A "My Book of Bible Stories" tale that I've always hated

by JimmyPage 72 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JWoods

  Do you know what is occuring to me that is so very very strange about the WTS explanation of this story?

  They are making obvious attempts to sanitize this (and only this one) story in the OT - out of many really horrific stories to be found there.

  And yet, modern JWs would think nothing of letting their only teenage daughter die for lack of a blood transfusion. Or get teenage girls raped or killed in Malawi for nothing more than refusing to carry a cardboard ID/party card. Nothing more than a social security card is here.

  So why get all bent over on what really happened to the daughter of Jeptha even to the point of spin-twisting the bible translation?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I have read the account at Judges 11 in its entirety. I see no suggestion of human sacrifice, only a promise to sacrifice. To say that is what ultimately happened here is pure speculation and conjecture. We even have another example of a child given to serve in the temple as a vow, that of Samuel. If we look at the text, it appears that what may have been bewailed was her virginity, not her death. Either way, Jephthah's vow was rash, and is a signal warning.

  Besides, the Law was clear at Deuteronomy 18:10: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire.

  I do not see how Jephthah's vow could anull the Law, and I doubt the Levite priesthood would have sacrificed a human being on the tabernacle altar in direct conflict with it. The penalty for child sacrifice was death by stoning.

  E.W.Bullinger (Great Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrew 11 (1911) ISBN 0825422477), looks at the word "and" in the Jephthah’s vow (Judges 11:31: "whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering"). As he explains [8] the Hebrew word ? that is translated in the above passage as "and" is often used as a disjunctive, and means "or", when there is a second proposition. Indeed this rendering is suggested in the margin of the A.V. Bullinger goes on to give examples from the Bible where the same word has been translated as "or". According to him, the right translation of this passage is: "whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering." Jephthah’s daughter, being the first that came out of the house, was thus, according to Bullinger, dedicated to God. He also says:

  "In any case, it should have been unlawful, and repugnant to Jehovah, to offer a human being to Him as a burnt-offering, for His acceptance. Such offerings were common to heathen nations at that time, but it is noteworthy that Israel stands out among them with this great peculiarity, that human sacrifices were unknown in Israel."

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  JD,

  Had your conscience been "educated" by Ancient Near Eastern standards you wouldn't see anything "evil" in the story (and yes, I take it "literally"); instead you would see the sacrifice of a leader to save his people (compare 2 Kings 3:27 in a nearby setting, where the king sacrifices his son to Kamosh to save Moab from Israel and Yhwh -- and that works!), plus his loyalty to the oath after the victory; by giving voice to the victim the Biblical narrative adds the additional touch of tragedy (in almost Greek fashion).

  Incidentally, the ongoing evolution of Judaism and Christianity was instrumental in building your conscience which now sees "evil" in the story.
• 

  John Doe

  Had your conscience been "educated" by Ancient Near Eastern standards you wouldn't see anything "evil" in the story (and yes, I take it "literally"); instead you would see the sacrifice of a leader to save his people

  Do you find it ironic that God shares the same contemporary values as the society who worships him?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Had your conscience been "educated" by Ancient Near Eastern standards you wouldn't see anything "evil" in the story (and yes, I take it "literally"); instead you would see the sacrifice of a leader to save his people (compare 2 Kings 3:27 in a nearby setting, where the king sacrifices his son to Kamosh to save Moab from Israel and Yhwh -- and that works!), plus his loyalty to the oath after the victory; by giving voice to the victim the Biblical narrative adds the additional touch of tragedy (in almost Greek fashion).

  The "rash vow" and "sacrificial child" is a common motif. If it was actual sacrifice in Judges, then the plot is similar to other stories. Agamenon was going to have his daughter Iphigeneia sacrificed before the fleet set sail to Troy. However when he does so, she is taken away and a doe replaces her. Iphigeneia herself is taken to Thrace, were she becomes a priestess of Artemis. Artemis was the offended goddess that was preventing the sailing of the fleet.

  In both stories we see a father that goes out to war. A divinity is set in motion either by a vow, or by giving the divinity offense. The hero loses his offspring and she is given to a special service to the divinity. In the case of Isaac, like Iphigeneia, the human sacrifice is miraculously replaced by an animal.

  BTS
• 

  JWoods

  But then, just for sake of argument, (as nobody really even knows if this story is real or not - let alone if real sacrifice took place) -

  If he was not intending to really sacrifice somebody, why would he SAY SO in the FIRST PLACE? He expected a goat or whatever to come and "greet" him?

  And, if ("an animal") - (in this case temple service) were actually substituted, then why would the account not say so...certainly the one about Isaac did.

  My take on this is that probably it was a common Eastern fable (like the flood) - and that like much of the OT, you just cannot stamp it with much literal reality.
• 

  Narkissos

  JD: Yes, but I find it even more ironic that we wouldn't be able to see the irony of a modern religion (e.g. UU) sharing modern values... only later generations with different values would see it.

  BTS,

  The core of Deuteronomy reflects Josiah's reform in the late 7th century BC. The Torah as a whole is even later. Interestingly the book of Judges preserves older traditions.

  We even have a intermediate link with Ezekiel 20:25f where Yahweh is remembered as responsible for firstborn sacrifices (while in the Torah they are prohibited, all firstborn being redeemed) but the whole thing is explained as a "bad command in punishment".
• 

  undercover

  That (Jepthah's daughter's sacrifice) would not fit in with that Jehovah did not approve of human sacrifices.

  But Jehovah does approve of human sacrifices today...

  (hint: blood doctrine)
• 

  Narkissos

  The Iphigeneia parallel is very interesting, especially when you consider that the substitution motif is a secondary development of the story, indicating a very similar evolution in Greek and Jewish conscience.
• 

  JWoods

  The Iphigeneia parallel is very interesting, especially when you consider that the substitution motif is a secondary development of the story, indicating a very similar evolution in Greek and Jewish conscience.

  Also interesting is the fact that this pretty much spells it out that she is taken as a priestess, while the OT account is vague to say the least.

  Could the celebrated WT scholars have read the Iphigeneia account and sort of trasmuted it?

  BTW - what the hell is this doing in a book for children anyway?