During the forty years I taught at the universities of Copenhagen, Aarhus, Hamburg and elsewhere, I always warned my students: You are not part of the argument! So, when professor Davila opens with “No, not buying it!” he is obviously not following the rules of an academic debate, putting himself in front of his argument.
He mentions the weakness of all of my examples, the death of Pyrrhus, the sacrifice of Iphigenia, and Samson. And taken in isolation it can be argued that the biblical version of these tales are not verbatim renderings of the Greek stories, and because they are not, we can safely disregard the references to them in the Book of Judges.
OK, this is a very amateurish way of handling literature, not understanding the freedom of authors to manipulate specific themes. It is part of the pedantic mind of scholars who want the equation between, say the story of Jiphtah’s daughter and Iphigenia in Greco-Roman tradition to be so precise that even the scholar can see the connection. Literature does not work in this way but used allegories, metaphors, hints of all kind, and manipulation of the theme.
As I stressed, I am not the first to see the similarity between the story of Jiphtah’s daughter and the classical legend of the sacrifice of Iphigenia. It is also true that the reasons for the sacrifice are different. Jiphtah wants to go home and Agamemnon wants to go to war. This is a detail. The plot is about moving in and moving out, in traditional understanding a very dangerous change of status as symbolized by the mezuzah in Jewish homes.
In Greek tradition the more precise parallel would be Idomeneus’ sacrifice of his son when he safely returns to Crete after the Trojan war. The reason is the same as in the story of Jiphta’s daughter but somehow antique tradition – including the biblical version – submitted to the sentimental feelings for the young innocent girl who has to die. The sentimentality of the scene is stressed by the ambiguous state of this sacrifice in Greek and Roman tradition, as is evident in Euripides’s play Iphigenia at Aulis: Is Iphigenia really killed? The end of the play leaves this an open question. However, the play is from 405 BCE, one of Euripides’ last plays. He wrote another one, Iphigenia in Tauris, to which place Iphigenia was transported by Artemis before being killed. In her place, a stag was sacrificed (do we recognize this theme? The sacrifice of Isaac). His second play is, however, older than Iphigenia at Aulis, written in 414 BCE. Evidently Euripides knew all about the ambiguity of the story and played with it. The same ambiguity is evident in other representations from antiquity, e.g. in the famous painting from Pompeii of the sacrifice of Iphigenia where the main scene is occupied by the sacrifice, whereas Iphigenia is shown riding a stag in the sky supported by Artemis (Diana). (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fourth_Style_fresco_depicting_t…)
It is obvious that James Davila do not understand the implications of the way of handling literary motives. The story of Jiphtah’s daughter is just one example of the manipulation of a literary motive beloved by ancient authors – and may we assume, their audience.
Of course the same line of argumentation could be followed when it comes to the two other parts of my argument. There is no reason to discuss it in more details here. However, when I wrote the little piece about 272 BCE, I forgot the fourth case in the Book of Judges, the very last chapter about the seduction of the young girls at Shilo. This story is another example, in fact a Hebrew version of the rape of the Sabinian women from Roman tradition.
Finally, I would like James Davila to (re-)read Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. It is not only one parallel that proves the case; it is exactly the accumulation of parallels which does.
Answer to Prof. James Davila
“Nope, not buying it!
https://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2024/04/was-abimelech-pyrrhus-jephtha…
With this Prof. James Davila opens a discussion on his blog PaleoJudaica about 272 BCE.
During the forty years I taught at the universities of Copenhagen, Aarhus, Hamburg and elsewhere, I always warned my students: You are not part of the argument! So, when professor Davila opens with “No, not buying it!” he is obviously not following the rules of an academic debate, putting himself in front of his argument.
He mentions the weakness of all of my examples, the death of Pyrrhus, the sacrifice of Iphigenia, and Samson. And taken in isolation it can be argued that the biblical version of these tales are not verbatim renderings of the Greek stories, and because they are not, we can safely disregard the references to them in the Book of Judges.
OK, this is a very amateurish way of handling literature, not understanding the freedom of authors to manipulate specific themes. It is part of the pedantic mind of scholars who want the equation between, say the story of Jiphtah’s daughter and Iphigenia in Greco-Roman tradition to be so precise that even the scholar can see the connection. Literature does not work in this way but used allegories, metaphors, hints of all kind, and manipulation of the theme.
As I stressed, I am not the first to see the similarity between the story of Jiphtah’s daughter and the classical legend of the sacrifice of Iphigenia. It is also true that the reasons for the sacrifice are different. Jiphtah wants to go home and Agamemnon wants to go to war. This is a detail. The plot is about moving in and moving out, in traditional understanding a very dangerous change of status as symbolized by the mezuzah in Jewish homes.
In Greek tradition the more precise parallel would be Idomeneus’ sacrifice of his son when he safely returns to Crete after the Trojan war. The reason is the same as in the story of Jiphta’s daughter but somehow antique tradition – including the biblical version – submitted to the sentimental feelings for the young innocent girl who has to die. The sentimentality of the scene is stressed by the ambiguous state of this sacrifice in Greek and Roman tradition, as is evident in Euripides’s play Iphigenia at Aulis: Is Iphigenia really killed? The end of the play leaves this an open question. However, the play is from 405 BCE, one of Euripides’ last plays. He wrote another one, Iphigenia in Tauris, to which place Iphigenia was transported by Artemis before being killed. In her place, a stag was sacrificed (do we recognize this theme? The sacrifice of Isaac). His second play is, however, older than Iphigenia at Aulis, written in 414 BCE. Evidently Euripides knew all about the ambiguity of the story and played with it. The same ambiguity is evident in other representations from antiquity, e.g. in the famous painting from Pompeii of the sacrifice of Iphigenia where the main scene is occupied by the sacrifice, whereas Iphigenia is shown riding a stag in the sky supported by Artemis (Diana). (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fourth_Style_fresco_depicting_t…)
It is obvious that James Davila do not understand the implications of the way of handling literary motives. The story of Jiphtah’s daughter is just one example of the manipulation of a literary motive beloved by ancient authors – and may we assume, their audience.
Of course the same line of argumentation could be followed when it comes to the two other parts of my argument. There is no reason to discuss it in more details here. However, when I wrote the little piece about 272 BCE, I forgot the fourth case in the Book of Judges, the very last chapter about the seduction of the young girls at Shilo. This story is another example, in fact a Hebrew version of the rape of the Sabinian women from Roman tradition.
Finally, I would like James Davila to (re-)read Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. It is not only one parallel that proves the case; it is exactly the accumulation of parallels which does.