Jephthah's daughter (page 2)

Cicatrix

"So if Jephta's daughter really did get crispy critters, she would then just be one of a long list of victims.
(my granddaughter included)
Wouldn't surprise me if they really did have a human bbq."

I'm sorry to hear that, Avenger:(

"Maybe she was lesbian and enjoying it. With all respect."

That's a possibility, since it's a secondary issue to the burnt offering issue.

bewail means 1. To wail over 2. To express deep sorrow for usu. by wailing and lamentation

wail means 1. to express sorrow audibly: lament 2. to express dissatisfaction plaintively: complain ~ vt archaic 1. to say or express plaintively

Perhaps she went to the mountains with her friends to break the news to them about her fate. That would definitely be a reason for grieving, and no doubt there was a lot of sorrow and wailing over the fact that their friend (or lover)was about to lose her life before she could become a "real woman" (by that culture's standards) through marriage and childbearing.

The "four days" thing reminds me of the Dionysian mysteries, too, whereby women would leave their families for a while every year and practice religious rites. Some have conjectured that these were sexual, and possibly lesbian in nature also.

LOL "Abraham" er Carmel. Yes, please do explain. :@

Cicatrix

Good points, Metatron.

When I saw the version that said burnt offering for the first time, I immediately assumed she died and they were grieving her.

And when Samuel was dedicated by his mother in her vow, it does specifically state that he was taken to the tabernacle.

Narkissos

Hi Cicatrix,

In that context,it does seem that they lost the battle because the wrath came from the other god.

Or, perhaps more exactly, the unqualified "wrath" (qeçeph) is to be understood as a power superior to individual gods, along the lines of Greek nemesis. Yhwh has regained his territory, but he is now invading Kamosh's. By offering his son the king of Moab appeals to a higher divine or supradivine justice.

Many uses of qeçeph are remarkably impersonal and imply an almost automatical punishment, despite the monotheistic rewriting of the texts:

but the Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the covenant, that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the Israelites -- Nb 1:53

You yourselves shall perform the duties of the sanctuary and the duties of the altar, so that wrath may never again come upon the Israelites. -- Nb18:5

This is what we will do to them: We will let them live, so that wrath may not come upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them. -- Joshua 9:20

Did not Achan son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? -- Joshua 22:20

Joab son of Zeruiah began to count them, but did not finish; yet wrath came upon Israel for this -- 1Chronicles 27:24

And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this guilt of theirs. -- 2Ch 24:18

Therefore wrath came upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem. -- 2Ch 32:25

Of course in many other texts the supradivine "wrath" is more or less loosely connected with Yhwh (for instance in the phrase "wrath from Yhwh"), which is an attempt at reframing the concept in a monotheistic context...

Cicatrix

"Or, perhaps more exactly, the unqualified "wrath" (qeçeph) is to be understood as a power superior to individual gods, along the lines of Greek nemesis."

This would make all those contests of divine backing make much more sense. Especially the one in which Jehovah didn't win, and it was mentioned anyway. That always made me curious.

In regards to the vow, I found this scripture at Deuteronomy 23:21-23 "When you make a vow to the Lord , be prompt in doing whatever it is you promised him, for the Lord demands that you promptly fulfill your vows; it is a sin if you don't (But it is not a sin if you refrain from vowing). Once you make the vow, you must be careful to do as you have said, for it was your own choice, and you have vowed to the Lord your God."

This indicates that one could NOT change the vow to be more suitable. Once a vow was made, it was to be carried out AS it was made.

Narkissos

Cicatrix,

I agree.

As for the "wrath" or "automatical punishment" process, it also helps understand why Yhwh sometimes acts as a "tempter" in the old texts, e.g. the first version of David's census in 2 Samuel 24. As Yhwh cannot, from his own decision, exert the punishment, he has to make his people transgress a taboo so that "wrath" automatically comes on the transgressor. Of course in the second, plainly monotheistic version of this story (1 Chronicles 21), Satan has to do the bad job of tempting so that the righteous Yhwh = "God" exerts the punishment.

In many cases the monotheistic rewriting obscures this original (polytheistic) pattern, but you have to dig it back in order to understand the narrative process.

Cicatrix

The origination of the saying "The Devil made me do it," no doubt;)

That's really interesting. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that the accounts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles were one and the same. Maybe because of the different census numbers. I just thought David was a little obsessive about counting, lol.

I've learned just a little from a few sources about polytheism and the Israelites. Do you have any recommendations for good sources I might be able to find outside of a university library?

Also, I have a chart that lists the Bible books in a loose chronological order, and I was thinking of reading it chronologically.Do you know if those charts are generally anywhere near accurate? I've read the Bible a few times from "front to back." I thought maybe if I mixed it up a bit, I might learn some new things. I tend to get bored and stop reading for meaning going from cover to cover.

Narkissos

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series) by Mark S. Smith

Also, I have a chart that lists the Bible books in a loose chronological order, and I was thinking of reading it chronologically.Do you know if those charts are generally anywhere near accurate?

I don't know what chart it is -- they can be very different according to the sources. Anyway, the main problem is the following: if the whole Hebrew Bible (OT) is the result of a writing/editing/rewriting process which began around the 6th century BC, there really are no older books left. Only smaller vestiges of earlier stories and texts which happen to show through the last (monotheistic) redactional layer. Occasionally a preserved fragment (esp. poetry or wisdom sayings). That's about all.

For instance, much of the narrative material in Judges (e.g. Jephthah) is certainly old. But the general frame set in the two introductory chapters and in redactional transitions is obviously late.

Cicatrix

"if the whole Hebrew Bible (OT) is the result of a writing/editing/rewriting process which began around the 6th century BC, there really are no older books left. "

Good point. Does the book you mentioned say much about the editing process it underwent? I plan to get a copy as soon as I get moved and settled in.

What do you think about books that were written around the same time that were left out of the Bible cannon?

Narkissos

Mark Smith mostly addresses the Bible texts from the standpoint of comparative history of religions.

On the writing / editing process in the Bible, there is an enormous amount of literature: Bible dictionaries, introductions, commentaries, which can provide you with the information you are looking for according to the scope and depth of your research. Just keep in mind that (1) the mainstream scholarly perspective on the writing of the OT texts has changed dramatically in the last 20 years; (2) many "scholarly" works, especially in English, are actually fundamentalistic and apologetic stuff which does not really take into account the results of critical research. So you have to be careful about when a book was written and where it comes from.

This being said, for a general overview I could recommend Rolf Rentdorff's Introduction to the Old Testament, which was one of the first to offer a new (provisional) synthesis after the classical documentary hypothesis collapsed. There are certainly more recent and valuable works in English: no doubt Leolaia or Peacefulpete would be in a better position to list some of them. For more detailed studies on specific Bible books, any recent commentary in the Hermeneia, Augsburg or International Critical Commentary series would be the best.

As for extracanonical books, you may find most of them online on sites such as www.earlyjewishwritings.com which will also direct you to offline resources.

Cicatrix

"many "scholarly" works, especially in English, are actually fundamentalistic and apologetic stuff which does not really take into account the results of critical research"

Yep. This is all I have run into in regards to Biblical arheology, etc, at the libraries and book stores locally.Most of the sources I've found are online, and are few and far between.

Even my instructors in college were afraid to approach it from the critical perspective (I lived in a very conservative area). My mythology instructor just deleted the Hebrew mythological accounts altogether, although he did like when I alluded to them in my own papers. He read a couple of them out loud to the class:)

At this time, my research is mostly just a hobby, for my own information. I do love Leolaia and Peaceful Pete's threads and will continue to check them out also.

Thanks again for all the info.I learned a lot from what you posted, including some new areas I want to add to my research:)

Jephthah's daughter

Share this