Ugh why the Unicorn

@@Mafioso1731 Because, our channel members are rare... like a unicorn

@@TabletsAndTemples Oh I understand now :)

This interpretation would make the most sense without being a contradiction of God and the laws he set. That he was actually talking to Baal or something, and translations were messed up. But then that opens up the idea that there are stories in the Bible where translation messed things up which some people feel is blasphemy or “not being a true believer”

​@@samcartwright6338 Maybe not that he was "actually" talking to Baal, but that he and the Israelites lost sight of what God's true character was, since they had strayed so far for so long. So when talking to the Israelite's God, he maybe assumed that He would be just like the foreign Gods? and therefore be similarly pleased by a child sacrifice?

@@samcartwright6338 use critical thinking.... this statement just goes to show the mental gemnastics people will do.... YAWH is one cannonite god, among many. Why do you accept YAWH as god??? This same god said that the punishment for rape is having to marry the victim. What mental feat does one need to explain that? Here's a verse from the same passage the video is about mentioning that YAWH is one of the gods and that the land is devided between different gods. The Bible was edited to make it monotheistic. Judges 11 :24 "Wilt not thou possess that which ⭐Chemosh⭐ thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. " Chemosh, ancient West Semitic deity, revered by the Moabites as their supreme god. Little is known about Chemosh; although King Solomon of Israel built a sanctuary to him east of Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7), the shrine was later demolished by King Josiah (2 Kings 23:13).www.britannica.com/topic/Chemosh

​@@TheProphetofLogic Yahweh was not a Canaanite god. He was exclusively Israel's God and abhorred child sacrifice. Even secular archaeology at Soleb, Sudan confirms Yahweh as Israel's God.

@@thefriesens1071 bull$hit, you have bad taste in gods.... Yahweh is a pagan god, and not a good one at that, your archeological knowledge is worse than stupid. Stupidity has an excuse, bias doesn't... Israel is a state based on religion, all Jews are welcome to live there, therefore you would EXPECT some of them to validate a state religion. Dummy. I say that because Yahweh is a piece of crap, and you need to be stupid to hand over your sovereignty to a god like that. How dose the creator of the universe need animal sacrifice??? Why dose he need a timple??? Why did the architecture of YHWH's temple match existing pagan temples??? Why does he need a certain kind of incense,and if it's not the correct formula, he gets pissed off??? There is a God but Yahweh is a god. Yahwehism has pagan ancestry. God is universal. No Religion is universal. God is not religious. 🧠🙀🤯

That's a great point.

As a kid I just assumed he was hoping for a cat or dog to walk out the door. But apparently Jephthah probably had servants (slaves) and was hoping for one of them to walk out the door. Which is, somehow, even more evil than what happened.

That's too logical for most people. You're meant to skirt around uncomfortable truths. The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!?

@@kristinburton4953 Well yea, you give him all you got. Including your daughter.

@@kristinburton4953 Yeah. Why not have an angel come down to stop Jephthah like god did with ole Abe and Issac?

Why thank you very much! If you want to help, sharing the videos around really helps. ☺️

I agree

Yes it is a crime in the Hebrew Bible. Though the some of the book of Judges probably predated Deuteronomy, though the ideas were still probably floating around in some form. But yes it's interesting that Jephthah is not condemned explicitly, but as with much of Judges the author leaves that up to the audience.

@Kenneth Maurice Hi we've got a video coming out later this year about Mosaic authorship. In short, no - while Deuteronomy is laid out as a series of speeches from Moses - however, that is a literary device. Deuteronomy was actually composed centuries after the time any real Moses could have lived. The books of the Bible weren't necessarily written in the order they appear in the Bible.

@@TabletsAndTemples it was written after...

@@mider9996 Deuteronomy is generally considered to be a work of the 7th Century BCE or later. While many of the stories in Judges are dated to the 8th century, with an oral tradition that preceded that. See for example Robert Alter's explanation in Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings: A Translation with Commentary p.105

@@TabletsAndTemples Deuteronomy is part 9f the five Books of Moses and thus is considered to be part of the basis of Jewish law. Such a vow basically wouldn’t count

Thanks for watching and sharing that. That's certainly an interesting take. Personally I think the Gideonites definately sought Jephthah out because they were desperate under seige and he was a mighty warrior who's skills they needed. Jephthah uses his negotiation skills to leverage that into a permanent leadership role in the community. And yes, where is the justice for the daughter.

@@TabletsAndTemples there is no morality or justice in the OT

I've got good news for you. Yahweh doesn't exist, all these stories are myths devised to control your mind (and it worked, apparently, therefore I feel for you). Therefore, no point worrying about all this BS and self-inflicting harm and suffering on yourself. Now go roam the Earth with a light heart, you are freed from this mental prison!

One has to also factor in that a post-Deuteronomistic ancient reader of the Hebrew Bible would have been well aware of Yahweh's disapproval of human sacrifice. As well as the fact that some of the most ancient Jewish interpretations we have thought that Jephthah's vow was NOT approved by Yahweh. Jephthah having the spirit of Yahweh would not have been understood as an endorsement of his actions. Both Saul and David's failures occurred while they were said to have had the spirit of God. Remember the spirit of God did not depart from Saul until after his failure. The spirit never departed from David in spite of him murdering Uriah. We can only speculate on the intentions of the earliest form of the story, but in its canonical context, it would not have been understood as an endorsement of child sacrifice, quite the opposite.

@@TabletsAndTemples Because all religious apologists are biased, the Bible is clear though. Also YHWH did in fact approve of human sacrifice in the older books. Leviticus 27:28-29 is the key here. Another example of a human sacrifice to YHWH is in Numbers chapter 31. Towards the end 32 of 16,000 Midianite virgins are given to Yahweh as tribute.

This is a great take to a truly disgusting story like many found in the OT

@@gothictheurgist9367 That bible verse is not YHWH advocating for human sacrifice. It states that people who are on isreals version of death row are not to be sold for money, simply let go, or done anything with other wise. They are to be dealt with as stated; "Destroyed." Levitucs 27:29.

@@gothictheurgist9367 The Number verse speaks of purging the midianite women who were already sexual with someone in the life time and old enough to trick them away from the Lord. The 16,000 we given to the men of isreal and the levity specifically to be ritually used in the way the Lord commanded. Which up til this point, no human sacrifice was approved or allowed. So context states they would be used for labor. Like the other slaves within the bible. Numbers 31:47

Thank you very much! Glad you enjoyed it

Thankyou so much, I really appreciate that

Yes amen you did a great job on this. After reading the text and being like WHAT THE FLAMING HELL HAVE I JUST READ I went straight to Matthew Henry which I was shocked to see was a total cop out, then googled around and there’s not much decent analysis on this so well done for a thorough explanation 💪👍🙏👏

Glad you liked it. Just a heads up on Matthew Henry. His commentary is popular because it's free. However it was written in the 1700s. A lot of what he has to say is a product of its time. If you don't have access or finances for newer commentaries, the subreddit r/academicbiblical is a great place to ask questions.

It was strange. Why would someone make that type of vow. He could have asked Israel to slaughter sheep.

@@JocobsComments There's another reason the interpretation of his daughter living on as a virgin doesn't work. Jephthah didn't promise his daughter (the virgin) as the sacrifice, but instead the first to meet him. Only his daughter was a virgin, so living on as a virgin would not work if anyone else had met him. The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!?

Glad it was helpful!

@@TabletsAndTemples Yeah the best explanation, but how do we know you are correct?

@@alohaohana901 You don't, but there's a list of sources at the end of the video for people to read up for themselves.

@@TabletsAndTemples Why can't people understand the bible based on what the text says? Why must we speculate? Why must we rely on pastors and others to explain texts to us when they don't even know what the text means themselves?

@@alohaohana901 because it was written thousands of years ago in three now dead languages which we no longer speak, in cultures and circumstances very foreign to modern readers.

Thank you very much!

Thank you so much. Welcome aboard. also I see your own productiin skills are quite good. Any future plans for your channel?

@@TabletsAndTemples Thanks! Hoping to put together a few videos in the next month. Let me know what you think if you get a chance to see them.

Yeah for sure.

I disagree, it does both when it illustrates the spirit of the lord came upon him and gave him victory and in Hebrews he’s still mentioned as a man of faith. This sociopath isn’t even condemned by the author as committing an atrocity in fact his daughter was happily ok with it, at best we’re having to “guess” if God detested since it’s just silent on it. It can’t be both… the Bible can’t be archetypal stories like Cain and Abel and Joseph, or just descriptive and not trying to prescribe anything from their behavior. If it wants us to think Jephtgah was evil here then say “God was outraged over his actions..” so we fricking know.

The problem is that (with the exception of the book of Kings) the narrator in Hebrew Bible literature rarely steps in to make moral judgements. It's called reticence, and scholars such as Robert Alter have argued that it has a deliberate function in forcing the audience to make moral judgements for themselves. It's not really that different from modern story telling, when you're watching a movie like the Wolf of Wallstreet, there's no narrator stepping in and saying "what he did was wrong," - and he doesn't even really learn a lesson in the end. But movie critics noted that the movie doesn't necessarily endorse his behaviour, but by showing it, it forces audiences to make moral judgements for themselves. In fact I'd argue, most modern storytelling doesn't hold your hand through moral decision making, it is often just as ambiguous. Thus, I disagree that it can't be both. There are both kinds of stories in the Hebrew Bible because it was written by lots of different people. While God addresses Cain, he or the narrator doesn't step in to say anything about the problematic actions of Lot, Jacob, Esau, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Joseph's brothers etc. The spirit of yhwh coming on Jephthah isn't a moral endorsement of his actions by the author. Multiple characters did horrible things whilst having the spirit of the Lord, that God explicitly condemns. Both Saul and David's failures were committed while they were understood to have had the spirit of the lord. Having the spirit of the lord wasn't an automatic endorsement of everything a character did, at least in the eyes of the ancient readers.

@@TabletsAndTemples such a waste of brain power. Shut up and stop worshiping Saturn.

I'm glad!

Thank you! Cheers!

So we should have blind faith in a book which promotes child sacrifice instead of thinking for ourselves

Glad you found it helpful.

I agree it's difficult. I think though, it's important to remember that in Judges there's of stories of people doing horrible things (like the Levite and his concubine for example) - where they aren't repudiated for their evils. That doesn't mean that the audience would have assumed they were the good guys - I would argue most of the time it's the opposite. Yes, it is said that Jephthah has the spirit of God at the beginning of the story, but that isn't necissarily an endorsement of his actions. David had the spirit of God in Samuel, and the whole point was it wouldn't leave him like it left Saul, yet he was still able to have Uriah killed and took Bathsheba, for which he was very much condemned. I do address Hebrews in the video, Jephthah, like several of the other figures mentioned is celebrated for his military victory, not necissarily the sacrifice of his daughter. And the NT interpretation is only one of several, I think it is Josephus who I mentioned repudiated Jephthah for his vow. One of the main reasons I think it is more likely that Jephthah's vow is presented as foolish - is that while the story itself may have been based on an older folktale that accepted child sacrifice, the version we have has been edited together into the Deuteronomistic History. The laws against child sacrifice are also likely Deuteronomistic in their origin. It seems inconceivable to me that an editor who shares Deuteronomistic theology, has included the Jephthah tale with the sacrifice ending - unless it was assumed it was a bad example. Anyway, yes I could be wrong. But those are my reasons why I think it's a repudiation.

How can you find any historical reliability and trustworthiness if the story has been modified pre-10th century BC from to around the Babylonian Exile era hundreds of years after. It’s similar to how Genesis 1 was added last, post exile and has a completely different portrayal of Yahweh compared to the anthropomorphic version in the Patriarch and Garden stories, which makes sense after its influence of Zoroastrianism like Daniel where it becomes more good vs evil, god vs Satan etc. the process over time does matter in theory. Were all the flood stories adopted from some “Q” flood event, we’re not sure except they’ve all been altered much over time to apply to different God/s like Gilgamesh and the Attratrasus. Let’s assume you’re right about Judges, that this is to illustrate how Jepthah who was blessed by God has fallen to the Canaanite ways of child sacrifice. To the reader at best, the story is completely agnostic in the Bible over the morality of his acts. Isaac was spared cause God intervened, even as an archetypal story there’s a lesson of full trust in God, Cain killed Abel and there was a warning and resolution over his evil acts. In Jepthah it’s up in the air, his daughter willingly allows it and he’s mentioned only as a man of God and faith later, contradictory to what we’re made to believe that these are unGodly People who were completely immoral in their acts. If these stories are inspired by the God of the universe this is trash, completely ambiguous morally, and do a horrible job conveying any sort of meaningful message to take away. My daughter is 4, she’d be a far more virtuous person watching Disney and learning about Jesus and throwing the rest of the Bible and questionable sources in the trash bin.

I never said (nor does the video) state they are historically reliable accounts. These explorations of the texts are as narratives. I also wouldn't endorse reading a 4 year old the book of judges...

@@TabletsAndTemples If none of it is reliable, why should anyone read it? Jesus refers to Abraham and the patriarchs as historic figures, same as Jona, who apparently got swallowed by a fish for 3 days. If there's a strong possibility it didn't even happen then there's no credibility to the account, and they're no longer divinely inspired scriptures.

Because I find it interesting to look at what texts meant in their ancient context. Regardless of whether someone believes or not, these are texts that are hugely influential. I have no interest in trying to make anyone believe anything. It's just fun to see to explore how sometimes people bring modern misconceptions to these texts that the ancients may not have shared. I don't make anyone, share that same interest, but that's pretty much what this channel, just an academic exploration of the development of texts and ideas in their ancient context. P.s. Speaking of the idea of "divinely inspired" - stay tuned for my next video where I explore the origin of that idea

There's another reason the interpretation of his daughter living on as a virgin doesn't work. Jephthah didn't promise his daughter (the virgin) as the sacrifice, but instead the first to meet him. Only his daughter was a virgin, so living on as a virgin would not work if anyone else had met him. The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the upcoming request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!? If God approves of everything written in the bible, he clearly didn't care about unclear-ness of this account. ------> 2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, Righteousness expectations from a God that sacrificed himself to himself and then asked himself why he felt forsaken by himself when he was dying. oh and asked himself in the desert to take this cup(deal) away from him. The biblical God is all about the sweet fragrance of sacrifice.

😆😂😁🤣 God didn't feel awkward though, because he predicted the whole thing. He knew the beginning and outcome of every circumstance eons before. The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the upcoming request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out, yes a nice virgin, unlike the loose old wife. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win to the right side anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!? Why does God get people to fight his battles anyway, doesn't he just wipe out cities himself? He's so incredibly inconsistent.

You're welcome

Sorry could you rephrase your question, I didn't quite understand what you were asking.

Cope

God will make you follow through with killing someone when you offered to, just to teach a lesson? Just WOW!!

Actually the bible warns against making rush vows.... Solomon says make sure you fulfill the vow you make to God for He doesn't delight in fools....if you don't he might become angry and wipe out everything you've accomplished..

Read numbers 31.

@@timothykinoti7768 But there are still grace as stated above.

@@shellyblanchard5788 Numbers 31 does not speak of human sacrifice. Levites don't go to war, they got a portion of the spoils, including the prisoners of war to use for labor or marriage. Numbers 31:47 Anyone who is purged at the beginning of it is because of their sins against the Lord. Not sacrifice; cleansing. Read Moses explanation starting at Numbers 31:15

There's another reason the interpretation of his daughter living on as a virgin doesn't work. Jephthah didn't promise his daughter (the virgin) as the sacrifice, but instead the first to meet him. Only his daughter was a virgin, so living on as a virgin would not work if anyone else had met him. The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the upcoming request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!?

I think Sasson's Anchor Yale Bible Commentary is one of the current go-tos. It's also worth perusing Google Scholar for particular passages and filtering by the last 10-20 years to see what shorter articles have been written recently. Not all articles are available freely of course, but many can usually be found online somewhere.

Thanks for watching and I appreciate your thoughtful response. This is an argument I'm aware of and I'll offer this as an initial responses though feel free to continue the discussion: Judges likely started life as a series of independent legends prior to the exile. However, after the exile in around 550bce scholars believe the tribal legends of the Judges were heavily redacted and edited into the form we have today. This post-exilic form was almost certainly aware of Deuteronomy as Judges is considered part of the (so called) Deuteronomistic redaction of the HB. So Judges as we know it was probably read with full knowledge of the prohibitions against all child sacrifice in Deuteronomy 12:31-32. Thus, while an earlier independent version of the tale may have had no issue with child sacrifice, it's unlikely it would have been acceptable at the time Judges became the book we know it today. Now, it's almost certain that Israel practiced child sacrifice at certain times, but it does seem like by the post-exilic period when much of the Pentateuch was redacted, that it was no longer accepted. We can only speculate about periods before that. As for Yahweh's spirit being on Jephthah, the relationship between Yahweh's spirit and the morality of individuals that have it is complex. Figures like Joseph and David were said to have the spirit of God, yet Joseph enslaved the Egyptians and David killed Uriah. Scholars can and will debate all day over why exactly the spirit of God came on Jephthah. So TLDR, yes I think it's possible some early version of an independent Jephthah story had no problem with child sacrifice. But after its Deuteronomistic redactions the story is more likely a warning against such a practice. But I'm keen to hear what you think about that.

@@TabletsAndTemples Thank you for the informative response. The idea that the Jephthah story is a warning sounds like a modern apologetic, not based on the culture of that time and place, but I am too ignorant of ancient Israelite culture to say that with confidence. I am tentatively sticking by my conclusion that the story is included to show how Yahweh’s loyal people behave. You could invite Assyriologist Joshua Bowen (half of the Digital Hammurabi KZfaq channel) or Dead Sea Scrolls expert Dr Kipp Bowen to give more context. Side note: it is also weird to modern eyes to read of people saying that whatever you have said, you have to do, such as the daughter saying, “You have to kill me, because you said you would,” or Isaac not being able to revoke or alter his blessing on Jacob, even tho it was under deceit.

Oh I totally understand the apprehension. But I wouldn't say it's a modern apologetic (as opposed to the view that she was set apart). I've just checked and all the earliest commentaries we have come from the late 1st century. All of them are critical of both Jephthah and the vow in some way. Josephus was the most critical, but there's also Psuedo-Philo and Targum Jonathan. So it's certainly not a modern apologetic, the earliest commentaries we have from ancient Judaism are critical of the vow. And in Targum Jonathan it is specifically understood to be a warning against similar vows. Plus, as I mentioned Judges was likely compiled with knowledge of Deuteronomy 12. So one has to ask, why the compiler/redactor includes the story of child sacrifice in a post-deuteronomistic era which condemned such behaviour? As to the other points, yeah it's really strange. Possibly makes more sense in an honour shame culture. But also they are narratives rather than accurate historical accounts so, it can also be dramatic hyperbole. I'd love to have a dead sea scroll expert on the show, I might reach out!

What are your thoughts on this when you also overlay the context of free will? God doesn't interveen on free will choices and did give His people ways to compensate or make up for for hasty dangerous vows (replacing them, see Leviticus and exodus) And if only his spirit is present but his followers aren't listening to His voice, like how Abraham did, He is much less likely to be able to arrange, convince, or diswayed people. I'd love to hear your thoughts this, this passage Is a wild one

@@CoffeebreakX2 Not to be rude, but did you read my whole post? The spirit of Yahweh was apparently in Jephthah, -this- thus guiding his thoughts. There are as many verses against free will in the Bible as for, and the ones against seem more overriding. Free will seems to be a modern apologetic for why a supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent being could create an often cruel world. The “omni” aspects are not well supported in the Hebrew Bible. For example Yahweh couldn’t defeat an army that used iron chariots. In another battle, the enemy defeats Yahweh by using a child sacrifice.

I do try haha

You'll have to let me know what you thought

@@TabletsAndTemples i like how u didn't attempt to sugarcoat it at all, pobably one of the reasons i follow ur channel. ...however i am actually a muslim 😂 so the story doesn't bother me. I do have an appreciation for the bible that goes beyond just polemics and i try to learn more about it by following channels like urs

I'm glad. Yeah I try to keep the Biblical content on this channel academic and non-confessional so that anyone from any background can find some value. My aim is to stick to what the text meant in its ancient context. I'm glad you liked it.

@@TabletsAndTemples if u are asking about my own personal opinion on the issue, i don't see the bible as a cohesive whole. My guess is some figurehead must have done it probably following the trends of moloch worshippers but he must have been so influential that his story ended up in scripture despite the prohibition in leviticus

We all know what teenagers do in the hills/woods/behind the garden shed. They weren't going to have a last look at the trees and study local ecology. They were going to study each other anatomy. 😅

My approach here is reading the texts in their ancient contect. I have no stand.

OK in the old testament when you committed a sin, you took an offering a blood offering to the priest and you had a bath and you were forgiven for your sin m. it’s not much different than human sacrifice and it says in the Bible that the practiced by the Jews and the savages but Christians to ,you give what you love the most!

Israel was a mess at this time in history.

Where does it say this?

Well I do appreciate your support! Yeah, the reason for the ambiguity is that in the original Hebrew it doesn't say that she died. It just says "he fulfilled his vow". Obviously it's implied that she died, but that's how some othet interpretations arose in the gaps.

Oh and Abraham and Isaac... Yeah that'd a doozy. I'm not sure I could tackle that one yet. A famous philosopher wrote an entire book on that story trying to tackle it from multiple points of view. Even he was left with more questions than answers.

@@TabletsAndTemples I found it engrossing that Jep's brothers 'banished' him because they felt he was not entitled to their fathers fortune. This also brings to mind, Ishmael, whom also did not see much favor because he was born from a different mother. Great vids bud. Truly enjoy.

Totally, and Ishmael is a good parallel. Even though It's a 2800 year old tale, I don't think it's that hard to imagine a modern inheritance dispute being just as ugly in certain situations.

@@TabletsAndTemples Maybe I missed it in your video but I was curious what you think is the true to the story. From about min 1:50-2:20 you talk about two different ideas on how Jep's daughter was viewed: Was she a literal burnt sacrifice or the virgin idea mentioned by Abraham?

It's certainly possible. The tradition that Isaiah was sawn in two comes from the Babylonian Talmud which is dated after Hebrews. The Maccabean revolt is certainly possible.

@@TabletsAndTemples BTW, you gave a very, very solid teaching there!!! That's why I subscribed!!!

Here's a bit more info you might find helpful: 1) Questions of dating aside, characters in the book of Judges contravene the Levitical and Deuteronomistic laws all the time. That's part of the point, that "each did what was right in their own eyes." 2) The type of sacrifice Jephahth promises is "olah" which in the Hebrew Bible is always, without exception a burnt offering. 3) There is no suggestion in the Hebrew Bible that there was a class of "chaste" women who served with the priests. Yes there were some kind of female assembly in front of the temple - but there is no suggestion that they were chaste virgins.

Iapetus is usually compared to Japheth (Noah's son) rather than Jephthah. Confusing because of similar names, I know. Jephthah is sometimes compared to Agamemnon though.

@@TabletsAndTemples Thank you!

Interesting theory. I'm not sure his half-brothers would be living in his household. If it was revenge, it certainly backfired.

Even if you have to break the ....do not kill law? Hmm🤔 You make a vow to the God you know loves burnt offerings, then he lets it happen. Wow The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the upcoming request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out. It was no surprise or ... oh dear.....woopsie...oh how awkward, in the situation. Oh yes God already knows the outcome of everything. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!? Wouldn't he have wanted the right person to win the battle? Just grant the right person to win already.

As mentioned in the video, the Hebrew word used in Judges 11 always meant burnt offering. Secondly, all the earliest ancient commentators on Jephthah assume that he killed his daughter through the burnt offering. The idea that she was set apart didn't come about until over 1500 years after the story was written.

So... your comment shows that you are struggling to not believe that the god of the bible did something wrong and contradictory. kkkkkkk

In the original Hebrew story she was sacrificed as a burnt offering yes.

Who said anything about discussing it as if it actually happened?

@@TabletsAndTemples So you don’t believe your Bible?

@@RB-kr1ww I'm not sure what you think this channel is. We take a scholarly critical look at ancient texts like the Bible and read them in their ancient context. We treat these texts as ancient literature.

@@TabletsAndTemples Oh, I understand. Kind of like trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Your wish is my command

dna cannot exist.......

What interpretation are you referring to?

Ch11v31 "then whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering" NRSV

Where did you get that from?

@@maxxam3590 ok the guy said whatever comes out of the doors, not just a single door, he would offer it as burnt offering. According to the law the vow could be annulled by the daughter. Numbers 30.

It did not say door, but doors. One thing though is you can say though in another meaning of doors she didn't come out of the door or doors, but out of the opening of the door. You can't really come out of the door of a home, but through an opening of the door. 😊. It was the way it worded. He said whatever comes out of the doors of my house , he would offer it as burnt offering. He got what mixed up with who. I just looked it up and he said he would offer it for a burnt offering. So it wasn't a who , but a what. He wasn't supposed his daughter in that manner.

@@shellyblanchard5788 That's nothing but excuses. The point is, the God of the Bible accepts human sacrifices.

There's another reason the interpretation of his daughter living on as a virgin doesn't work. Jephthah didn't promise his daughter (the virgin) as the sacrifice, but instead the first to meet him. Only his daughter was a virgin, so living on as a virgin would not work if anyone else had met him. The creepy thing is that, God can predict anything and so he already knew about the upcoming request to win the battle and that Jephthah's daughter would run out. If the bible God is so righteous, why wouldn't he just grant the win anyway without wanting anything in return, isn't God the all-giving God!? If God approves of everything written in the bible, he clearly didn't care about unclear-ness of this account. ------> 2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, Righteousness expectations from a God that sacrificed himself to himself and then asked himself why he felt forsaken by himself when he was dying. oh and asked himself in the desert to take this cup(deal) away from him. The biblical God is all about the sweet fragrance of sacrifice.

Hi there. Thanks for your question. I'm assuming by "Son of God" you are referring to Jesus. The ancient audience would probably just have interpreted it as an angel. It's unlikely they would have connected it to any sort of Messiah.

No gymnastics here. This is not a bronze age story, it was written much later. It's not even "about" Bronze Age tribes, it's questionable that ancient Israel even existed in the Bronze Age. What you're reading is a story put together AFTER the Deuteronomistic school has condemned child sacrifice. Read the scholarship.

From which time period? We don't have much ancient commentary on this passage (apart from say Josephus), so most of it is either from the middle ages to the modern period.

@@TabletsAndTemples A good cross section from the middle ages to modern Jewish scholars.

@@draugami Sefaria is a great resource if you want to explore Jewish commentary throughout the ages. Just some of what's there: Nothing of note from Rashi, who is a popular commentator from the 11th century. Radak in the 13th century argues that she became something like a nun, seperated from the men and the women would actually go visit her each year. Ramban also in the 13th century writes that Jephthah did indeed offer her has a burnt offering and that he had to be punished by the priests for doing so. Ramban also rebuts the opinion of Ibn Ezra who supposedly argued like the medieval Christians, that she was offered up to be celibate. Ramban is insistant that it was a burnt offering. 18th Century - Metzudat writes that Jephthah fulfilled the burnt offering In more modern times Ish Leshivto simply says it is debated among Rabbis. MeAvur HaAretz is also vague, but seems to take it that Jephthah burned his daughter.

Hi there, appreciate your concern. In this case rest assured it's not a Saree, just an over garment. The truth is we don't know much about exactly what people wore or the exact time period Judges was written/set in. However there were a variety of over garments that people would have worn.

Something like a folktale.

@@TabletsAndTemples interesting

Sure, but Deuteronomy 12:30-31 clearly extends to not sacrificing children to Yahweh either. Judges is part of the Deuteronomistic history. The way I see it is there's 2 likely possibilities: 1. The story is quite a late addition to Judges, in which case the child sacrifice may have been influenced by Greek tales like Agamemnon. 2. The story is very early from a time when child sacrifice was acceptable, but a later, Deuteronomistic redactor has woven it into the book that becomes Judges - as part of a larger project highlighting how bad things were in Israel's cultural memory. Whether it was an earlier story preserved as a warning, or a later addition - either way, it was preserved/inserted by a Deuteronomistic redactor, who would have been anti child sacrifice. The story is supposed to be a tragedy either way you look at it.

@@TabletsAndTemples Deuteronomy 12:30-32 "30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto Yahweh thy God: for every abomination to Yahweh, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Just a reminder, you didn't add the verse 32, of Deuteronomy Chapter 12, where at the end, it says, "nor diminish from it", meaning, not to take away this. This 3 verses in the end of Deuteronomy 12, doesn't forbid sacrificing your Children's to Yahweh The Most High, it only condemns doing it the same way how other nations offered their Children's as sacrifice to the Gods, but it doesn't condemn sacrificing Children's to Yahweh, or enemies to him, since that is what Deuteronomy 13:16 demands, "make the city as a burnt offering to Yahweh". It is instructed to offer thy firstborn to Yahweh, likewise with the oxens, and sheep, after 7 days with their mother, and the fact that the Ancient Israelites did practice child sacrifice to Yahweh, skeletal remains of Infants found in Jaffa. Only sacrificing thy firstborn child, or thy enemy, to Yahweh, are permitted, in the Old Testament. Me having this discussion to other Christians like you, they do admit that Exodus 22:29-30, is talking about Child Sacrifice to Yahweh on Omegle, and they reply that these sacrifices are no longer necessary, because Jesus gave his life for us, so that we wouldn't be sacrificing animals, or our children's, which is what they said.

Exodus 22:29 does not mean what you think it means. When God says “You must give me the firstborn of your sons” in this passage it’s part of the social responsibilities of his people. And how the first born male should be sanctified. This is also referenced earlier in Exodus 13:2. Here it says “Consecrate to me every firstborn male.” The firstborn male is important to God here on earth so it wouldn’t make any sense for him to have the Israelites murder the firstborn male in his name.

@@jamesfahey5686 Your cherry picking one verse. Exodus 22:29-30 "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. LIKEWISE shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me." To do Likewise with the oxens, and sheeps, means to offer thy firstborn child along with the oxens, and sheeps. Exodus 13 is a different passage, you are speaking about, different from Exodus 22. You did not add the verse 30 of Exodus 22, were it says, do likewise with the sheeps, and oxens. A sheep, nor an oxen, doesn't have any purposes, in serving at a Jewish Tabernacle, nor a Temple dedicated to Yahweh. Yahweh does allow his chosen people to kill their own children's, in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Your only wanting to sugarcoat Exodus 22:29-30, cause your really ashame of the God which you worship, demanding such act. There has been accounts of the Israelites sacrificing their children's to Yahweh, occassionally, as recorded by some of their Canaanite Neighbors, along with the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, and The Hellenes, than passed it to their Canaanite Neighbors. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, banned the Jews from that occasional custom demanded in their Torah, one reason for the Maccabeean Revolt. Exodus 22:20 says not to sacrifice to any gods besides Yahweh, meaning to say, Yahweh would be okay if children's are sacrificed to him, but not to any deity besides him, reason why Yahweh didn't send his messenger to stop Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter to him, just as he did with Abraham, to stop sacrificing his son, Isaac/Yitzhak, to him.

That is incorrect. God didn't want literally sacrifices of sons. He's clearly saying that you should dedicate them, paying a ransom for them, because they belong to Him. It is a reminder of what happened in Egypt. If you read Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy it cannot be misunderstood.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

​@@BlGGESTBROTHERdna.....DNA.........DNA......😂😂😂😂

Yes Judges is a book about evil stuff, on all sides. That doesn't mean there weren't supposed to be moral lessons to be learned. As I've mentioned in other comments, while it is possible that the Jephthah tale stems from an earlier tradition where child sacrifice was accepted by the Israelites... the story we find in Judges has been edited into its final form by groups who would have been anti-child-sacrifice. While speculating on the purpose of an earlier form of the story is an interesting exercise, it is not the focus of this video. As a parallel, the Greek had a child-sacrifice myth: Agamemnon and Iphigenia. However, the story is a tragedy (as I believe Jephthah is). It doesn't suggest that child-sacrifice was accepted among the Greeks.

Mmm probably not at the time this story was put together. Maybe there's something of an older core left in the story from a time when child sacrifice was acceptable. But the version of the story in Judges shows signs of being edited later as part of the deuteronomistic writings. It's something I'll definitely discuss in a follow up video.

@@TabletsAndTemples Then the Bible becomes an interpolated and manmade cooked up stories book.

@@maryadaramanna471 yes, people created the stories

Except in the Hebrew text she did not stay a virgin, she was burned alive. This is confirmed by Josephus' reading of the story

@@TabletsAndTemples I haven't been blessed to be able to read Hebrew or study the tablet's,I am in the book of judge's now and I am passed the part of his being judge and what was wrote in king James Bible and it didn't state that ,not that all the king James is correct according to the manuscript because they made some eirs and they state in the beginning of the king James they did the best they could translating the Hebrew and Greek,I am not saying your wrong at all,just what I read and studied,now in chapters of Samson

There's an interesting theory that the Abraham narrative originally did feature the death of Isaac.

@@TabletsAndTemples That would have made the tale of Jacob's twelve sons, who became the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel a little difficult.

Thanks for your feedback and taking the time to give your response. If you're curious you'll find academic sources pop up for most of the statements I make with full credits at the end. If I might respond, for Hebrew Bible narrative critics ambiguity, (particularly relating to morals) is actually a well documented phenomena and it is often argued to be deliberate. The two most prominent HB narrative critics promoting this idea being Meir Sternberg (Gap theory) and Robert Alter (Biblical reticence). It's a feature of most Biblical narratives from many different compositional time periods - explicit narratorial judgements on morality are the exception not the rule. To suggest that the authors "forgot" to modify the ending, imo assumes quite a low view of the authors/redactors abilities or concern for the subject matter. Given that we know redactors trended towards exapnsion (see David Carr, Formation of the HB), it's hard to imagine if the story required updating that someone "forgot" to do that. In your understanding when would you view the book of Judges as being composed? I ask because the trend in scholarship is definately later dating at the moment: 6th-5th Century with a minority view being the 8th Century. If we accept a later dating then it's quite likely that by this time the authors/editors/redactors of Judges were familiar with proto-Deuteronomistic ideas of not sacrificing one's children. Now it's more complex than that, as those specific commands could be later additions, I'm not sure. I'm not disagreeing that the origins of the story may have had a root in a different or earlier religious practice. What I'm suggesting is that its unlikely given the datings of composition that the authors/editors of the book of Judges would have approved of child sacrifice. There's a difference between the meaning of the original story and the reason it was included in the final book of Judges - and those two things can be very different. I think the variety of ancient interpretations by the 1st century does show a degree of ambiguity in the story. Any "rationalization" is only because these authors and editors were literary artists who had rational reasons for including these stories. The goal of historical criticism is to see if we can better understand how the ancient audience understood (or even rationalized) these stories.

@@TabletsAndTemples I don't pick up on any "ambiguity" in the Old Testament, but rather Yahweh repeatedly - and often brutally - punishing people for one offense or another, as well as exhorting his own people to be punitive. This informative video, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kKtzmN1-vtvLaJc.html, points out that the Abraham and Isaac story originated in an earlier narrative in which Abraham went ahead with the sacrifice. The Jephthah narrative is consistent with the Elisha narrative in which the prophet sends bears to maul children who mocked him for his baldness, or the Psalm in which God exhorts Israelites to smash infants against rocks, not to mention that part about sparing the rod; there was a general contempt for children in the ancient world, but inside and outside Judaism.

I'm familiar with Friedman's view of Abraham and Isaac. But that's an entirely different kind of project, and really highlights the difference between source criticism and narrative criticism. Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of source critics. But let's assume Abraham and Isaac was based on an earlier story where he sacrifices the kid - that's a hypothetical source critical reconstruction. Narrative criticism is asking why the narrative reads the way it does in the form we have it. The two disciplines can inform each other - but at some point you have to deal with the version that survived and the context it survived in. Sure - Jephthah's tale may have been based on a legend of child sacrifice to another deity - or it also may not have. We have to deal with why the narrative survived in the form it did, and how it was edited into Judges by scribes who, from everything we know, were thoughtful and made decisions with purpose. If you haven't read Robert Alter's "The Art of Biblical Narrative" or Meir Sternberg's "Biblical Poetics" I would highly recommend them to see the other side of the interpretive coin. Source criticism is important, but it's not the be-alll and end-all of the "meaning" of a text. These texts were important to faith communities over centuries in many different contexts. Edit: It should be noted too, Friedman acknowledges the earlier version of the E source for Abraham and Isaac (in which the sacrifice takes place) is a "possibility" - not a certainty.

Yes he did, she was a burnt offering

@@RodneyBryant39 nope, it was an abomination to sacrifice humans. And as a Judge her father would know that, her father should have known such a vow wasn’t even proper and the court in those days would have nullified it.

@@mider9996 it was a abomination to sacrifice them to the god Molech. That one was for the most high

@@mider9996 it already tells you that she was a burnt offering, theres no way around 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@RodneyBryant39 no...it doesn’t lol

Humans are messed up, God isn't. Read leviticus 27 where human sacrifice is considered awful and an abomination to the Lord. You can't have free will and also be stopped from doing all wrong in the world. Everyone must chose to do good. He makes a way, He always has.

Yep.....that's because the god of the Hebrew scriptures (Yahweh) is actually Satan. If you read the Hebrew scriptures with this as a fresh premise...(even just as a thought experiment) ....everything begins to make sense!! The jealousy, the insecurity, the bouts of anger, the totally conditional (and volatile) affection for his own people who were basically a nomadic militia that he used to sack and pillage the region. The animal sacrifices he demanded....etc etc....it's all there in black and white!! If it walks like a duck....(as they say)