" it would be necessary to zealously guard their valuable virginity, "used goods" would not be worth near as much at the bargaining table. What foreigner's did with these foreign women when they got their hands on them, was the recipient's responsibility.
Semantics,
When The Great White Father ordered His army to go forth and hunt down and kill the People of The Nations, when His warriors ran down the women with their infants, and the little children, and thrust them through with swords, and burned them in their villages with with fire, to appease and to satisfy The Great White Father, Was the U.S. Army engaged in "human sacrifice"?
Or in a more modern context, when Saddam had entire Kurdish villages slaughtered was it "human sacrifice" or just plain nasty old slaughter?

What I'm getting at is the "acceptability" of the offering, Yahweh was very particular as to what would be an acceptable "sacrifice" on HIS altar, not wanting any defective goods offered to HIM on HIS altar.
All enemies of His people were ipso-facto "unclean" and thus unworthy as "sacrifices". The priests of Molech and Baal weren't so particular.

The greater portion of the Jephthah story revolves around Jephthah attempting to reason with the King of the children of Ammon. (Jdg. 11:12-33)
His "history arguments" are drawn from events recorded in the books of the Torah and Joshua.
It would seem that if he was aware of Israelite "history" so as to be able to employ it, (v. 16-26) that "history" would have also included Moses and what was taught in the "wilderness" and remembered "three hundred years" (v.16 & 26)
Unless you are willing to go so far out on a limb as to make the claim that all of verses 16 through 26 were redacted into the text from a Torah composed at a latter date than the the time of Judges and the story of Jephthah?
Of course that would solve that problem, but at the expense of creating ten thousand thornier ones to replace it.

Right now, I have much greater reason to have doubt about your doubts, than to doubt the historical sequence of the Book of Judges being composed following The Torah and Book of Joshua.
It is agreed by most Biblical scholars that the source material for the Torah's stories was very ancient, whereas the contents of Joshua forward reflect a much latter stratum of material, from late Bronze Age transitioning into the Iron Age.
However if you would like to present evidence that the Torah and The Law of Moses are of latter composition than The Book of Judges, I would certainly like to be able to examine such evidence.

Sheshbazzar

" Lets step back for a moment and reassess, this "vow" that Jephthah made, when he made it, evidently by the text, it was a private matter between him and Yahweh his Elohim. basically, that in his prayers he had made a promise.
Now he could have just kept the matter to himself, and no one would have been any the smarter. But he first "lets the cat out of the bag" when he is greeted by his daughter.
This is where it gets interesting because both he, and his daughter seem to be of one mind that the penalty incurred by him breaking his vow would be of a worse consequence than her willingly submitting to becoming "DEVOTED" to Yahweh (whatever the term might entail in this context)
The narrative makes it quite clear how much he loves and values his daughter, his only child. (and her, for her part, her care for her father)

Any father placed by his own rash words into such straits, and in such distress would normally rather choose to shoulder and bear his own responsibility, and what ever penalty it was that would be laid upon him, to spare his only child from certain destruction by burning just to save his own ass.

Thus it seems to me that whatever this "DEVOTION" (in this context) actually consisted of, it was seen by both the father and the daughter to be the preferable choice, as the lesser of two penalties.
This is why I do not believe that the narrative was intended to indicate that the daughter was actually consigned to be burned on an altar."

Then of course as I have brought up before, by that time, Jephthah, to perform the vow, would have been subject to some exacting rules.
He would have had to deliver both her, and a sum of money to the Priests of the Levites (Deut. 17:9-12 & Leviticus 27:1-8)
These having no other means of livelihood among the children of Israel would demand their due, and their exclusive right to perform the services of The Altar of sacrifice.
However, the Priests also held the sole discretion over how The Law, and how their religious traditions were to be interpreted, and how, and when any Law was to be enforced, or be set aside, or even in some instances, be entirely reversed in its injunction.
Earlier in this thread I called attention to how Moses had strictly demanded circumcision, (a command with NO exception or "escape clause") yet he totally restrained and prevented the practice for the entire rest of his life.
That is one example of an "unwritten Torah" that totally and effectively overruled the "written" Torah.
In Judaism to this day, there are commandments that are restrained, and laws that are reversed.
So it really does not matter how many times you can "prove" that any particular word means any certain thing and nothing else.
What the Books say ("what is written") and what actually went on ("what is NOT written") are in many instances, two different things.

makerowner

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because I think the whole point of the passage was that obeying your vows to YHWH is more important than anything else, even your love for your children. The death of a child was certainly a heavy price, but (especially in the case of a daughter) not the heaviest price you could pay.

Sure, I don't see any reason to believe that this particular event happened. I don't know of any evidence one way or the other, so I assume it's mythical. I also don't know of any evidence one way or the other about whether the Israelites practiced human sacrifice. There are hints of the practice in the OT, like in Lev. 27:29 "No one devoted, who is to be utterly destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death." I don't know whether or not the Levitical priests would have carried out this sacrifice, or even whether there was an organized priesthood at the time, but the text in Judges seems very clear to me: you make a vow to YHWH, you have to fulfill it. Jephthah makes the vow to sacrifice his daughter, his daughter says he has to fulfill it, and then the text says that he did fulfill it; there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for interpretation.

Sheshbazzar

Ummm, everyone is "not getting all shuffle footed" so far in this thread I have been the only one holding the position that Jephthah DID NOT offer up his daughter as a "burnt offering".
In fact if you look back to posts #8, 17, and 19, you will find that our "Christian" representative "sugarhitman", was right there in the thick of being Jephthah's
"friend", going along with, and even pressing the charge that poor 'ol Jephthah was indeed guilty of performing human sacrifice on his own daughter.
In the last block of text in post #47 in this thread you will find how strongly I objected to this "Christian" so ready and willing to find fault and "sell Jephthah down river".

Sheshbazzar

What then do you think would be a heaviest price Jephthah could pay?
To the best of my knowledge the worst penalty contained within the Law of Moses is simply death. (or was there so early, already a concept of or hope of an after-life, with a possibility of Divine punishment? You do know that most non-christian Bible scholars are going to reject that reasoning?)
So in this instance it would either be his death, or his daughters death, but then he was the one totally responsible for putting himself in that position, and therefore ought to be willing to forego the continuance of his own life to preserve his innocent daughter's life.
My bet would be that they were both aware that the Priesthood would "commute" the sentence into a life time of separation unto Yahweh's service,
and that was preferable to either dying.

Sheshbazzar

The way I see it, texts like these were composed for the very purpose of promoting ethical discussions of what "right" and "wrong" is, and were not intended to be taken as dogmatic pronouncements of "that's the way it is, tough titty!" or as actual "historical" accounts. The Rabbi's seemed to have somewhat understood it this way when they created the Midrash.
The idea of an "inerrant Bible" came along much latter.
This is why I am comfortable with seeking out and exploring other possible interpretations and consequences of Biblical texts,
So, yes, it is "just a story" to me also, only one with a purpose, and I see no benefit in being so dogmatic and closed-minded, that everything "written of old" can have but only one "official" and "authorised" correct interpretation.
I have given my unorthodox views on these Jephthah passages at length now, no one has to move one iota from that dogmatic rut that they are so deeply entrenched in.
From here out you either discuss the possibilities or just continue repeating your same tired old mantras,

sugarhitman

The wages of sin is death, and every man has commited them which results in death. But Jesus (according to the texts ) took our sins upon Him and died in our place. So you can say He sacrificed Himself for us, sort like a love one giving you his last organ so you can live, or one who jumps in front of a bullet with your name on it. This type of sacrifice is noble. Tell me O genius would you not also do this for your kids or love ones? Or would you sacrifice them against their wills in the flame? You see these are not comparable. One involves a Man who died for us, while the other involves slaughtering babies to appease a blood thirsty false god. A BIG difference my man....A big difference. :wave:

sugarhitman

And why would an evil spirit try to prevent Saul from killing David? That evil spirit which came over Saul always tried to kill David. And besides that the text reads "The Spirit of God" and not "spirit of god." The purpose of this was to prevent Saul and his servents from suceeding in killing David. Now why would an evil spirit try and rescue David? Particularly that spirit in times past which sought to kill him? Your comment in this case is non-sense. The evil spirit of verse 9 is not the Spirit of God in verse 23, also the Spirit came upon Saul's messengers did they also have an "evil spirit?" You are the one running loose with scripture, in your pursuit of trying to convict God of condoning child-sacrifice....you and the critics have failed. :wave: