 |
| pic source |
- The Atheists were completely right, the bible is full of horrible things, God is a jerk, Jesus is overrated, and while there are a few good verses here and there, they are vastly outnumbered by bad verses
- The Christians were completely right, the bible is full of good things. Sure, there are a few passages that look bad in isolation, but when taken as a whole even those passages make sense coming from a loving God
- The truth lies between both of these extremes. There are enough passages on both sides of the ledger that each group can pay attention to stuff that fits their point of view and ignore things that don't.
When I started this, I assumed that 3 would be reality. The interesting part would be to discover how much it leans towards either option 1 or 2. I think it is important to be as fair as possible, to count both the good and bad equally. In fact, given my bias I think it is important to push things in the opposite direction a bit, try to highlight any little bit of good I come across, and dispense with the nitpicky bad things (or at least admit they are nitpicky). I think I succeed pretty well in this matter most of the time, I really try to highlight good aspects of the reading, the Christian commentaries have definitely helped me on that account a few times.
Nevertheless, after reading all of the New Testament and Genesis all I see is number 1. There are terrible things everywhere and there's not that much good stuff. What's more, the good stuff is usually mixed up with an equal portion of bad (take the sermon on the mount for example). It's hard to me to imagine someone sitting down and reading this book and thinking it came from a loving God, and yet they do. I used to think that Christians must just not read the thing, but I come across people all the time who do read it. People say they have read it cover to cover X number of times in their life. I will occasionally see someone post the challenge to read the whole bible in 90 days and chart their progress.
What the hell is going on here? How can we both read the same book and have such a different impression of it? Is it not as bad as I think and not as good as they think? I think I can make a pretty compelling argument that there is a ton of horrible things in the bible, but am I also missing a bunch of good stuff? Honestly, I don't think so. I think there are many stories that I count as bad and they count as good. Look at when God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac for example. I read that story and I'm horrified at what I see, obviously both the God character and the Abraham character here are terrible. And yet Christians will almost universally describe this as a good story because Abraham is obedient. They want the bible to be a good book, and so they twist their perception to make it good even when it is plainly not. They are seeing what they want to see.
Now the question is, am I doing the same thing from the other side? Am I looking for the bible to be a piece of shit and that is what I'm finding? I feel like I try to be as fair as possible and highlight the positive as well as the negative. I really try not to be bias, but it's pretty hard to explain the disconnect without it. Is it really reasonable for me to think they are taking a book that is THAT terrible and twisting their perception to see it as good, or am I also twisting my perception to make it worse than it is? While I think it is important for me to be self-reflective and consider my own bias here, looking at a few examples such as the Abraham and Isaac story it really does seem that I'm on solid ground. In that story there's no middle ground to be reached. God is a horrible character and so is Abraham. The question then becomes whether that story is typical of the bible or an extreme example.
Well...if I ever have to be a witness in a courtroom and they stick the Bible out for me to swear on...I'm probably going to end up in the jailhouse before they get me to swear to that angry wrathful "God" it portrays as being so terribly judgmental and downright evil in instances.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, you can swear on books other than the bible if you wish
DeleteGood...I'll ask for "50 Shades Of Grey" instead of "10,000 Shades Of Nonsense."
DeleteAre you doing the same thing? Probably, but to a lesser extent. You (and I) are reading it for what it says, and taking it to mean precisely that, in most cases. Sometimes there are nuances in language which can make "good" appear "bad" without knowing how to take it. So we've likely messed up some interpretations. However, it is extremely unlikely that we have messed up all of those interpretations, such that the "Good Book" would truly be fully good.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, how many Christians do you know who do the same kind of honest assessment, who even allow the possibility for God to have done "bad"? How many Christians compile lists segregating good verses from bad? Not very many, I would wager. :-)
True TWF..the 35 years I was a Catholic, I never read a Bible because they didn't encourage it, wanting you only to believe only the interpretations they chose.
DeleteWhen I left the religion in fury at an abusive priest one day, I decided to read it all. I stayed pretty much appalled through the whole Old Testament and threw up my hands in disgust at the last verse in it. The one in my old Catholic version declaring it is harmful to drink only water or only wine, implying those who wrote it might have been "under an alcoholic influence"... besides being "inspired" by the mean old God they wrote excuses for. That is when I decided no religion would ever be right for me again.
LOL! Anna, I am glad to find someone else who had a physical reaction/repulsion to reading the Bible! I didn't throw up, but I did feel really nauseated.
Delete"How many Christians compile lists segregating good verses from bad?"
DeleteThat's actually a really good point!
The problem is, lots of former religious atheists *DID* read the whole Bible as Christians and we were completely blinded to the evils that lay within. I think a lot of it is because the clergy spends a lot of time with ad hoc explanations for why the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly says and once we leave the church and have no one to interpret it for us, what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what they want us to believe that it says, is worse than we could possibly have imagined.
ReplyDeleteI would say there is a difference between reading the bible and studying and trying to understand it. I think many people read the bible (I used to read it as a theist) but do not study and comprehend.
ReplyDeleteIts like a work of fiction that you breeze through and just enjoy the good stuff and if the character has flaws you see the greater good. However, when I actually took to studying and understanding the bible and treating it like a history book and a book of fact that I got turned off.
What exactly bothers you about the Abraham and Isaac story?
ReplyDeleteThe virtue on display here is obedience right? I would argue that obedience has it's place, but it is only a virtue in some contexts.
DeleteIf someone tells you to kill your child, obeying that command is not something you should do. What if a mob boss told you to do the same thing. You might feel like you have no choice, and you might follow through and murder your child because you are scared, but we wouldn't consider this a virtue. The more powerful the person giving the command, the harder it is to say no, and yet we consider this the right action. Also, I think we can agree that the mob boss in this scenario is a bad man.
Escalate things, instead of a mob boss it is an all powerful God. How does it change the story? He's still commanding something horrible, how does him being God make the obedience virtuous? Even after God kept him from killing his son at the last moment, I think it would still leave psychological scars on both Abraham and Isaac.
I think part of the problem for me is that you're taking the story too literally, hence why you're getting caught up in the psychological scars of Abraham and Isaac even though they're just fictional characters, when the story seems to be primarily designed to illustrate a point and isn't really concerned with those sorts of things.
DeleteThe message of the story is something like this: you should be so obedient to G-d that you would be willing to sacrifice your child, however, G-d would never desire you to sacrifice a child because it is a sin.
The story needs to be seen in the context of ancient religious practices or at least the perception of the authors that their neighbors, the Canaanites, practiced child sacrifice. What the story is doing is contrasting G-d with the perceived practices of their neighbors and basically saying our G-d doesn't desire such abominable thing.
The obedience theme is also more complicated since it too needs to be seen in the light of the Covenant. Part of what the story is also doing is reminding the reader that this covenant is two-way street. G-d isn't just going to give things, but also has expectations, such as ritual obligations, obedience, and requirements of ethical behavior.
The second part of the message prevents from the first part from being taken literally. While the first part of the message is justified by the second part.
I should have said this before, but thanks for reading and commenting. The most fun part of blogging is interacting with people, especially those I disagree with :) Now on to it
Delete"Abraham and Isaac even though they're just fictional characters"
That's a fair point, some people do interpret these stories as fictional, although some consider them literal. Given that I grew up in a church which considered everything in the bible literally true, that is the perspective that I usually start with.
Furthermore, I would think that for the big points, it doesn't really matter whether the stories really happened or not. Perhaps some minor points (like the psychological trauma) can be forgotten if it is intended to be fictional though. I'd have to think about it a bit more.
"The message of the story is something like this: you should be so obedient to G-d that you would be willing to sacrifice your child, however, G-d would never desire you to sacrifice a child because it is a sin."
I guess I would argue that a deity who wants me to obey him at the expense of my child is one that I have a hard time seeing as worth worshiping. And this is a bit of a weird mixed message isn't it? G-d wants you to be willing to sacrifice your child, but he would never want you to actually do it, even though he might ask you to do it, and if he does you should be willing to. Seems a little confusing, no?
"What the story is doing is contrasting G-d with the perceived practices of their neighbors and basically saying our G-d doesn't desire such abominable thing."
Now that's interesting, the neighboring Canaanites practiced child sacrifice so it becomes a ready example. You are familiar with them doing child sacrifice, you should be willing to do that for me, but the twist is I won't make you go through with it. Seems like a plausible origin of the story.
I would argue though, that it is strange for the story which demonstrates that G-d thinks child sacrifice is an abomination includes him asking his followers to engage in the practice. If G-d thinks child sacrifice is an abomination, why would he want followers who are willing to engage in the practice?
"G-d isn't just going to give things, but also has expectations, such as ritual obligations, obedience, and requirements of ethical behavior."
Shouldn't the requirement of ethical behavior include Abraham being unwilling to murder his child? To preserve his ethics even in the face of G-d himself?
"The second part of the message prevents from the first part from being taken literally. While the first part of the message is justified by the second part."
Forgive me, but my brain is a bit fuzzy from lack of sleep. I don't quite follow this, are you saying that since G-d has expectation of us, then we can't take the Abraham/Isaac story literally? I'm not quite following why that is. Or alternatively if I have misunderstood, what did you mean by this?
“I guess I would argue that a deity who wants me to obey him at the expense of my child is one that I have a hard time seeing as worth worshiping. And this is a bit of a weird mixed message isn't it? G-d wants you to be willing to sacrifice your child, but he would never want you to actually do it, even though he might ask you to do it, and if he does you should be willing to. Seems a little confusing, no?”
DeleteThe impression I’m getting is that you’re still stuck somewhat on considering the story as a psychological portrait of G-d and suggesting that if the story is making the point I claim, then based on the events of the story it undercuts its own message.
The strength of fiction is precisely its dramatic power, that it can show a point, rather than tell us, as well as draw an emotional reaction and help us share in an experience. Getting back to the story, I agree it is a shocking and disturbing story. I think it was designed to be that way, both for dramatic reasons and for thematic reasons.
There are really two arguments here against child sacrifice in the story: an argument from authority (G-d says this is bad and we should sacrifice animals instead to propitiate the deity) and an argument from emotional disgust (the narrative itself where Abraham comes very close to committing the act is designed to elicit disgust from the audience, but it is designed to elicit disgust at the practice, not at G-d). By building suspense in the audience that Abraham might actually sacrifice his child and showing it to us in order to build that suspense it serves as a second argument against child sacrifice. In other words, the author is trying to generate emotional disgust; but at the act itself, not G-d commanding the act. When understood in this way the first part doesn’t undercut the second part. So why not disgust at G-d for even asking such a thing in the first place?
Keep in mind the original authors and audience of this story are coming in with certain expectations. Undoubtedly they would have accepted as an unquestioned principle, much like your Christian commentators, that G-d is good and anything G-d commands must be good. By having that starting assumption in place, the author when constructing the story probably never would have considered the fact that someone might read the opening details as condemning G-d’s ethics, but instead would’ve been free to construct it as a fable/allegory/parable in which to teach a moral lesson about G-d’s desires and not have to worry about that question at all. Since the audience’s starting assumptions would prevent them from condemning G-d, they would then focus on the opening details in relation to the disgustingness of child sacrifice as a practice. In other words, I don’t think it would’ve even occurred to the author that someone could see the story that way.
However, by being an atheist far removed from the time period, you remove the limitations of interpretation imposed by those assumptions the original audience and author likely would’ve had. By doing that, however, it allows you to ask questions of the story that were never meant to be asked of it, and consequently transforms the genre of the story from being primarily a story designed to deliver a message (parable/allegory/fable) into a story where we’re considering motivations of characters beyond what they symbolically represent (short story). In the first reading, G-d almost serves as a literary device to get things moving rather than a full-fledged character precisely because they can take for granted G-d’s attributes as a character, whereas in yours you start really considering G-d as a full-fledged character.
However, let’s approach the story in a more literal sense and think about the characters in that regard. All Abraham knows is that many of the people around him have deities who engage in this horrific practice. If G-d asks him to sacrifice his son, given his surroundings what the heck does he know otherwise? Yet this is being presented as a test (the very first line of Genesis 22). Since we learn later exactly what G-d actually desires and his moral standpoint on Child Sacrifice after the fact, we can then focus in on the test itself as being the core of the story. So what is being tested here?
ReplyDeleteSince we know G-d’s ethical standpoint on this issue after the fact, perhaps G-d is testing the following: do I need to tell him what the ethical thing to do is or can he figure it out for himself? If he does it then clearly I have to explain to him what I want and the right thing to do, and if he questions Me then clearly he is capable of figuring out what is ethical without my interference. With this in mind we can’t really blame G-d for being unethical as he is merely testing to see what Abraham will do in order to determine if Abraham knows what the right thing to do is, but we can, on the other hand, blame Abraham for making the wrong choice. Yet, even this needs to be softened somewhat because of the cultural background that Abraham is growing up in which his neighbors sacrifice children to their gods, so why would he doubt that G-d might plausibly want this as well? This is what makes it a tricky test.
At the same time, there is a second test: will Abraham obey or disobey? So the test is something of a catch-22. This is an important point because the details of the story suggest his obedience is seen as a virtue, but I think it’s his obedience in general because G-d does in the end stop him from committing the act and tells him not to kill the child.
So is it a mixed message? Well, let’s take each point separately.
1. Child-sacrifice is bad and not what G-d wants.
2. We should be able to figure out on our own what the ethical thing to do, but if not, G-d will guide us to what he wants and the correct ethical position.
3. Nevertheless, obedience to G-d in general is a virtue precisely because G-d won’t lead you down the wrong path in the end.
All of these messages I think can be derived from the story as written, none of them contradict each other, so I don’t see it as a mixed message.
Even if you disagree with certain points, at the very least I think I just gave you a potential middle ground, and also provided you some reasons why you might be having very different interpretations than other readers, particularly Christian commentators.
Very interesting...
DeleteI like what you have to say Drkshadow03, and I want to let it sit on the back of my mind for a few days. Plus my folks are in town and I don't have the time to devote to this at the moment that I would like. I will respond properly some time next week.
But you've given me a new perspective that I hadn't considered before, which is awesome.
Thank you.
I do really like the idea of trying to understand the story from the perspective of the people who were around at the time. My biggest difficulty with that though, is getting access to that information. How do you (and how could I) know how those ancient people would have responded to the story? How do you know that they would be disgusted with the act but not the god commanding it?
DeleteI'm also curious how you come to the conclusion that this is just a fable rather than being something that literally happened. How can you tell the difference between things in the bible that actually happened vs things like this?
"we can, on the other hand, blame Abraham for making the wrong choice. Yet, even this needs to be softened somewhat because of the cultural background that Abraham is growing up in which his neighbors sacrifice children to their gods"
This is an interesting point, but it makes me wonder if it undercuts your point that the people of the time would find this such a horrific act. If the various deities of the surrounding people's ask for child sacrifice and get results, then perhaps they will see this as a rare but normal occurance.
"2. We should be able to figure out on our own what the ethical thing to do, but if not, G-d will guide us to what he wants and the correct ethical position."
I went back and reread genesis 22, I see no evidence of this at all. There's no indication as far as I can tell that it would have been correct for Abraham to have disobeyed God and not offered to sacrifice Isaac.
"16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore."
By that reading, it seems that God would have been unhappy if Abraham had been unwilling to sacrifice Isaac.
Ultimately here, my biggest question is where you get your information about how those people would have reacted to these stories. Is it a matter of having studied the bible and teased out nuances, or do you consult other source material as well?
Well, there is no surefire way. But knowing some historical background, careful textual analysis, and common sense goes a long way. Once you recognize any text always has an audience in mind, rhetorical analysis requires that you at least consider who that audience might be and what that text might have meant to the audience. So given the story we have (Genesis 22), what we know about Near Eastern religion (via Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt), and the fact that it appears in a giant 1000+ page book dedicated to discussing the history of a particular group of people and their G-d, we can then ask which audience/writer of Genesis 22 makes the most sense:
Delete1) An author who is purposely invoking an audience to disgust at G-d’s actions and an audience who would then find those actions disgusting, but who nevertheless continue to belong to a culture and produce other stories about that same G-d to fill a gigantic book of 1000+ pages
or
2) a writer trying to construct a story to encourage obedience to G-d, show G-d in a positive light by ultimately rewarding Abraham’s obedience, and a story that teaches what G-d actually wants by showing the proper way to sacrifice to G-d.
Of course, no audience is homogeneous. Since I understand the story as banning human sacrifice. It would hold then that some of the audience might have still been practicing it either in their worship of G-d or by turning to Canaanite deities, hence the need to write such a story. Since it's an etiological myth, it is designed to explain the origin of the ritual. So it could be designed partially for the sake of teaching children the correct practices of the religion.
As for the considerations that help, I've taken courses, read articles, have read a few scholarly books, I pay close attention to the language of the stories, I consider the relationships of its various parts to each other, I've read a lot of mythology of other cultures, basic inferences and reasoning, etc.
Very interesting. I certainly have next to zero background on near eastern religions, but I can do my best with common sense.
DeleteAs to this particular story, it still seems to come down to
1. You should obey God no matter what he asks you
2. Don't worry, he won't make you do something evil, even if it seems so at the time. Just trust him.
Even if you can get past the fact that God is commanding Abraham to kill his son and that Abraham is willing to do it. (I'm not ready to do so, but let's shelve it for the moment). This message ultimately seems to be encouraging people to not think for themselves. "If God tells you to do something that seems horrible to you, something that everything about you is screaming to not do it, do it anyway. He's God, do what he says no matter what." Isn't this a horrible message?
Another angle I was thinking about last night, we know from the new testament (and possible the old testament as well, I haven't read much of it yet) there are false prophets around. So it is possible that someone could think they are getting a command from God, but really it is from another source, possibly a malevolent force. Isn't telling people to turn off their brain and do whatever God tells them no matter what dangerous in this setting?
But it would've been a given that obedience to G-d is obedience to the commandments. From their religious standpoint those commandments are G-d's will and desire. So if you start hearing voices or there is a person claiming to be a prophet who starts saying things that directly contradict the commandments, then that should be your first clue something is not right here. I don't think the point of the text is that people shouldn't think for themselves.
DeleteAfter all, in order to understand the themes, characters, symbolism, and issues at stake in these stories one is practically required to give them careful thought.
I disagree with that assessment. Abraham didn't think about what he was doing at all, he didn't consider if what he was doing was good. God asked him to do something horrible and he unquestioningly obeyed. He was then praised for his obedience.
DeleteThe fact that he was about to commit murder was irrelevant, God asked him to do something and he did it unquestioningly. I don't see how to reconcile that with thinking for yourself.
I'm thinking if Abraham was hearing "God" tell him to do something as terrible as that, and he was considering it, he must have been schizophrenic...or whoever wrote that story was. All the story's in the Bible that claim God was "talking" to people way back then I don't believe. Did he just give up on humanity and quit advising them to do stupid things...or were those old men simply using too many hallucinogenics to find inspiration?
DeleteFirst, it's not clear that he unquestioningly obeys. There are many little details that can be read that implies a trepidation and belief that G-d won't make him do it:
Delete1) The dialogue at Genesis 22:8 - "G-d will see to the sheep for His burnt offering, my son” can be seen as a way of evading Isaac's question, but can also be read as hinting that Abraham believes G-d won’t actually make him do this.
2. The dialogue at Genesis 22:5 in which Abraham tells his servants he will return with Isaac can also be read that way. An attempt to evade suspicious on the surface, but also a hint that Abraham believes G-d isn't really going to make him go through with it.
3. The redundant details in the dialogue between Isaac and Abraham in which father and son, father/son is repeated both raises the emotional tension for the audience and gives us our only hint at Abraham's emotional standpoint.
4. In Genesis 18, Abraham has shown his willingness to question G-d's plans for Sodom and Gommorah on ethical grounds. So we already see as a character he is willing to question G-d. So why not now?
5. In that same episode G-d responds positively without any real resistance and so Abraham has even more reason to believe later on that G-d won't really require him to do something unethical in the end.
6. The entire Abraham Cycle is structured on the Covenant and Abraham having vast offspring and founding a nation through them and at this point in the narrative G-d has made it clear numerous times that it will be through Isaac.
7. At the same time, Abraham comes from a cultural background where his neighbors perform human sacrifice to appease gods, so while this still would've been an extreme request, it wouldn't have been that out there.
Given all that it's not surprising he performs the act: G-d might genuinely want him to sacrifice his son (see point 7), but he has plenty of reasons to doubt it and trust G-d (see point 1-6)
Secondly, whereas as this story extols blind obedience, the Sodom and Gommorah episode celebrates his ethical behavior. Some critics have seen these as conflicting values at odds with each other. This is true in a sense, but the stories practically force you to reconcile those differences and that is what I meant earlier when I wrote:
1. We should be able to figure out on our own what the ethical thing to do (Genesis 18), but if not, G-d will guide us to what he wants and the correct ethical position (Inference from the outcome of Genesis 22).
2. Nevertheless, obedience to G-d in general is a virtue precisely because G-d won’t lead you down the wrong path in the end (Genesis 22).
So with this other part of the Abraham Cycle in mind I don't think they would've concluded blind obedience is good/critical thinking bad because there is that other story to modify the message.
Thirdly, I just read an interesting article which attempts to reconstruct the original story by drawing on the fact that most scholars believe the angel's speeches about obedience are later additions. He believes Abraham in the original story disobeys G-d at the last minute, sees the lamb, and sacrifices it instead of Isaac, putting it more in line with the Abraham from the earlier episode, but whose focus was changed by a later writer adding the angel's praising him for obedience. I imagine you would've liked that story better! Heck, I would've liked that story better.
Firstly, the alternate version of the story that you mentioned in the last paragraph would have been awesome.
DeleteIt is an interesting point that Abraham was willing to question God in previous stories, and that does lend itself to the idea that we aren't just supposed to be blindly obedient. Nevertheless, this story is about obedience, and it seems to be blind obedience.
Mostly though, I want to address the point about Abraham having reason to believe God wouldn't make him go through with killing Isaac. I guess the key to me is what point is trying to be made here? I can think of 2 possibilities
1. Abraham was never planning to kill Isaac, he expected to God to let him off the hook.
In this case, he doesn't seem to be obeying at all. He was never intending to sacrifice his son, the power of the story is lost.
2. He thought God might let him off the hook, but he was willing to sacrifice his son if it came down to it.
This case seems just as bad as if he was simply planning on killing Isaac. Bottom line, he was willing to kill his son at God's command.
Is there a third option that I'm not thinking of?
Sure, probably # 2. But where I still think you're having a problem is in your reading process itself.
DeleteYour reading the stories of the Bible in terms of your own 21st century moral standards and 21st century literary standards rather than in terms of their moral standards and their literary standards. In other words, you're not understanding the stories on their own terms. That's fine if one's goal is to criticize literalism or Christians who want to use the Bible wholesale as the basis for their 21st century morality, but given the comments in this thread about "studying and understanding" I would suggest that by not reading the stories on their own terms you're not really understanding them.
So given # 7: "At the same time, Abraham comes from a cultural background where his neighbors perform human sacrifice to appease gods, so while this still would've been an extreme request, it wouldn't have been that out there." That would make human sacrifice an AMORAL act according to the Near Eastern standards, which is where I think you're struggling because for us it obviously is a horrible thing. However, the direction the story goes serving as a myth explaining the ritual of animal sacrifice as a replacement for human sacrifice implies a transition and a moral condemnation in the end (from amoral to immoral).
That's a really good point actually, I do find the writing of the bible from the perspective of it's own time interesting, but my primary concern is really people who claim to use it as a source of their morality today. These are people who typically take it literally.
DeleteIt does make me wonder how I would respond to this story if it was in a holy book I was reading of some ancient dead religion that has no real relevance on the world today. I still think I would consider the god character to be a bit of a jerk, but I'm sure my reaction wouldn't be nearly as strong.
"The message of the story is something like this: you should be so obedient to G-d that you would be willing to sacrifice your child, however, G-d would never desire you to sacrifice a child because it is a sin."
ReplyDeleteThen the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Judges 11:29 - 31
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” Judges 11: 34-35
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 36 -38)
That was all part of Judges 11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+11&version=NIV
DeleteWell, the message of that story seems to be: Be careful not to make rash vows to G-d.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I should elaborate. The Book of Judges is generally considered by scholars to be part of the Deuteronomist History, which includes Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings. These books were generally considered to be written during the Babylonian exile with the exception perhaps of parts of Deuteronomy itself. The writers and their exiled audience are trying to understand the following questions: Why the heck did this happen to us? Why are we living in exile? Why did G-d abandon us given the covenant relationship we are supposed to have with Him?
ReplyDeleteThe Deuteronomist answer is that it’s not that G-d broke his side of the bargain, but rather we failed to live up to ours by turning away from the commandments and committing sins. So all of the story material is the writers looking back at history and showing how bad things happen when the various characters, the leaders of the nation, and Israel in general fail to keep the commandments. Now let’s also note that Deuteronomy 12:31 explicitly bans the practice of human sacrifice. Judges as a narrative considered by itself shows society degenerating more and more over time, ending in a Civil War in which the rest of Israel almost wipes out the tribe of Benjamin.
With this background information in mind, we get a better sense of what is happening in Judges 11. For starters, it makes pretty clear that a reading of it as supporting human sacrifice is untenable. Jepthah violates the clearly expressed commandment of Deut 12:31. However, he is also violating other commandments along the way before that point. By making such an ill-thought vow it would seem that he is violating the commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain (Deut 5:11). He also seems to be attempting to bribe G-d in order to gain his victory (Deut 16:19 and Deut 10:17).
Great discussion here. I've seen arguments like Drksahdow03's before. They do appear to have a ringing of validity to them. However, I submit that Deuteronomy 12:31 does not ban human sacrifice. The verse reads:
ReplyDelete"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way (the way that other nations serve their gods), because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." NIV
At best, this forbids burning your children as sacrifices to -o-. However, this may be a reference to how they were sacrificed. For example, it may be the case that they burned their children alive in the fire. -o- instructed that all burnt sacrifices be killed before they were burned. Given that Jephthah essentially guaranteed some type of human sacrifice with his vow, I would think it unlikely that his view was that -o- thought it was forbidden.
If you read through Leviticus 27:28-29, you do, indeed, find that human sacrifice was legally permitted. A man could devote anything he "owned" to sacrifice, explicitly including other people.
Then, in Numbers 31:40-41, you see -o- getting a share of the captured virgins. While it is not elaborated on what actually happened, given that -o- couldn't "use" a virgin woman the same way that men do, it is a reasonable explanation to say that these virgins were likely sacrificed to Him by the priests, especially given that priests were forbidden from interracial marriages (Leviticus 21:13-15).
These are just some things to consider when you are trying to get to the truth of the matter. ;-)
@TWF
ReplyDeleteI agree that there was probably a time when early Israelite practice included human sacrifice, especially given that the archaeological evidence suggests Israel's origins is in Canaan.
However, the evidence in the books suggests that they had different authors from different time periods with different theological and ideological concerns. So I'm not assuming uniformity between books. So I need not understand Deuteronomy in light of Leviticus, for example, especially given that traditionally in the JEPD Hypothesis, Leviticus would be assigned to P (Priestly) and Deuteronomy would be assigned to D (Deuteronomist).
It would seem you're trying to read Deut 12 in light of the Jephthah story rather than vice-versa, otherwise I see no reason to interpret it the way you did. Why would anyone assume that they just mean you can sacrifice people, but you have to kill them first?
@Drkshadow03
ReplyDelete"So I need not understand Deuteronomy in light of Leviticus...
It would seem you're trying to read Deut 12 in light of the Jephthah story rather than vice-versa, otherwise I see no reason to interpret it the way you did. Why would anyone assume that they just mean you can sacrifice people, but you have to kill them first"
You certainly have an understanding of Biblical construction which exceeds most people, likely including myself in that group! :-)
However, knowing this, it should become clear to you how man, not -o-, has manipulated the religion. Leviticus has primacy over that of Deuteronomy, right? It's certainly possible that the story of Jephthah has primacy over that of Deuteronomy as well. That logically implies that permitting human sacrifice was closer to the original "revelation" of -o-'s will, and that it was later revisionists, after thinking it out some more, who decided sacrificing your children to -o- was actually a bad idea.
At least that is how I see it.
The killing before sacrifice is not an assumption, but is rather based on the fact that all prescribed sacrifices call for the animal to be killed, and usually considerably dismembered, before the any part is "given to -o-" through holocaust. On the other hand, many other pagan religions were not of that custom, and live sacrifices were consumed by fire, thrown into volcanoes, etc. It is not really that much of a "leap of faith" to my interpretation. In fact, from that always trustworthy source Wikipedia, we find:
The 12th-century Rashi, commenting on Jeremiah 7:31 stated:
Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.
Also, Darkshadow03, further supporting my line of reasoning, if we look back on the near-sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham had prepared a fire for it to be a proper burnt offering, but he had raised his knife to kill Isaac before he offered him to -o-.
ReplyDelete