Jack the Bodiless

I've seen apologists argue that Jephtah's daughter wasn't really sacrificed: she was "given over to God" (essentially, she became the Jewish equivalent of a nun: hence her regret that she was still a virgin).

And I've seen similar excuses made for the 32 virgins sacrificed to God in Numbers 31. I think it's rather obvious that this, at least, has to be baloney: they shared the same fate as the cattle and so forth, and it seems somewhat imprudent to let these girls loose in your temple after butchering their parents and siblings.

There is also the customary sacrifice of the firstborn son: "Ex.22:29, Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me". If these people "became priests" as apologists have suggested, this would lead to a huge surplus of priests (most of the male population would be priests).

Does anyone know of any evidence for the actual existence of religious orders at this time, that these "sacrifices" could have become members of? Or is it safe to assume that these are entirely apologetic inventions?

Leviticus 27:28-29 would appear to argue against the existence of this form of non-lethal "devotion to God":

Koyaanisqatsi

And, just exactly how does one "give" somebody else over to god?



Don't we all have to individually determine (of our own free will) whether to believe in god?

Jack the Bodiless

Well, the authors of the OT weren't really into "free will". This was the "Darwinian" phase of the religion: only the openly devout get to live.

I've heard that the Jews still have a custom of offering a coin to the priest as a "substitute" for the firstborn son. What's their current position on what the traditional alternative to the coin is? What's the father supposed to be paying for, exactly?

DMB

We see the apologetics of the squeamish in the Iphigineia story, where initially she is cruelly misled into believing that she is to be married and is then killed as a sacrifice to Artermis by her own father, Agamemnon, in order for a favourable wind to take the Greek ships towards Troy.

Later reworking has the goddess miraculously substituting a deer at the last moment (unnoticed by any of the Greeks) and the girl ending up as a priestess of Artermis until finally being reunited with her brother.

It's a bit like the 18th-century reworking of King Lear to give it a happy ending.

GakuseiDon

I've seen that, too. But the point of that passage is about making rash oaths, not sacrifice. So even if the guy sacrificed his daughter, it doesn't mean that there was a regular practise of human sacrifice, just one occasion due to a rash oath.

I think they DO share the same fate - they are given to "the Levites, who keep charge of the tabernacle of the Lord". It doesn't say the girls were sacrificed, anymore than it says the animals were sacrificed. The girls would have become slaves, and the animals farm animals. (I'm not sure, but the animals for sacrifice were offered up by the public, not just by the Levites, so there's no need to assume that the Levites had to use the animals for sacrifice).

As for "let these girls loose", you realise they were only 1 in 500, don't you? The other 499 in 500 would have been running around loose anyway.

Jack the Bodiless

It was strictly forbidden for non-priests to perform religious rites, or for anyone to perform "unorthodox" rites (a king was supposedly struck by leprosy for usurping the priestly role, and those using the wrong sort of incense were struck dead by God).

So the priests would have sacrificed Jephtah's daughter in the approved manner.
They are given to Eleazar the priest, for a "heave offering unto the Lord".
This was a share of the virgins kept alive by the soldiers as war booty. The others wouldn't have been "running around loose". The soldiers were told to keep them "for yourselves".

In other words: the sacrificial virgins weren't destined to be redistributed as slaves, because they were taken from those already enslaved.

Jack the Bodiless

Let me put it this way:

Is there any actual historical evidence that it was normal for cattle and other goods offered to a priest as a "heave offering to the Lord" to be redistributed in this fashion, still alive?

Or is this a convenient belief of apologists?

Doctor X

Jack:

It is apology.

Somewhere on a few of these threads, I quote Collins from his published address to the Society of Biblical Literature--I do not have the publication in front of me--where he discusses the matter.

The importance of squashing the daughter is rash decision but also that human sacrifice was both accepted and expected. Indeed--what I get being away from my references!--a Canaanite (?) king sacrifices his son and his god responds by squishing the attacking Israelites!

The demand for the first born is also attested without the allowance for substitution.

Now, yes, these practices eventually passed. The Collins article has a reference to the practice which is on "my list" of books to find.

--J.D.

Ah . . . found the reference from another post I made:

Herem:--the Ban

As stated, the passage in question represents "the ban" or "the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." YHWH demands this sacrifice, and Saul fails to perform it--fully.

Later apologist, such as the writer of the vaunted article, appear to lack this understanding. To avoid what the text clearly states, he makes up historical incidents and concerns--"gee willikers, Saul!! How can we feed the kids?"

Indeed, in the primary reference, Collins cites 1 Sam 15.3 as a representative example:

If one believes the vaunted article, apparently the Israelites had no reason to keep useful animals. . . . YHWH proves a most considerate deity--he cares about the animals so much he demands their destruction as well!

Someone inform PETA. . . .

Collins continues:

Child Sacrifice:

Collins continues:

One needs to recognize these attrocities for what they represent--mythic representation of human sacrifice to one's god.

Or . . . one can just make thing up and bury one's head in the sands on the shores of the River DeNile.

--J.D.

References:

John J. Collins, "The Zeal of Phinehas: the Bible and the Legitimation of Violence," Journal of Biblical Literature, 122, 3-21, 2003.

Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

George Foot Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1901), 299.

Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 28-29.

Philip D. Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel's Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

mark9950

Why did the angel of YHWH stop abraham from killing isaac.

E is not the same god as YHWH you said it on a different post about jesus the final sacrifice.

E was the one that called abram to kill isaac and YHWHs angel stopped him.

Doctor X

Mark:

Two different sources--on written with E and one written with YHWH--stitched together. It is reasonable to conclude that the author of the YHWH portion "softened" the E story.

A good reference is Friedman's, Who Wrote the Bible? contained in the Recommended Reading section.

--J.D.

[Edited because he should not post on merlot.--Ed.]