Obviously, the idea of literal human sacrifice, as in binding people to alters and killing them, has never been a part of Jewish tradition according to what written texts we have (and there is no reason to doubt this based on archaelogy.)
Howeve, in that ill-fated "Messiah" thread (which I stayed away from when open and have now just read for the first time) Lisa refers to "The pagan idea of human sacrifice."
As far as I can tell, pagan here refers to Christianity, all right, fair enough, we are as much pagans as anyone else.
But the sacrifice of Jesus was a self-sacrifice (except in Muslim tradition where it was the sacrifice of some one [not Jesus], but let us not go there) which is not at all foreign to Jewish tradition.
I am refering, in part, to the idea of Kiddush Hashem (????? ???), although I did not know this until I looked it up.
What I did know is that, during the Jewish revolts against Hellenistic and Roman rule, there were many instances of self-sacrificing heroes. Some of these are recorded in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are using the word 'sacrifice' in two different meanings; one is the literal one of 'an offering to a god', the other is the metaphorical one of 'giving up something'. Hence your confusion. The latter is not foreign to any human tradition; the former, according to Lisa at least, is not to be found in Judaism. It's not quite clear to me how this fits with Abraham and Isaac, but whatever.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Yeah, that's what imediately popped into my head reading that... " *cough* Isaac *end cough* "
On the other hand, Christians definitely ALSO have alot of self sacrificers after Jesus... but then again, so does ANYTHING... Heck, Countries ask people to die for them all the time, and people have risked their lives for countless causes.. (tying oneself to a tree for example)..
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Obviously, the idea of literal human sacrifice, as in binding people to alters and killing them, has never been a part of Jewish tradition according to what written texts we have (and there is no reason to doubt this based on archaelogy.)
Pel,
I don't start too many sentences with the word "Obviously," for a few reasons, the primary reason is that there isn't much in this wide world that's obvious to everyone. For example, I think about Isaac being bound and within an inch of his life as a human sacrifice averted. It could have gone the other way.
And what God did to Job or the first sons of the Egyptians smells like sacrifice. I guess a simple shift from, "Obviously," to "From what I understand," would not only make your prose more attractive, it may even make you a better person.
[ November 25, 2006, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hinnom valley is notorious.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
There is one example of Human Sacrifice in the old testament, but it involves a daughter so I am not sure it counts...
A prize to the person who can point it out to me, I remember a daughter going off to prepare herself for a time after a father told her that her death would be the price for some divine intervention, increase in the price of wheat or a foreign army getting the piles, I am not sure what it was...
Also Lot, the only righteous man in town, offered his virgin daughters as a sacrifice to protect his guests, but there is no certainty that they would have suffered worse then gang rape and Lot got turned down anyway...
Maybe Abraham pimping his wife Sara to Pharaoh counts as a sacrifice to a Pagan god, since Pharaoh was a god, but again this was not fatal and she was just a woman...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The story of Jephthah's daughter is in Judges 11.
Her father promised to offer to God the first thing that came to mreet him when he returned home if God would give him victory in battle. It should be noted that nowhere does it say God endorsed this plan, asked for, or desired that particular sacrifice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There is far more than one example of human sacrifice in the Old Testament.
But those examples are typically condemnation of Jews adopting the religious rites of neighboring pagan religions and some of these involved human sacrifice.
"All other references to Moloch use mlk only in the context of "passing children through fire lmlk", whatever is meant by lmlk, whether it means "to Moloch" or means something else. It has traditionally been understood to mean burning children alive to the god Moloch."
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Thank you dkw, even with the caveat I think it counts, there is no evidence of God specifically telling people they owed a pair of doves a sheep and a red bull, sacrifice was generally a combination of conscience and tradition or need, so the pressing need for victory justified the sacrifice too God, even to the point of human life in the mind of this devout man who made it into the Old Testament.
I do say it proves human sacrifice on the part of the Jews. (and a bit of ignorance about her peoples history on the part of a certain person)
Your prize is an all you can eat dinner at Ryan's buffet, just send me a copy of you bill and a self addressed stamped envelope.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There is also the near-sacrifice of Isaac, which made the point: you can love God with all your heart and not kill your family members. But under all that animal sacrifice we still had the ultimate sacrifice: love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your strength.
The sacrifice never went away. We just were given a way to do it without hurting each other. Instead, we really can do both meanings of sacrifice: giving of oneself, and giving to God.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Christ was the last living sacriface, hence the title 'Lamb of God' no more blood needs to stain altars...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:no more blood needs to stain altars
Why do you think God demanded blood in the first place?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
As it happens I just watched a fascinating history channel discussion of the Aztecs. They where as bloody as any group, the flies must have been thick on the temple walls. It is posited that blood was known to be the 'water of life' the most precious substance. Sacrifice of what is most precious too the god's is true devotion.
Blood from the innocent, blood from the strong, blood from the pure, it was always blood blood and blood. The Druids and the Jews and the Aztecs all poured out blood.
I am not going to say that they did not know what they were about, that they were delusional and hopelessly primitive, that would be pretty arrogant of me since I know that the average primitive man was far more competent then most city dwellers I know.
Yet I have to believe that they had failed to conceive of a spiritual nature that does not need food and drink and that does not know hunger for the things man feels. I know in the case of the Jews their was certainly a feeling that God could be bargained with, appeased and flattered. (there is considerables scripture devoted to this activity)
Gods were always given the worst traits of men and beasts, one supposes that this is about controlling fear. The things man fears he wants to get a handle on or find a measure of control over, in order to manage it and go on.
So did gods demand blood? I cannot say, the people of the time certainly thought so and they were there. Why did the people give in to such a demand? Clearly it was for power over the unknown.
[ November 25, 2006, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is far more than one example of human sacrifice in the Old Testament.
But those examples are typically condemnation of Jews adopting the religious rites of neighboring pagan religions and some of these involved human sacrifice.
"All other references to Moloch use mlk only in the context of "passing children through fire lmlk", whatever is meant by lmlk, whether it means "to Moloch" or means something else. It has traditionally been understood to mean burning children alive to the god Moloch."
Actually, there's no evidence that there was ever a deity called Molech. When the Hebrew text speaks of a sacrifice l'something, it can be understood in one of two ways. The prefix "l" means "to" or "as". For example, when God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (a story, incidentally, which illustrates the fact that we don't do human sacrifice), He tells him to raise him (Isaac) up l'olah, or "as an olah", which is a sacrifice that is burnt entirely.
Archaeology from Carthage tells us that the Carthaginians (who were Phoenicians) had a kind of sacrifice called a mulk. Since Hebrew, and other semitic languages like it, including the tongue in Carthage, is all consonants, and the vowels are a matter of tradition, this mulk sacrifice can be vocalized as molech just as easily.
A mulk sacrifice wasn't always a human sacrifice. More common was the mulk immer, which was the sacrifice of a lamb. A mulk adam, or human sacrifice, was only done in extreme situations, and was always the child of a prominent citizen, like a king or a noble.
What distinguished this sort of sacrifice from others was that it was intended to change the mind of the deity receiving it. The word l'himalech in Hebrew means "to change ones mind", and a mulk sacrifice was basically a "suasion offering". That is, more than any other type of sacrifice, it was seen as kind of magic. As though the killing of an animal or a child would force the deity to change his mind about something.
Most Jewish prayers tend to shy away from asking God to do something. More often, we phrase it as "May it be Thy will that..." The idea being that ultimately, it's what God wants that matters. We're just hoping that God wants what we want. The only time we're more forward about it is in the Amida prayer, which was composed by the Men of the Great Assembly, at the end of prophetic times, and with prophetic input.
FWIW.
[Edit: Heh. I didn't click on the Wiki link. Oh, well...]
[ November 25, 2006, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: there is no evidence of God specifically telling people they owed a pair of doves a sheep and a red bull,
Again, you really need to open up a Bible and try reading it. Half the Pentateuch is God commanding us to bring specific sacrifices.
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: sacrifice was generally a combination of conscience and tradition or need, so the pressing need for victory justified the sacrifice too God, even to the point of human life in the mind of this devout man who made it into the Old Testament.
Devout, my heinie. Yiftach (Jephthah) is our prime example of the need to be careful with vows.
Jewish tradition asks why Yiftach didn't go to Pinchas, the Torah leader of that generation, and ask for his vow to be annulled? After all, that's clearly an option in an outrageous case such as this.
The answer is that Yiftach felt that as the temporal leader of the generation, Pinchas should come to him. And Pinchas felt that as the spiritual leader of the generation, Yiftach should come to him. And the poor girl got caught between the pride of the two men.
Our tradition adds that following this, Yiftach died of a terrible wasting disease as punishment for his sin, and Pinchas lost his ability to receive Ruach HaKodesh (the Divine Spirit).
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I do say it proves human sacrifice on the part of the Jews. (and a bit of ignorance about her peoples history on the part of a certain person)
You can "say" anything you like. But someone who (a) doesn't know who Jephthah is, (b) thinks that Bathsheba was the queen who mocked David, and (c) doesn't think that God ever commanded specific sacrifices, doesn't really have enough of a knowledge base to be taken seriously.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Christ was the last living sacriface, hence the title 'Lamb of God' no more blood needs to stain altars...
Human sacrifice is an abomination. To imagine that God would do such a thing is appalling.
Once the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, the sacrificial service will begin again.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Yes Bathsheba was the one that tricked him on his death bed into favoring her son, in the tradition of Esau and Abraham telling Pharaoh his wife was his sister and letting him have at it, proving that what God was really rewarding was treachery.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Again, you really need to open up a Bible and try reading it. Half the Pentateuch is God commanding us to bring specific sacrifices.
In general circumstance as recorded by Law, not "You Joe, you owe me a white turkey, bring some cranberry sauce too."
I am sure that you understand that America is against any global religious tyrant and any mandatory living sacrifice (not to mention it is icky), so while we may be in your corner while Islam is frisky, our might will still be there when the next power tries to make its play. The Brit's are fond of their blood sausage and I know bottom feeders are popular in China, so I would not look for the big win any time soon...
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It might help to remember that Christ's suffering and death were only temporary conditions that he willingly endured, he had to pass through death (Sheol) to open the path to resurrection for the rest of us. So it was not really like a goat or a bird, on the third day his drinking with the boys again.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Going surprisingly well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: I am versed enough in my Old Testament to know that when God through a prophet condemns the Jews and says, "Because thou hast passed thy children through the fire." That it is most likely because the Jews were passing their children through the fire.
I read that there is contention about the actual existence of an Idol or deity named Moloch, but there is plenty of evidence for his existence too.
I really don't think you can state for certain one way or another. Either way humans were being sacrificed by Jews against the will of God. Certainly a sin that time and time again is condemned by the prophets is idolatry. Since these rites often consisted of sexual rites, self mutilation, and even human sacrifice its no wonder God so strongly condemned it.
General Sax: You seem to think that Jesus fulfilling the law of Moses therefore completed the need for sacrifice. While I can agree that the sacrificial rites in the law were fulfilled, you must realize that animal sacrifice predates the law of moses by many MANY years.
Genesis 8:20
"20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar."
Its not unreasonable to believe that if God required men to sacrifice in this manner before Moses, it is a possibility that he will one day require it again.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Since these rites often consisted of sexual rites, self mutilation, and even human sacrifice its no wonder God so strongly condemned it.
*cough* According to the prophets who are condemning it. It doesn't occur to you that perhaps there might be two sides to this story? For example, both Romans and Greeks presumably practised 'idolatry' by Jewish standards. Yet oddly enough, nobody accuses them of self-mutilation (speaking of which, how d'you like your foreskins? Broiled, roasted, with ketchup?) or human sacrifice. We only get this when the Bible is the main source of our information about a civilisation. Curious, that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Yes Bathsheba was the one that tricked him on his death bed into favoring her son, in the tradition of Esau and Abraham telling Pharaoh his wife was his sister and letting him have at it, proving that what God was really rewarding was treachery.
Wow. You certainly have very little respect for God. Not that it's really so surprising, but I'm surprised that you're being so obvious about it.
Now... are you saying "in the tradition of Esau" and in the tradition of "Abraham telling Pharaoh is wife was his sister", or are you implying that Esau also told Pharaoh that his wife was his sister? If the former, where do you see Esau being treacherous, and if the latter, where do you see Esau telling Pharaoh anything at all?
It's actually kind of fun watching you butcher the Bible. Next thing, you'll be talking about when Moses' brothers sold him to the Babylonians, or when Levi killed Goliath by knocking down the pillars of the temple after Queen Esther cut off his hair.
Bathsheba didn't trick David into doing anything. David had designated Solomon as his heir. And Abraham didn't lie; Sarah was his kinswoman. To the extent that he bent the truth a bit, it was clearly justified by the way in which Pharaoh kidnapped Sarah.
There were times in our history when loving Christians decreed that Jews who circumcized their sons would be killed, and the child killed as well. In some cases, we went ahead proudly and obeyed God anyway. In other cases, we absolutely lied to the Christians. What else? That's what you'd call treachery? Lying to oppressors to protect ourselves from their villainy?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Originally Posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why do you think God demanded blood in the first place?
There are several passages in the New Testament that discusses the relationship between Death and Sin. The most commony used example is: "The Wages of sin is death" (I think that's Romans 6:23). Another one is James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."
Since God is immortal and since He can have nothing to do with sin- we drive Him out of our own lives when we do sin. It is this rejection of God that makes us mortal (both in our sinful nature (original sin) and "active sin" (that is willful and dilberate acts of evil))
Therefore something must die to pay for our sins. In pre-Christ eras with the Israelites animal sacrfices were required. But since Christ died for us- that one sacrifice works for the good all people throughout many a millennia. ("Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Romans 5:18)
At least that's what I believe at the present moment. Bear in mind I'm a high school kid with no actual training on the matter- except that what I read in the bible. Therefore I assume that my beliefs over time will be refined and sharpened.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: I am versed enough in my Old Testament to know that when God through a prophet condemns the Jews and says, "Because thou hast passed thy children through the fire." That it is most likely because the Jews were passing their children through the fire.
Isaiah was talking to Ahaz. A viciously wicked king, who abandoned the law and brought idols into the Temple. It wasn't something that was in general practice any more than idolatry was.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I really don't think you can state for certain one way or another. Either way humans were being sacrificed by Jews against the will of God.
I disagree. There were outlaws who did such things, just as there are Americans who commit murder. Saying that Jews sacrificed humans is like saying that Americans are murderers.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Since these rites often consisted of sexual rites, self mutilation, and even human sacrifice its no wonder God so strongly condemned it.
*cough* According to the prophets who are condemning it. It doesn't occur to you that perhaps there might be two sides to this story? For example, both Romans and Greeks presumably practised 'idolatry' by Jewish standards. Yet oddly enough, nobody accuses them of self-mutilation (speaking of which, how d'you like your foreskins? Broiled, roasted, with ketchup?) or human sacrifice. We only get this when the Bible is the main source of our information about a civilisation. Curious, that.
Actually, the cult of Ishtar in Babylon is known from extra-biblical sources, and it's pretty clear that sex was a common part of the worship. The Bible is one of the few sources about ancient forms of worship that doesn't harp on the sexual aspect of it.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius Going surprisingly well.
I must agree- I'm rather pleased with the way this is going.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Therefore something must die to pay for our sins.
God says otherwise. God says that it is repentence that pays for our sins. "I do not desire the death of the wicked, but rather than he return from his wickedness and live."
Everyone is responsible for his own sin. The idea that someone or something else can bear that responsibility for us is terrible.
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: ("Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Romans 5:18)
So the idea of Original Sin, so lacking in any sense of justice whatsoever, requires the idea of someone to bear that sin, which is equally lacking in justice.
Everyone owns responsibility for his own sins. And God doesn't require of us that which we can't do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Since these rites often consisted of sexual rites, self mutilation, and even human sacrifice its no wonder God so strongly condemned it.
*cough* According to the prophets who are condemning it. It doesn't occur to you that perhaps there might be two sides to this story? For example, both Romans and Greeks presumably practised 'idolatry' by Jewish standards. Yet oddly enough, nobody accuses them of self-mutilation (speaking of which, how d'you like your foreskins? Broiled, roasted, with ketchup?) or human sacrifice. We only get this when the Bible is the main source of our information about a civilisation. Curious, that.
Actually, the cult of Ishtar in Babylon is known from extra-biblical sources, and it's pretty clear that sex was a common part of the worship. The Bible is one of the few sources about ancient forms of worship that doesn't harp on the sexual aspect of it.
Right, that's why I didn't include the sex in things the Greeks and Romans aren't accused of; and also because it don't bother me none.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: It might help to remember that Christ's suffering and death were only temporary conditions that he willingly endured, he had to pass through death (Sheol) to open the path to resurrection for the rest of us. So it was not really like a goat or a bird, on the third day his drinking with the boys again.
Elisha and Elijah resurrected the dead. Elisha even did it after he was dead himself. Neither one walked on water, but Elisha made an axe head float. Elisha did the bread and loaves thing first, as well as a neverending flask of oil. Elisha cured lepers without even needing to be there. Elijah ascended living to Heaven in a fiery chariot.
No one ever thought they were gods.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Therefore something must die to pay for our sins.
Well, that's just silly. You are arguing that sin leads to death, therefore death leads to a lack of sin! You might as well say that aging leads to death, so human sacrifice will make you younger!
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I tend to think that the things he wants us to sacrifice- to kill off are things we can give up. I lean more on the side that in the pre-Christ times (that's the best I can come up with for the time period- not sure about any official terminology) that the thing to die was an animal. Something we must sacrifice.
And then Christ came and died for all mankind. So that our animals would not have to be used as a sacrifice anymore. And now we repent by humbling ourselves before God and accept his already given sacrifice.
And through our humbleness we "kill off" our old selves and become reborn. We destroy that which we were- a sacrifice of death- and become something entirely different.
Bear in mind this is the first time I've ever tried to verbalize these ideas in an intellectual manner other than casual conversation and with people who might not share the same beliefs as me. So it probably is not coming off as well as I'd like- it's much less negative than what I presume it sounded like to you Lisa.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: It might help to remember that Christ's suffering and death were only temporary conditions that he willingly endured, he had to pass through death (Sheol) to open the path to resurrection for the rest of us. So it was not really like a goat or a bird, on the third day his drinking with the boys again.
Elisha and Elijah resurrected the dead. Elisha even did it after he was dead himself. Neither one walked on water, but Elisha made an axe head float. Elisha did the bread and loaves thing first, as well as a neverending flask of oil. Elisha cured lepers without even needing to be there. Elijah ascended living to Heaven in a fiery chariot.
No one ever thought they were gods.
Lisa there are some who would contend that in these cases the dead were simply brought back to life. That is not quite the same thing as resurrection as those who are resurrected cannot die again. That is what to at least Christians made Christ unique, in that he not only came back alive again, his body became perfect and incorruptible, incapable of death/sickness/pain/or any ill.
Just FYI, not trying to contend with you that Jesus' resurrection took place, just that in discussions with Christians, their definition of resurrection does not mesh with yours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Therefore something must die to pay for our sins
I'm not sure how that logically follows. According to the Old Testament, God reconsidered some of His "prices" more than once; I don't see why this wouldn't also be up for negotiation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I should really get some popcorn for this. The battle of the very similar Abrahamic religions continues unabated!
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I should really get some popcorn for this. The battle of the very similar Abrahamic religions continues unabated!
You bring the popcorn, I'll bring the pop.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Your prize is an all you can eat dinner at Ryan's buffet, just send me a copy of you bill and a self addressed stamped envelope.
Out of curiosity, are you buying dkw a dinner for two, or just for herself?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, by definition ANY meal she eats these days is dinner for two, neh? Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Its a buffet... she will be required to doggy bag it for her husband.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ic, do you want to tell him who dkw's husband is, or can I?
Or has your "Hatrack Insider" already filled you in on that, GS?
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: There is one example of Human Sacrifice in the old testament, but it involves a daughter so I am not sure it counts...
The daughter that sacrificed herself was Adah. She was given as a sacrifice to God, but her father did not want to kill his child. He knew he had to, so he asked her to veil her face and eyes that she not see the blow as it was dealt. She loved her father and knew that what he did was for God. She trusted God and her father, so she refused to veil herself, looked heavenward, and was killed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is pretty darn odious, if you ask me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: It should be noted that nowhere does it say God endorsed this plan, asked for, or desired that particular sacrifice.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yiftach (Jephthah) is our prime example of the need to be careful with vows.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Of course, the logical question is "why didn't God send a sheep or something to let him know that he didn't need to murder his daughter just because he spoke carelessly?"
If the answer is "careless talk costs lives," I'm going to roll my eyes. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, the answer is free will.
Which will presumably also make you roll your eyes, but I think I should get bonus points for finding an eye-roller other than the one specified.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So why would God intervene in Abraham's case, but not in Jephthah's? Is it merely that God didn't ask Jephthah for the sacrifice, and thus didn't feel as responsible for it?
If the latter, why was God -- who is angered to the point of causing plagues by many less consequential things -- not infuriated by Jephthah's sacrifice when it was carried out? If the whole thing was a colossal mistake on Jephthah's part, and God would have been perfectly willing to let the sacrifice slide, where's the nobility in sticking to his guns and whacking his own daughter?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ic, do you want to tell him who dkw's husband is, or can I?
Or has your "Hatrack Insider" already filled you in on that, GS?
Cheeky, cheeky Icarus and Rivka. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:So why would God intervene in Abraham's case, but not in Jephthah's? Is it merely that God didn't ask Jephthah for the sacrifice, and thus didn't feel as responsible for it?
Not exactly. More, the "intervention" in the first case was the intent from the beginning. At no point did God actually intend to have Avraham sacrifice his son.
Yiftach should have (and according to many did) known better. Her death is on his head, because of his pride (and possibly his ignorance).
If it helps at all, Abarbanel, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, and Metsudas David (among other commentaries) all say he did not kill her, but exiled her to a life of solitude, with no chance to have children (a state which is likened to death).
quote:If the latter, why was God -- according to my translation, at least -- "pleased" by Jephthah's sacrifice when it was carried out? Why wasn't He, say, "disgusted" or "disappointed?" Why would women laud his daughter's brave death? If the whole thing was a colossal mistake on Jephthah's part, and God would have been perfectly willing to let the sacrifice slide, where's the nobility in sticking to his guns and whacking his own daughter?
I don't see "pleased" or anything like it. Verse, please?
As for the women, they were mourning her death, NOT celebrating it. (Or, according to those who say she was not dead at all, visiting her once every season.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If it helps at all, Abarbanel, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, and Metsudas David (among other commentaries) all say he did not kill her, but exiled her to a life of solitude, with no chance to have children (a state which is likened to death).
That does help, although it seems more than a bit of a stretch.
I edited my earlier post (while you were replying, it appears) because I realized that I was working from memory and should check my sources first. Upon doing so, I realized the "pleased" bit wasn't present -- although I'm pretty sure Jephthah is still listed as one of the righteous and beloved of God elsewhere in the Torah. (Then again, if my memory of that passage is at all good, that's not a very exclusive list and doesn't imply that he couldn't've really upset God more than a few times.)
Why wouldn't the Torah disambiguate this issue by saying something like "and it was agreed by all that this was a pretty bone-headed move by Jephthah?" As recited, it still comes across as a dark sort of Aesop's Fable, a cautionary tale about the dangers of swearing idly, that just seems to casually take as a given that Jephthah had to follow through; I recognize that additional oral commentary is essential for this sort of thing, but why wouldn't "hey, you don't have to keep stupid, dangerous oaths" appear somewhere in the text?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So why would God intervene in Abraham's case, but not in Jephthah's? Is it merely that God didn't ask Jephthah for the sacrifice, and thus didn't feel as responsible for it?
Why didn't God warn me not to park somewhere where an idiot was going to drive by and smash my sideview mirror off? I would have appreciated that.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If the latter, why was God -- who is angered to the point of causing plagues by many less consequential things -- not infuriated by Jephthah's sacrifice when it was carried out?
Who says He wasn't? Or did you miss the part about the Philistines being all over us during that period of history?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If the whole thing was a colossal mistake on Jephthah's part, and God would have been perfectly willing to let the sacrifice slide, where's the nobility in sticking to his guns and whacking his own daughter?
Had he simply let the vow slide, it would have been a major sin as well. The only thing he could have done at that point was to have the vow annulled. But he was too proud to do that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I recognize that additional oral commentary is essential for this sort of thing, but why wouldn't "hey, you don't have to keep stupid, dangerous oaths" appear somewhere in the text?
Actually, you do have to keep stupid, dangerous oaths. That's why making them is generally frowned upon in Judaism.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote:If it helps at all, Abarbanel, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, and Metsudas David (among other commentaries) all say he did not kill her, but exiled her to a life of solitude, with no chance to have children (a state which is likened to death).
That does help, although it seems more than a bit of a stretch.
*shrug* It's far from the only time that similar language is used.
quote:I edited my earlier post (while you were replying, it appears) because I realized that I was working from memory and should check my sources first. Upon doing so, I realized the "pleased" bit wasn't present -- although I'm pretty sure Jephthah is still listed as one of the righteous and beloved of God elsewhere in the Torah.
Fair enough. I was rather confused when I couldn't find anything remotely similar. As for being on such a list, he's not on the two which come to mind. So if you could find a source for that, this time before I start combing through for a wild goose . . .
quote:Why wouldn't the Torah disambiguate this issue by saying something like "and it was agreed by all that this was a pretty bone-headed move by Jephthah?"
It does! The last words of 11:39 are "and this became a practice in Israel," which Rashi and others explains means that making such vows became explicitly (instead of implicitly) forbidden. (In fact, this is one of the earlier examples of a Rabbinic law, but I digress.) This is followed by telling us that (just in case anyone had missed the publicity originally, or forgot), that there were women lamenting (either with her or over her) four times a year for years thereafter.
The next section involves civil war, which several commentaries explain was due to Yiftach's same character flaw -- pride.
What do you want, letters of fire? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, um, in that situation, did the daughter get the option to not submit to being killed by her father, or would she have been expected to obey him to the extent of being complicit in her own murder?
(Thanks for the explanations, BTW. I'm half-tempted to study the oral Torah someday, just because reading the book clearly doesn't cut it. In my translation, for example, I have "It became custom in Israel that the women would go and lament her death for four days out of the year," which puts a whole different meaning on "and this became practice in Israel" -- to the extent that it's less "letters of fire" and maybe a soggy match.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'd guess the latter, assuming you believe she was killed at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
She would have had no obligation to allow him to kill her. On the contrary, she would have had an obligation to kill him first if necessary to prevent him. But socially, back then, I doubt that'd ever happen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're assuming he would be considered a rodef? Interesting. I've never considered that, nor do I recall ever seeing anything on the subject.
It could be that you are correct. I'm going to have to see if I can find anything more on this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wouldn't he? I've never seen anything either, but I can't imagine that kibud av trumps pikuach nefesh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not kibud av, but fulfilling the oath. Considering that one of the meforshim says the "harim" she went to were the Sanhedrin, but they were unable to help her, I imagine it's not so simple.
OTOH, it shouldn't top pikuach nefesh. Hmm.
(I never took it as a literal death, so it's just never been something I worried about.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Hmm. I never took it as a literal death either, and don't think that would hold up. However, if it had been, my gut reaction is that Lisa is right: the daughter would have had no obligation to submit under Jewish law, but in practice she would have had no power to do anything about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Which is why BYs should add batleth training to the curriculum.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<blink> I had to look batleth up. I've been outgeeked! Oh, the bitter shame of it all...
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Which is why BYs should add batleth training to the curriculum.
...don't get me started on the superiority of John M. Ford's Klingons to those on TNG...
(I mean, honestly, was the batleth designed to be as unwieldy as possible? But I suppose it's great for defense, which would suit the purpose here. Hmm.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:...don't get me started on the superiority of John M. Ford's Klingons to those on TNG...
As opposed to Diane Duane's Romulans? (I'm not done with The Empty Chair yet, so no spoilers, please.)
quote:I mean, honestly, was the batleth designed to be as unwieldy as possible?
As opposed to what, a lirpa?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Which is why BYs should add batleth training to the curriculum.
...don't get me started on the superiority of John M. Ford's Klingons to those on TNG...
Are we talking about blue drinks and wonky Klingon chicks?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:...don't get me started on the superiority of John M. Ford's Klingons to those on TNG...
As opposed to Diane Duane's Romulans?
Not as opposed to, but in addition to. The Rihannsu rock. I'll take her Vulcan history over that of Enterprise, too.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:I mean, honestly, was the batleth designed to be as unwieldy as possible?
As opposed to what, a lirpa?
Okay, that one I had to look up. And my answer would be (a) yes, but also (b) as opposed to a sword.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Are we talking about blue drinks and wonky Klingon chicks?
Yes, he wrote How Much for Just the Planet? too, but his contributions to Klingon culture were used only as background there. The main novel is The Final Reflection, which is told almost entirely from the Klingon point of view.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Not as opposed to, but in addition to. The Rihannsu rock.
It wasn't meant to be a choice. IMO, the novel-versions of almost every alien race that appeared in both TOS and TNG are superior to the version that showed up in TNG. Especially later TNG.
quote:I'll take her Vulcan history over that of Enterprise, too.
So yes. Then again, I'll take just about anything over Enterprise. Even Scott Bakula couldn't save that show. I liked the characters, but the plots were dreadful. And the let's-violate-all-canon bits were just obnoxious. (Even the stuff that wasn't fanon.)
quote:Okay, that one I had to look up.
I expected better of you.
quote:Yes, he wrote How Much for Just the Planet? too, but his contributions to Klingon culture were used only as background there. The main novel is The Final Reflection, which is told almost entirely from the Klingon point of view.
And the two make a perfect sequence -- read the first and laugh so hard I can't breathe, and read the second and sniffle. Very cathartic.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)