How Might I Have Been?

What would my life have been like if I had been born more intelligent? Or taller? Or a member of the opposite sex? Or a non‐biological being? It is plausible that some of these questions make sense, while others stretch the limits of sense making. In addressing questions of how I might have been, genetic essentialism is popular, but this article argues that genetic essentialism, and other versions of origin essentialism for organisms, must be rejected. It considers the prospects for counterpart theory and shows how counterpart theory can be used to illuminate volitional accounts of identity as proposed by Harry Frankfurt. This enables one to make sense of claims that, say, being gay, or Deaf, or Black, can be essential to someone's identity. The discussion is then extended to show how it can be made applicable to the transworld identity theorist who denies that individuals possess essential properties.     

‘Do to Me According to What Has Gone Out of Your Mouth’*: A Reformation Debate on the Tragedy of Jephthah and his Daughter

A challenging biblical passage is the narrative of Jephthah and his daughter in the Book of Judges. The consensus of the exegetical tradition is that in fulfillment of a rash vow, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering. Yet some early Reformation exegetes argued instead that she entered into a life of dedication to the Lord. They argued on the basis of the grammar of Jephthah’s vow, a point which they found in one strand of rabbinical tradition. However, there developed a counter-argument reaffirming the patristic and medieval consensus, and that appealed to an alternative rabbinical tradition. The present essay will examine the competing arguments found in Protestant commentaries published between c.1530 and c.1650. In the end, the patristic and medieval consensus prevailed, and the alternative reading was rejected; but both sides agreed that the one noble character in this tale was the nameless daughter of Jephthah.