…and this is a 
The story of Jephthah is reason enough to be apostate
Category: Religion
Posted on: February 24, 2007 7:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Look in your own backyard for the religious crazies. Here's a letter that was published in the St Cloud Times which I found simply unbelievable—it's a plea to people to obey the bloodthirsty skygod of the Bible, and it makes an awful argument.
... Down through the ages, God has continued to display his unmerited, undeserved favor toward mankind, and also his continued warnings. He has recorded in his word not only the good things, but the failures and weaknesses of men and women. ... He has faithfully shown us there is nothing new under the sun. One nation rises up and is used to bring judgment on a corrupt one.
The account of Jephthah should warn us that we should go to the word of God for direction and not make any rash vows or say things we may one day regret. According to the law, which Jephthah was under, only certain clean animals and birds were eligible for sacrifice.
His regret for not having first considered what God would've had him do is nothing compared with the anguish one day of those who refuse to be accountable to God and deny, change or add to his word. They will be judged by it.
The story of Jephthah from Judges 11:29-40 is a good reason to abandon that Judeo-Christian vileness. Perhaps you recall it; a Hebrew chieftain asks for his god's aid in slaughtering the Ammonites, and all God asks in return is that Jephthah sacrifice the first thing he sees when he returns home. Jephthah devastates the Ammonites, destroying twenty towns (nice), and the first thing he sees at his door is his daughter. Who he then kills and sacrifices as a burnt offering.
What a horrible story and what horrible people that they think we should learn love of and obedience to god from it; all it tells me is that their god is a monster, and that those who follow him are unconscionably amoral themselves.
August Berkshire has a reply published today—it's a little milder than I'd have been, but that's why he's better at public relations than I am.
The Feb. 10 letter "Account warns us to go to Bible for direction" states: "The account of Jephthah should warn us that we should go to the word of God for direction."
According to the Bible, Jephthah pledged to sacrifice to God the first thing that walked through his door, which turned out to be his daughter. (Judges 11).
Did God intervene to save the child at the last moment, as occurred in the Abraham and Isaac story? No.
Evidently God has no problem with human sacrifice. In fact, it is estimated that God kills 33 million people in the biblical stories.
Fortunately, most of humanity has moved on from the barbaric times and god depicted in the Old Testament.
Comments
The story of Jephthah is one of my favorites for people who want to argue in favor of the "mercy" of God. I'm surprised the guy even knew it. Most Christians I mention it to have never heard of it. Not surprising, really, since most of them have never actually read the silly book they profess to follow. The letter-writer seems to have ignored the real point--that God could have had the family dog trot out or a pigeon land on Jephthah's head. Instead, the first thing ol' Jeph sees is his daughter. Nice God you got there, folks.
Posted by: Bryn | February 24, 2007 8:03 PM
It's a great cover story for a bit of infantacide.
"So Jeph, you killed your daughter... care to explain why before we stone you to death?"
"Well you see fellas, God came to me before my recent genocide of the Ammonites and said..."
Posted by: Paul | February 24, 2007 8:07 PM
the way the story ends, almost makes one think that the writer was intentionally pointing out the irony in blind obediance.
hmm.
maybe the bible is filled with warnings after all... just not the ones commonly thought of by xians who uh, blindly obey.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 24, 2007 8:14 PM
For comparison, check this out. Geese overflying the house gave the woman spiritual messages telling her to kill the kid, and she obeyed. (And they found her not guilty.) So, would Christers accept a flock of geese as the equivalent of their invisible sky buddy?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/24/colo_grandma_not_guilty_in_tots_murder/
Posted by: Roy | February 24, 2007 8:20 PM
I wonder if it's actually supposed to teach a totally different lesson: that Jephthah shouldn't have asked for such an evil thing as genocide in the first place, and was punished for his blasphemy.
Of course, such a modern interpretation still leaves the... surprising idea of killing entirely innocent children just to teach their father a lesson, like in the Book of Job and probably several more places.
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 24, 2007 8:23 PM
The god of the bible is needy, demanding, vain, hateful, petty and unreasonable. He gets offended when people take his name in vain, he demands human sacrifice, he slaughters innocents. As a society, we don't generally hold people with those qualities in high esteem. Yet the biblical god is not just feared, he is loved. Christians love their deity. When I've asked them about specific examples of cruelty that the god they believe in has inflicted upon humanity, I've never really had anyone try to honestly answer why they love a god who is so cruel. I've been told that those stories didn't really happen, (by people who say the bible is inerrant). Or I've been told, "It was a painful thing for him to do, but it was necessary for the good of all humanity". Or I've been told that christians won't question "HIS" wisdom. The worst response to that question is when I've been preached to or when bible quotes have been thrown at me. Do the christians even know why they love a deity who is so disgusting?
Posted by: abeja | February 24, 2007 8:24 PM
Ichthyic wrote:
> the way the story ends, almost makes one
> think that the writer was intentionally
> pointing out the irony in blind obediance.
I thought the same thing, that it was probably a kind of s stealth response to lead believers down a path that goes, "Jephthah? Gotta look that one up..." *reads story* "Wait, what?" *head asplodes*
Posted by: SteveC | February 24, 2007 8:24 PM
still leaves the... surprising idea of killing entirely innocent children just to teach their father a lesson, like in the Book of Job and probably several more places.
It certainly does imply a historical basis for devaluing life.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 24, 2007 8:27 PM
Hmm. Very interesting. Let's see what Conservapedia has to say about this.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Deuteronomy
*snicker*
Posted by: Dustin | February 24, 2007 8:28 PM
LOL.
Let's see what Conservapedia has to say about this.
Assfly should just give up trying to be serious and write the thing up as a comic venture in book form.
I'd bet he would make a considerable sum off of it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 24, 2007 8:32 PM
Admit it, PZ. You hate this story because Jephthah caused the extinction of the Ammonites, three of the most beautiful orders of shelled cephalopods in the fossil record.
Posted by: llewelly | February 24, 2007 8:32 PM
Well, some people here might try to argue that it's a subtle, sneaky argument against genocide or human sacrifice, but that's certainly not the idea the St Cloud Times letter writer got.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 24, 2007 8:32 PM
The best thing about christianity is that it's fiction. How awful it would be, to find out that such a powerful monster as Yahweh existed.
Posted by: steve s | February 24, 2007 8:34 PM
Posted by: steve s | February 24, 2007 8:37 PM
Jephthah's daughter was a willing sacrifice, she said that he should keep his promise.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | February 24, 2007 8:48 PM
but that's certainly not the idea the St Cloud Times letter writer got.
indeed, it would appear that the letter writer missed that potential interpretation. go figure; subtlety and alternative interpretations don't seem to be amongst the fundiebot strongsuits (to put it mildly).
really, though, I do wonder sometimes if a lot of the writers of that collected text weren't subtly hinting that the reader shouldn't be so blindly trusting (like they knew it was all hokum, and were trying to subtly point this out to the observant).
similar to making an anecdote that would show how blindly follwing charlatans like GW and co. has unintended consequences?
hmm.
I also would bet that someone has tried applying this analysis to a lot of the anecdotes in that book before.
really, I could imagine a group of shaman sitting down together and saying to themselves:
"look, I know this is all a bunch of bunk we used to maintain group heirarchy and order (and get paid), but really, shouldn't we at least give the smart ones a chance to figure out what's really going on?"
of course, this is all beside the point of the letter writer taking the anecdote at face value and making the destructive conclusion they did, just like all the idiots that blindly followed Bushco now get to discover the consequences of that as well.
just an interesting tangent.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 24, 2007 8:55 PM
The real lesson here is simple: do not do stupid things.
In this particular case, do not make stupid oaths and don't agree to pay a price that's open to wild contingency.
Also, the ancient Hebrews were evil, but we all knew that already.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 24, 2007 8:57 PM
"Jephthah's daughter was a willing sacrifice, she said that he should keep his promise."
Well then, if a child says its ok to do it, It must be so!
Posted by: BibleSmith | February 24, 2007 9:02 PM
Re biblical atrocities.
In point of fact, the story of Sauls' visit to the witch at Endor is even worse. Saul goes to Endor to have a witch bring up the prophet Samuel, because he hasn't received his instructions for the following days battle from Yahweh. Samuel informs Saul that Yahweh is displeased with him and that the latter is going to make it his business to see that the Israelites will lose the upcoming battle and that Saul and his sons will leave the field feet first. Now why is Yahweh displeased with Saul you may ask. Is Saul neglecting to attend Friday night services? No. Did Saul have a ham sandwich for lunch? No. The reason is that, in a previous victory over the Amalekites, Saul failed to kill all of those who were captured, sparing some of them. This was against Yahwehs' orders which were to spare none. Yahweh doesn't like guys who don't obey orders!
In addition, there is the issue of Sauls' jealousy of David which came about after a previous victory in which the Hebrew women salute the returning soldiers by singing that Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands! Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mau Tse Tung had nothing on these guys.
Posted by: SLC | February 24, 2007 9:02 PM
In my experience, the least idiotic response I've heard from Christians regarding the Jephthah story is to point out (claim) that God was absent; that God did not reply directly to Jephthah's vow and didn't tell him anything about what to do when his daughter came out, so it was him freely choosing to do an evil thing he thought his god wanted. Originally I didn't have a response to that when it was brandished at me other than to reiterate that a loving god would have intervened anyway to prevent needless suffering--or at least sent a clear message.
A better response would add that Jephthah got what he asked for, whether or not god gave him a direct reply. And if this is just an example of a person foolishly doing an evil thing he thought god wanted, why is that not stated explicitly? Why is Jephthah depicted as favored by god? What is the story doing in the bible in the first place?
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 24, 2007 9:05 PM
Speaking of "religious crazies", take a look at some of the comments on this article:
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html?iid=chix-digg
My favorite is the commenter who argues that the "truth of the Bible is evidence of the truth of the Bible".
Posted by: Adam | February 24, 2007 9:20 PM
I have wondered the same about a lot of Bible stories
Posted by: John Marley | February 24, 2007 9:25 PM
adam:
i rather like the irony contained in this post:
I don't buy this heresy for one minute. After I heard about this, I did some digging and found that Cameron and Jacobovici produced a documentary that claimed the Exodus actually occurred. I, as a believer, already knew that.
So, this raises an important question. If Cameron and Jacobovici believe in the Exodus, how could they NOT believe in the Resurrection? How could they accept part of Scripture, but not all of it? They're speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
ooooh the sweet, delicious, irony.
actually, wouldn't it just be so much fun if the subject of Cameron's film has some legitimacy to it?
oh, but the spins that will arise from that.
pure genius of him to decide to invest in making a film of it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 24, 2007 9:31 PM
Last summer I had a "garage give-away" or sorts... I gave away about 8 to 10 thousand books in hundreds of plastic boxes lining my dad's driveway.
During this little event I had one of the creepiest experiences of the last few years - an older couple came up to me, wearing red, white and blue ribbons, US flag lapel pins, and other "flair," and asked if I had any Left Behind books.
I've had friends who were schizophrenic. I've spent time in psych wards and got along well with the other people there... none of these people, even the most extremely troubled, ever creeped me out. Their problems were understandable. The word crazy didn't apply to them.
The Left behind people are crazy. Just flat out crazy.
Posted by: craig | February 24, 2007 9:38 PM
Saul visited the forest moon of Endor? And the Ewoks just let him?
Posted by: Stegve | February 24, 2007 9:38 PM
Nice reply by August! I'm glad to see responses when crazy letters like these appear in the paper.
Posted by: Paguroidea | February 24, 2007 9:53 PM
"What is the story doing in the bible in the first place?"
My favorite that never got told in Sunday School was the story of the "kidnapping" of the Ark of the Covenant in I Samuel 5 and 6. The King James version is best, not only because it's The Way Jesus Spoke It, but because the Bad Guys get smitten with "emerods" (read hemorrhoids) instad of boils.
Posted by: Coragyps | February 24, 2007 10:11 PM
Saul visited the forest moon of Endor? And the Ewoks just let him?
he went to see the witch. she lives on the other side of Endor.
he wiped out the ewoks later (thank god).
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 24, 2007 10:23 PM
"The account of Jephthah should warn us that we should ... not make any rash vows or say things we may one day regret."
Yes, the story of Jephthah is horrible, but I don't think it is an example of God demanding a human sacrifice. It is the story of a man making a foolish oath that he fulfills to his deep regret. And that is the point the letter writer is trying to make. And no, God did not intervene because He did command Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter the way He commanded Abram to sacrifice his son. Jep was obeying his own oath, not the "word of God". Not that I agree with the letter, but I think you completely missed the point.
Posted by: SteveM | February 24, 2007 10:32 PM
"truth of the Bible is evidence of the truth of the Bible".
I think my head just exploded.
"If Cameron and Jacobovici believe in the Exodus, how could they NOT believe in the Resurrection? How could they accept part of Scripture, but not all of it? They're speaking out of both sides of their mouths."
If it didn't before....
I guess years of defending illogical beliefs does a number on your ability to actually reason.
"29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon 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."
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
Doesn't sound like the lord had any problem with it to me.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | February 24, 2007 11:16 PM
I was listening to a Christian radio station the other day (what? I was in the middle of nowhere, I thought it might be funny), and this story actually came up. They made a somewhat interesting argument that we shouldn't interpret his "sacrificing" his daughter to mean he killed her, but that rather he basically sent her to a nunnery (to be consecrated to God, or something). I'm not sure if this is a widespread interpretation, but if it were it would put a different spin on things.
Of course, this brings up the point of Biblical literalism being meaningless if you can reinterpret everything to "literally" mean whatever you want anyway. But still.
Posted by: Randall | February 24, 2007 11:25 PM
Ahem: *burnt offering*
Posted by: Caledonian | February 24, 2007 11:29 PM
Saul visited the forest moon of Endor? And the Ewoks just let him?
It does Not. Make. Sense. Saul needs to read up on the Chewbacca Defense
Religion's common denominator: God likes torture. (n.b.: Hell)
Posted by: D | February 24, 2007 11:36 PM
SteveM, you're absolutely correct--God didn't "demand" the sacrifice that was offered. However--"the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah". God delivered the "the children of Ammon" into Jeph's hands after Jeph made his vow. So, I guess the author of the tale is saying, "The Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah, but He wasn't paying attention to what was going on." or possibly, "Well, God dropped in on Jeph, but He left just prior to the oath and really didn't have anything to do with Jephthah's victory. And since God was out for a bite to eat and a beer or two, it was just bad luck that the daughter came dancing out of the house when she did. Thus, God slept for a couple months (see beer above), and it didn't really occur to him to say, "Yo, Jeph! You really don't need to sacrifice your daughter!"
What you're left with in the end is a God who either demands human sacrifice in exchange for victory (which seems in keeping with much of the Bible) or one who cares so little even for those He has chosen that he allows them to sacrifice their children (which, sadly, also seems in keeping with the Bible). Neither seems a particularly attractive alternative.
Posted by: Bryn | February 24, 2007 11:37 PM
Today I will argue that Jephthah's daughter was secretly consorting with Satan, and God arranged for Jephthah to see her first so that she would be burnt, the biblical punishment for witches.
Tomorrow I will argue that the story symbolic. It shows that Jephthah's massacre of the Ammonites is as horrible as the murder of his own daughter. In this interpretation, God is merely a device, used to bring the point home to a audience who is likely to have less sympathy for an entire tribe of foreigners than for a daughter.
Posted by: llewelly | February 24, 2007 11:41 PM
Whoa whoa way-wait a minute. You expected this Bible thumper to have actually *READ* and consequently *UNDERSTOOD* the story, so he could rightfully apply it?
Surely you jest...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 24, 2007 11:59 PM
This reminds me of the last bible meeting I attended. I was an athiest at the time but very "respectful of others beliefs" and I was very isolated, new baby, no car, husband working many hours. So, a lady I knew would pick me up once a week and we would read about women in the bible. This day it was a story about a battle. A guy from the "bad" side decided to bail on the battle and go hide out in the tent of a chick from the "good" side. They were friends or something. She acted totally cool about it and he fell asleep on the couch. When he was asleep, she pounded a tent stake through his head. The scary part was that the lady reading got really excited, started praying aloud about how wonderful the place god had given women was. It was like an extasy or something with the whole phallic tent stake penetrating his head thing. She had everyone hold hands and everyone got all hot for god, praying and swaying. I realized that no one really knew where I was with my two month old baby and my "get hard for god" act was not very convincing. It was really really scary.
Posted by: yiela | February 25, 2007 12:07 AM
I was an athiest[sic] at the time
meaning, you aren't any more?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 25, 2007 12:13 AM
The story of Jephthah is reason enough to be apostate
The Canaanites were good enough for me.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 25, 2007 12:13 AM
He killed the ammonites? Oh no! D-: That asshole!
Posted by: octopod | February 25, 2007 12:29 AM
I'm an athiest. I was just meaning that I wasn't a christian at the time. I never really have been and have never had a serious bout of christianity. I was a little susceptable to woo at that time but not christian at all. I still hang out with a lot of christians and even a few very woo woo people. I attended both a candle christmas eve thing and a solstice party this year. I'm not bragging, I just don't know any other athiests and I want to have some friends. We have a lot of other things in common. I do sometimes call my friends (either group) on the really whacky stuff. The spine tapping allergy cure and god controlling the birthing times of livestock through prayer are two that have come up lately. My close friends that "know" that I'm a somewhat of a free thinker tolerate me even though they think I'm the one that's nuts, haha. I'm still in the closet about my actual athiesm though. The consequences to my kids and my job would be pretty severe. Mostly, I just avoid the topic if I can.
Posted by: yiela | February 25, 2007 12:38 AM
I ask this again, if we are to take this letter seriously, then why prosecute Andrea Yates for killing her kids? How do we know that she didn't hear the voice of God? How do we know?
Well, of course we know she didn't. This is beyond ridiculous.
I don't even understand the letter-writer's point, as her "advice" is obviously inapplicable to anything in reality, and downright illegal, and sick.
At the risk of sounding maudlin, there's a speech in a Star Trek episode given by Captain Kirk to one of his crewmembers who's in cahoots with Apollo (who turns out to be an alien with superpowers), in which Kirk speaks passionately about the loyalty human beings owe each other in the face of deities. I've always loved that speech, and though, of course, Apollo is portrayed as a false god because he's really an alien, I loved extrapolating its meaning.
Posted by: Kristine | February 25, 2007 12:45 AM
Yeah, it's right there in the text. I don't know why so many Christians are anti-science all-or-nothing literalists. It tells them straight out "don't believe shit if it's not proven."
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 25, 2007 12:45 AM
I guess it's a cultural thing, but I don't understand the vow. What's the possibility someone/thing other than his daughter would be the first thing to "walk through his door"?
Posted by: Raguel | February 25, 2007 1:09 AM
I've always found that trite little phrase, "There's nothing new under the sun." to be very anti-theist. Basically, the phrase supports the theory that matter is always matter and energy just changes form.
If there's truly "nothing new", then where do babies come from? Seriously. If there is NOTHING NEW, that would have to include new people.
Yeah... I realize it's a weak argument, but the phrase has never sat right with me.
Posted by: possummomma | February 25, 2007 1:40 AM
I've always found that trite little phrase, "There's nothing new under the sun." to be very anti-theist.
Actually, Jennifer Michael Hecht included a discussion of Ecclesiastes in Doubt: A History in her sections on Jewish doubt. She argues that most of it feels very Epicurean, possibly authored by a Hellenized Jew.
Posted by: Damien | February 25, 2007 2:07 AM
PZ Myers wrote, "...all God asks in return is that Jephthah sacrifice the first thing he sees when he returns home." Unfortunate mistelling of the story--harder to debunk bullshit with inaccurate characterizations like this.
Gregory Bateson, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind, tells how his father made him study the bible so that he would be an informed atheist (Bateson pere was an atheist, too, of course). Thanks, Foster Disbelief, for bringing us the actual text...
Posted by: pzykr | February 25, 2007 2:09 AM
Although people think of the Bible as very old, its stories are reworkings of older tales. There is a persistant tradition, for example, that in the original version of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham did indeed kill his son, though Yahweh brought him back to life later. In that context, the story of Jephthah is not anomalous at all. It may reflect earlier beliefs and practices that the Jews later mostly edited out of their scriptures, much as the Greeks tried to remove references to human sacrifice from official text of the Iliad.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | February 25, 2007 2:24 AM
Raguel>
Well, in the version of the story recorded in Grimm's Fairy Tales (which is much more entertaining than the bible version, and does not include a genocidal war), the king expected it would be his faithful dog that would meet him on the road home. Except of course that his daughter runs to greet him more quickly than the family dog. Much effort is made in the Grimm's version to convey that the king is believes he is pulling a fast one on the entity to whom he vows to give the, "first thing to greet him on the road home."
I suspect versions of this particular cautionary tale have been floating around for much longer than there has been a bible - probably much longer than there has been writing. Most cultures possess the meme of oath-taking, and most cultures have a desire to convey the danger of making an oath in bad faith.
Posted by: Crosius | February 25, 2007 2:32 AM
The promise to kill the next person you encounter is a major plot mechanism in the operas Idomeneo and Rigoletto.
Posted by: bad Jim | February 25, 2007 3:18 AM
Jim:
There is a persistant tradition, for example, that in the original version of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham did indeed kill his son, though Yahweh brought him back to life later.
I hadn't heard that before. Got link?
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 25, 2007 3:19 AM
It is worth noting that the only time that Jephthah is mentioned in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:32), it is not with condemnation but unequivocal praise. He appears among a list of murderers and genocidal maniacs like Moses, Samson, and David ...
So much for the "that's just the Old Testament" argument.
Thanks to Tracie Harris of The Atheist Experience for the reference.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | February 25, 2007 3:40 AM
It is worth noting that the only time that Jephthah is mentioned in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:32), it is not with condemnation but unequivocal praise. He appears among a list of murderers and genocidal maniacs like Moses, Samson, and David ...
So much for the "that's just the Old Testament" argument.
Thanks to Tracie Harris of The Atheist Experience for pointing this out.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | February 25, 2007 3:43 AM
"Kirk speaks passionately about the loyalty human beings owe each other in the face of deities. I've always loved that speech, and though, of course, Apollo is portrayed as a false god because he's really an alien, I loved extrapolating its meaning."
...says Kristine,above.
Posted by: JS | February 25, 2007 3:53 AM
L'enfer, c'est les autres.
Posted by: bad Jim | February 25, 2007 5:09 AM
"what JS said"
First, Godwin's Law means you automatically lose the argument.
Secondly, loyalty to other human beings mean 'to treat other human being with respect and kindness' not 'do what people tell you for no good reason'.
Third, blind obedience to a higher authority, even when it tells you to do thing that go against your own moral code - that sounds suspiciously like religion to me.
Fourth, seriously, Godwin's Law. Look it up.
Posted by: Man of Mystery | February 25, 2007 5:40 AM
A comment from a lurker:
In the Jewish tradition, Jephthah's actions are viewed as unsavoury and incorrect. His vow is irresponsible, and anyway he was incorrect in carrying it out on his daughter.
The Yalkuth Shimoni embellishes on the story:
She [Jephthah's daughter] said to him, "Where does it say that you may sacrifice people? It is only written about cattle and sheep!"
"But I have promised, my daughter" he said.
"Jacob, who said 'everything You give me, I will tithe to you' - did he offer up any of his children?"
But he refused to listen to her.
She said, "let us go to the wise men - maybe they can annul your vow!"
But he would not go.
The same source is also critical of the behaviour of the wise man of the generation, who for reasons of honor refused to go to Jephthah to annul his vow.
A sorry story all round.
Posted by: Lurker | February 25, 2007 6:28 AM
"Did God intervene to save the child at the last moment, as occurred in the Abraham and Isaac story? No."
Of course not a daughter is not worth god's time. Had his son been the first to greet him you can bet the murderer-in-the-sky would have swooped down as fast as posible. Remember this is a book where daughters can be offered as potential rape victims to placate a baying crowd, and the father rewarded.
Posted by: James Orpin | February 25, 2007 6:49 AM
and all God asks in return is that Jephthah sacrifice the first thing he sees when he returns home. (emphasis mine)
As pzykr points out, PZ starts with a misreading of the text.
Even if one starting with the assumption that the text is valueless, evil crap, the rigorously honest treatment of data that is the ideal of science should be at least attempted.
No intent here to defend the editorial that set this blog entry in motion. Plenty of Jewish and Christian readers of the text who don't see it as parenting instructions and so forth.
Posted by: baruch grazer | February 25, 2007 8:04 AM
I use my bible every day! It's pretty heavy, so it makes a good weight to keep my mouse cable from dropping off the desk.
Other than as a weight of some kind, I can't think of a single good use for the damned bible. If anyone knows of any other use, please let us know.
If you're practicing religion, you're mainlining stupid. (Thanks, PZ)
Posted by: waldteufel | February 25, 2007 8:20 AM
Ths JWS sr wrt sm grssv sht. Lv t t th JWS, h,PZ?
Th JWSH scrptrs r jst ll bt kllng rn't thy?
Thts wht th JWS mnt sn't t PZ?
Posted by: KC JONES | February 25, 2007 8:36 AM
Posted by: mark | February 25, 2007 8:38 AM
#60: Maybe this is apocryphal, but it is a good story:
I understand that Owsley delivered a bible that had been soaked in acid to the Chicago 7 defendants while they were in the Cook County lockup. Once inside, pages were torn out and eaten. Most of the jail was tripping for quite a while.
Posted by: Willy | February 25, 2007 8:42 AM
Please! To properly demonstrate our pretentiousness, we spell it J_S.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 25, 2007 8:46 AM
For comparison, check this out. Geese overflying the house gave the woman spiritual messages telling her to kill the kid, and she obeyed. (And they found her not guilty.) So, would Christers accept a flock of geese as the equivalent of their invisible sky buddy?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/24/colo_grandma_not_guilty_in_tots_murder/
Posted by: Roy | February 24, 2007 08:20 PM
To be fair, Roy, the woman was effectively found to be not guilty by virtue of insanity, and remanded to a secure facility until the degree of danger she presented to her fellow citizens could be determined .
Posted by: Elliott | February 25, 2007 9:56 AM
First, Godwin's Law means you automatically lose the argument.
Actually, YOU need to look it up. 1st off, the invoker LOSES the argument as well, & secondly, it signifies that the thread that it occurred in is over.
"However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 25, 2007 9:56 AM
Posted by: llewelly | February 25, 2007 10:11 AM
waldteufel, I'm told that the paper of most bibles makes pretty good paper for roll-your-own cigarettes. You can even have fun by going through and cutting out the bits most Christians ignore anyway first.
Posted by: Talen Lee | February 25, 2007 10:15 AM
I think the message to George W. Bush is clear. A Jenna/Barbara sacrifice for a glorious victorious victory in Iraq.
Posted by: Sonja | February 25, 2007 10:27 AM
Sonja-thanks for the chuckle
i needed that this am...
Posted by: pzykr | February 25, 2007 11:16 AM
Given how much sex and advocation of violence is in the bible, I'm surprised it's allowed in schools!
waldteufel asked, "Other than as a weight of some kind, I can't think of a single good use for the damned bible. If anyone knows of any other use, please let us know."
Otherwise useless tomes make excellent flower presses to dry & flatten flowers for botanical and artistic efforts.
Posted by: andrea | February 25, 2007 11:23 AM
Sonja: Well, there would be much mana indeed from twins....
General: Folks, Yahweh, and especially Old-Testament Yahweh, is your basic sky-father god. That arbitrary cruelty is merely the terrifying randomness of natural disaster, psychologically contained by a name and a body of stories, and (in this case) projected onto an infantile father-archetype.
But here's something to chew on: the more indignant it makes you that God (by whatever name) isn't not always wise and caring... well, it suggests you're doing a little projecting of your own. Specifically, making demands of the positive aspect of that same father-archetype, and responding to their failure with denigration instead of idealization.
Much the same goes for Jesus as the Sun Child, mutatis mutandis....
Posted by: David Harmon | February 25, 2007 11:25 AM
We don't see nearly enough animal sacrifices at the megachurches these days, do we? I wonder why they fight so hard about evolution and don't do what the bible commands them directly to do.
Posted by: Mena | February 25, 2007 11:29 AM
OK, apologists, I read the bible passage—in case you hadn't noticed, it was linked to in the article.
That's pretty plain. Jephthah promised a sacrifice, and then THE LORD delivered his enemies to him. Plain as day, the bible is giving credit for the victory to that deity, after Jephthah's promise. That's how the letter-writer I quoted interpreted it, that's the plain interpretation of the language written there.
You're going to have to twist the story harder, I think.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 25, 2007 11:41 AM
With respect to the "geese grandma" (comment #4) she was found not guilty BY REASON OF INSANITY... and was sentenced to a mental institution for an indefinite period of time.
It isn't like the judge or jury accepted the "god made me do it" arguement.
Posted by: dorid | February 25, 2007 11:56 AM
Author of the article has no basic knowledge of history of religion. The hysteric statement "The story of Jephthah from Judges 11:29-40 is a good reason to abandon that Judeo-Christian vileness." prove it sufficiently. Might be we should also abandon platonian idealistic thinking while it inspired christian philosophers? Author should study more what Christianity is and what Judaism is and do not blend them together in future.
Religious truth unfolded itself during history in peculiar unique way in which judaism played signifficant role once.
Christianity with Trinity conception is the last final word.
---------------
Might be there is some similarity or metaphore between unfolding of religious thinking and unfolding of compexity of life during evolution. Both of them are predetermimed.
It's John Davison's merit that he focused are attention to this forgotten fact.
Posted by: VMartin | February 25, 2007 1:36 PM
Author of the article hasn't apparently the basic knowledge of history of religion. The unadequate statement "The story of Jephthah from Judges 11:29-40 is a good reason to abandon that Judeo-Christian vileness." prove it sufficiently. Might be we should also abandon platonian idealistic thinking while it inspired christian philosophers? Author should study more what Christianity is and what Judaism is and do not blend them together in future.
Religious truth unfolded itself during history in peculiar unique way in which judaism played signifficant role once.
Christianity with Trinity conception is the last final word.
---------------
Might be there is some similarity or metaphore between unfolding of religious thinking and unfolding of compexity of life during evolution. Both of them are predetermimed.
It's John Davison's merit that he focused are attention to this forgotten fact.
Posted by: VMartin | February 25, 2007 1:40 PM
Of course John Davison addressed only process of biological evolution.
Posted by: VMartin | February 25, 2007 1:55 PM
Jephthah had a brother, and his book shows an altogether more fluffy God. Sadly the book of Naphtha was excluded from the Canon of Scripure by the Council of Nicea, and it was left to organic chemists to keep the memory of this great Old Testament figure alive.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | February 25, 2007 2:31 PM
Crystalline Apostate asked for a link about my claim:
"There is a persistant tradition, for example, that in the original version of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham did indeed kill his son, though Yahweh brought him back to life later."
I don't have a link, but I have got a reference. The traditions are discussed by Bruce Zuckerman in his book Job the Silent, which deals with pre-Biblical versions of the Job story and the general theme of how much of the Bible is commentary, revision, or parody. Just as modern kids don't know that the poems in Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are take offs of once well-known poems, readers of the Bible are likely to misunderstand the point of some books of the Bible because they have no way of knowing what they were written against or refuse to acknowledge that parts of scripture might be meant satirically or ironically.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | February 25, 2007 2:54 PM
Jim:
I don't have a link, but I have got a reference. The traditions are discussed by Bruce Zuckerman in his book Job the Silent, which deals with pre-Biblical versions of the Job story and the general theme of how much of the Bible is commentary, revision, or parody.
Thanks Jim.
Pre-biblical? Do you mean Midrashic, Talmudic, or the Tanakh? Or are we talking a wholesale borrowing from other cultures? I find this fascinating, & do wish there were some web links for this.
Just as modern kids don't know that the poems in Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are take offs of once well-known poems, readers of the Bible are likely to misunderstand the point of some books of the Bible because they have no way of knowing what they were written against or refuse to acknowledge that parts of scripture might be meant satirically or ironically.
Again - really? Lewis Carrol 'borrowed' from the bible? Or ancient poetr