Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Epinoia · 12-09-2004, 05:29 PM

From http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/re...601.sacrfce.bh (sorry about the formatting below; it doesn't do that at the link):

Quote:

There's direct Biblical testimony that child sacrifice continued until the seventh century B.C. at the Tophet in the Valley of Ben Hinnom. The prophet Jeremiah says, "they have built a shrine of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, at which to burn their sons and daughters" (Jeremiah 7:31). King Ahaz of Judah worshipped at this Tophet. "He also burnt sacrifices in the Valley of Ben-hinnom; he even burnt his sons in the fire according to the abominable practice of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed in favor of the Israelites. He slaughtered and burnt sacrifices at the hill-shrines and on the hilltops and under every spreading tree" (2 Chronicles 28:3- 4). King Manasseh likewise "made his son pass, through the fire" (2 Kings 21:6). According to most Bible translations , these child immolations were made to the terrible god Moloch.

Although Moloch has become one of the great demons of Judeo-Christian literature, there's strong evidence that Moloch was not a demon at all but simply the name for child sacrifices dedicated to Yahweh. This new understanding comes from Phoenician settlements in Sicily and North Africa, where Tophets, like that outside side of Jerusalem, have been excavated. The Phoenicians were close relatives to the Hebrews- the Bible refers to the Phoenician coastal peoples as Canaanites. They spoke a mutually intelligible language, and the Hebrew alphabet, like all modern alphabets in the Western world, came from the Phoenicians. So did the fire sacrifices of the Jerusalem Tophet.

Toto · 12-09-2004, 07:41 PM

This is taken from The Highest Altar: The Story of Human Sacrifice by Patrick Tierney

This particular passage is at several places on the internet. There is some discussion of the thesis here in Wikipedia Moloch

Quote:

Eissfeldt's theory: a type of sacrifice

In 1921 Otto Eissfeldt, excavating in Carthage, discovered inscriptions with the word mlk which in the context meant neither 'king' nor the name of any god. He concluded that it was instead a term for a particular kind of sacrifice, one which at least in some cases involved human sacrifice. A relief was found showing a priest holding a child. Also uncovered was a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animal and of human infants, dating from the 8th century BCE down to the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE. Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning in some Biblical passages. Most of the children's bodies appeared to be those of newborns, but some were older, up to about six years old of age.

Eissfeldt further concluded that the Hebrew writings were not talking about a god Moloch at all, but about the molk or mulk sacrifice, that the abomination was not in worshipping a god Molech who demanded children be sacrificed to him, but in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Quite possibly this sacrifice of first-born children as a molk was even offered up at times to Yahweh himself, although relevant Scriptural passages depict Yahweh condemning such practices.

. . .

Paul G. Mosca'a dissertation "Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and Molech", 1975, revived and extended earlier theories that the sacrifice of children to Yahweh was accepted until late in Judah's history, an idea largely based on the problematic passage Ezekiel 20.25–26 in which Ezekiel has Yahweh say:

Moreover I gave them laws which are not good and rules by which they cannot live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts – in that they caused to pass through fire all that opens the womb, that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am Yahweh.

Commentators have interpreted this verse in different ways over the centuries. The consensus seems to be strongly against a belief that the theology of the era depicted Yahweh desiring that the Israelites should conduct human sacrifice; indeed the remainder of Ezekiel c.20 depicts Yahweh condemning the rebellion of the Israelites against Yahweh, and swearing that "you will hear me in the end" (after they stop profaning Yahweh's "Holy Name").

. . .

From the beginning there were some who doubted Eissfeldt's theory but opposition was only sporadic until 1970 when the very prominent archaeologist Sabatino Moscati, who had accepted it like most others changed his opinion and spoke against it. Others followed. The arguments were that classical accounts of the sacrifices of children at Carthage were not numerous and were only particularly described as occurring in times of peril, not necessarily a regular occurrence. Might not the burned bodies of infants be mostly those of stillborn children or of children who had died very young of natural causes? Might not the burning of their bodies be a religious practice applied in such cases? Need one assume the burning of live children? Could the accounts be not be anti-Punic propaganda? Why were accusations of human sacrifice in Carthage found only among a small number of authors and not mentioned at all by many other writers who dealt with Carthage in greater depth or were more openly hostile to Carthage? Some accounts of the sacrifices described the children as lads and lasses, hardly infants.

Texts referring to the molk sacrifice mentioned animals more than they mentioned humans. Of course, those may have been animals offered instead of humans to redeem a human life. And the Biblical decrying of the sacrificing of one's children as a molk sacrifice doesn't indicate one way or the other that all molk sacrifices must involve human child sacrifice or even that a molk usually involved human sacrifice.

It was pointed out the phrase whoring after was elsewhere only used about seeking other gods, not about particular religious practices. And should one so casually turn aside from the Greek translation made by those who may have known far more about such things than we will ever know to say that lmlk must mean 'as a molk offering' and not 'to Moloch'?

Eissfeldt's use of the Biblical word tophet was criticized as arbitrary. Even those who believed in Eissfeldt's general theory mostly took tophet to mean something like 'hearth' in the Biblical context, not a cemetery of some kind.

. . .

The debate remains hung, waiting for more evidence, some still strongly supporting Eissfeldt's theory and others decrying it as an erroneous interpretation of what has been found. It is for some a touchy issue with accusations of racial bias occasionally being made.

johntheapostate · 12-09-2004, 08:47 PM

There is some Biblical clues that human sacrifice was practiced by the Israelites. Exodus 22:29 " You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep" There are verses instructing the Israelites to redeem there sons with some other sacrifice, but God did expect the Israelites to sacrifice there firstborn son in at least a cerimonial way. He demanded this sacrifice becouse he had spared the Israelites at the time when he killed all the Egyption firstborn sons. The very first law that God gave the Israelites after they fled Egypt was "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal." There are places were God is said to deny that he ordered this sacrifice Jeremiah 7:" The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes They have set up detestible idols in the house that bears my name and have defiled it. They built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire- something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind" The fact that the auther has God distancing himself from child sacrifice indicates that this sacrifice may have occured in his name. The closest the Bible comes to admitting child sacrifice was practiced in his name comes from Ezekiel 20:25-26 " I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by. I let them become defiled through there gifts the sacrifice of every firstborn that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord" There is also the law concernig things devoted the Lord. Leviticus 27:28-29 "But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the Lord whether man or animal or family land may be sold or redeemed everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, he must be put to death." So it appears that human sacrifice was practiced in the name of God. We have a record of at least one such sacrifice Judges 11:30-31 " And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. If you give the Ammonites into my hand whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lords and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." verse 34 "when Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah who should come to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tamborines." verse 39 "After two months she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed" The example of Abraham being so obediant to God that he was willing to sacrifice his son may also have inspired devout Jews to sacrifice there children.

Magdlyn · 12-13-2004, 05:27 AM

In reading Numbers I also see the Levites were implied to be a proper substitution for the firstborn sons of all. The Levites belonged to YHWH, so all men need not "give" their sons to YHWH. The notes in the Ox Annotated say that "giving" your son to YHWH "might" mean to serve in the Temple in some capacity.

Of course, I am entirely cynical about those upper crusty Levites and their right to everyone's first fruits and best produce and food animals.

PhilosopherJay · 12-14-2004, 07:07 AM

As a young kid reading the Abraham-Isaac story in Hebrew School, I was shocked and chilled to the bone. An analysis of the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story, I believe, points towards the practice of child sacrifice in early Yahweh worship.

First note that the story starts by saying that Yaweh is testing Abraham, but it does not explain what the test is or why the God is doing it. This contrasts with the Job story where these things are clarified as a test of human nature. Modern commentators often suggest that this was a kind of a final exam in Yahweh obediance training and Abraham passed with flying colors. It is meant to encourage later trainees to follow his example of faith to God. On the other hand, we may take the story more literally and see the test as being a final exam in Child Sacrifice 101, more or less, an instruction manual for child sacrifice.

The first indication that the later is the case is that there is no reaction to Yahweh's command on Abraham's part. He does not bargain with the God as he does in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He doesn't say something like "How about if I sacrifice forty camels a year for seven years," or "take me instead, I'm an old man going to die soon, anyway."

He does not act surprised, saying something like, "What the hell are you talking about, kill my child, are you nuts?" or "Hey, isn't that what those evil Canonite Gods ask for?"

Most importantly, he does not ask for further instructions. He does not say, "Where do you want this killing done, Highway 61?" or "Do you want me to strangle him first or burn him alive? Should I use the good cutlery or will any old sword do?" On the contrary, Abraham knows exactly how, where and when to do child sacrifice. It comes as naturally to him as a walk in the woods.

If this was an obedience test, we might have expected Abraham to explain the terrible fact to his son, Isaac that he had to sacrifice him because he believed in absolute obedience to his God. In this way he could have sought some type of forgiveness or understanding from his son. We don't get this. Instead, he plays a trick on Isaac by misleading him into believing that a lamb will be sacrificed instead of him. This shows the type of tricky cleverness that the heroes of stories from Odysseus to James Bond always show in accomplishing a difficult task. This indicates that the original author viewed the child sacrifice as something positive to be accomplished through clever deception.

The oath at 22:16,17 is the dead giveaway that in the original version Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and praising child sacrifice was the original point of the story:

16: and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17: I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,

The ideology is the same as we find when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia. The more important to you the object of your sacrifice to the God, the more benefit you will receive.

One may see from this story that ritual sacrifice of the first male child to Yahweh was a standard Hebrew practice. Notice that the story was associated with the mythological founding father Abraham. This shows its importance in everyday life in the Yahweh cult around the eight and seventh centuries. It was probably at some point in the sixth century after the defeat of the Yahweh cult by the Babylonians that the practice was abandoned, although even the revised story clearly shows the pro-child sacrifice ideology of the original story.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

Epinoia · 12-17-2004, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The oath at 22:16,17 is the dead giveaway that in the original version Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and praising child sacrifice was the original point of the story:

16: and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son...

Even if the ancient Hebrews sacrificed kids routinely, Abe sould still be grateful to get somewhat of a free pass on killing his.

When I was a kid, I heard that the "this" in 22:16 referred to Abe's willingness and proceeding to do it 100 percent until God stayed his hand.

Is there anything else pointing either toward this interpretation or toward the idea that the sacrifice of Issac was in fact completed?

Jack the Bodiless · 12-17-2004, 03:40 AM

Yes, the "Documentary Hypothesis", where Genesis is split up into sections with different authors depending on the name used for "God" in each section.

Isaac disappears from the "E section" (where God is El/Elohim) at this point, and never reappears in that section. Actually, the angel that stops the sacrifice is sent by YHWH, a later name for God.

Anat · 12-17-2004, 11:34 AM

To emphasize Jack's response, the disappearance of Isaac from the E narrative is immediate: in Genesis 22:19

Quote:

19Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba; and Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba.

.

Jay: Abraham didn't need to ask questions about the details of the sacrifice, as he had been sacrificing animals for quite a while, presumably he would have applied the same procedure to Isaac. Also, verse 9 mentions "the place of which God had told him", so God apparently gave further instructions as needed.

As to why Abraham did not rebel, or attempt to bargain with God, (as he had done for Sodom), here is the traditional Jewish commentary.

In short, in Sodom there was a question of justice whereas the Akedah was about faith. Sodom was public, the Akedah was private.

In contrast, see A.B. Yehoshua's secularist interpretation:

Quote:

Still, it is precisely from the secular perspective that the story of the akedah is plausible, and it is from such a viewpoint that I consider it and can accept its moral coherence. At the same time, I am aware of the cumulative damage it wreaks; consequently, I am concerned about its growing negative implications for our national self-image. As a secularist who does not believe in the existence of God as an objective presence outside man, or as a directing force and Providence for man, I interpret the akedah story in the following way:

Abraham conceived a new faith in a new unitary god, "the possessor of heaven and earth. "To that end he broke the idols in the home of his father, Terah, and left his homeland to proceed to a new land where he would establish his offspring who would be his posterity and perpetuate his belief But as his days drew to a close he was not certain that his son Isaac would maintain his faith. In certain circumstances Isaac might repeat what Abraham had done to his own father, abandoning the belief of his forefathers and leaving home. How could Abraham guarantee that Isaac would not only maintain the line but preserve his new belief? He stages an akedah, taking his son to "one of the mountains" (Bereshit 22.) He binds Isaac, brandishes a knife over his head and drops it at the last moment. He says to Isaac, behold the God I believe in forbade me to kill you. It was He who saved your life.

From that time on, Isaac knew that whether he believed in Him or not, he owed his life to his father's God. This is the meaning of the often repeated expression--Pakhad Yitzhak--Isaac's Dread. Out of Isaac's terror of the knife held over his head was born his existential affinity (far more potent than any intellectual link) to God who would always deliver him at the last moment.

It is as though, in order to assure their sons' steadfast faith, the Patriarchs have to submit them to danger--the slaughterer's knife inches from their hearts--so that at the last moment a well staged rescue operation--but with salvation guaranteed--can be attributed to a force-majeure, God the Lord of Hosts, the possessor of heaven and earth.

This is Abraham terrorising Isaac into faith.

PhilosopherJay · 12-17-2004, 10:15 PM

Thanks Jack,

This strongly suggests that it was El/Elohim that received the sacrifces. My apologies to the followers of Yaweh for confusing the two. Ever since they started that "God is one" nonsense, its been hard to tell them apart.;-)

Warmly,

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, the "Documentary Hypothesis", where Genesis is split up into sections with different authors depending on the name used for "God" in each section.

Isaac disappears from the "E section" (where God is El/Elohim) at this point, and never reappears in that section. Actually, the angel that stops the sacrifice is sent by YHWH, a later name for God.

Epinoia · 12-18-2004, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, the "Documentary Hypothesis", where Genesis is split up into sections with different authors depending on the name used for "God" in each section.

Isaac disappears from the "E section" (where God is El/Elohim) at this point, and never reappears in that section. Actually, the angel that stops the sacrifice is sent by YHWH, a later name for God.

IOW, if I understand you correctly, you can tell who's E as opposed to J by what word they use for "God." Cool, but if true it would seem there'd be a verse in there along the lines of "Yea, and Issac's blood ran red along the ground." Neither E nor on the other hand J was all that subtle about such things. Is it thought that such a verse existed, was qualified by J and that P, D or a later redactor took it all out out for fear of being embarrassing?

12-14-2004, 07:07 AM	#5
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Abraham's Sacrifice of Isaac Strong Evidence of Child Sacrifice to Yahweh As a young kid reading the Abraham-Isaac story in Hebrew School, I was shocked and chilled to the bone. An analysis of the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story, I believe, points towards the practice of child sacrifice in early Yahweh worship. First note that the story starts by saying that Yaweh is testing Abraham, but it does not explain what the test is or why the God is doing it. This contrasts with the Job story where these things are clarified as a test of human nature. Modern commentators often suggest that this was a kind of a final exam in Yahweh obediance training and Abraham passed with flying colors. It is meant to encourage later trainees to follow his example of faith to God. On the other hand, we may take the story more literally and see the test as being a final exam in Child Sacrifice 101, more or less, an instruction manual for child sacrifice. The first indication that the later is the case is that there is no reaction to Yahweh's command on Abraham's part. He does not bargain with the God as he does in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He doesn't say something like "How about if I sacrifice forty camels a year for seven years," or "take me instead, I'm an old man going to die soon, anyway." He does not act surprised, saying something like, "What the hell are you talking about, kill my child, are you nuts?" or "Hey, isn't that what those evil Canonite Gods ask for?" Most importantly, he does not ask for further instructions. He does not say, "Where do you want this killing done, Highway 61?" or "Do you want me to strangle him first or burn him alive? Should I use the good cutlery or will any old sword do?" On the contrary, Abraham knows exactly how, where and when to do child sacrifice. It comes as naturally to him as a walk in the woods. If this was an obedience test, we might have expected Abraham to explain the terrible fact to his son, Isaac that he had to sacrifice him because he believed in absolute obedience to his God. In this way he could have sought some type of forgiveness or understanding from his son. We don't get this. Instead, he plays a trick on Isaac by misleading him into believing that a lamb will be sacrificed instead of him. This shows the type of tricky cleverness that the heroes of stories from Odysseus to James Bond always show in accomplishing a difficult task. This indicates that the original author viewed the child sacrifice as something positive to be accomplished through clever deception. The oath at 22:16,17 is the dead giveaway that in the original version Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and praising child sacrifice was the original point of the story: 16: and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17: I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, The ideology is the same as we find when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia. The more important to you the object of your sacrifice to the God, the more benefit you will receive. One may see from this story that ritual sacrifice of the first male child to Yahweh was a standard Hebrew practice. Notice that the story was associated with the mythological founding father Abraham. This shows its importance in everyday life in the Yahweh cult around the eight and seventh centuries. It was probably at some point in the sixth century after the defeat of the Yahweh cult by the Babylonians that the practice was abandoned, although even the revised story clearly shows the pro-child sacrifice ideology of the original story. Warmly, PhilosopherJay

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2004, 08:47 PM	#3
johntheapostate Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Manitoba Canada Posts: 343	There is some Biblical clues that human sacrifice was practiced by the Israelites. Exodus 22:29 " You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep" There are verses instructing the Israelites to redeem there sons with some other sacrifice, but God did expect the Israelites to sacrifice there firstborn son in at least a cerimonial way. He demanded this sacrifice becouse he had spared the Israelites at the time when he killed all the Egyption firstborn sons. The very first law that God gave the Israelites after they fled Egypt was "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal." There are places were God is said to deny that he ordered this sacrifice Jeremiah 7:" The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes They have set up detestible idols in the house that bears my name and have defiled it. They built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire- something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind" The fact that the auther has God distancing himself from child sacrifice indicates that this sacrifice may have occured in his name. The closest the Bible comes to admitting child sacrifice was practiced in his name comes from Ezekiel 20:25-26 " I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by. I let them become defiled through there gifts the sacrifice of every firstborn that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord" There is also the law concernig things devoted the Lord. Leviticus 27:28-29 "But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the Lord whether man or animal or family land may be sold or redeemed everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, he must be put to death." So it appears that human sacrifice was practiced in the name of God. We have a record of at least one such sacrifice Judges 11:30-31 " And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. If you give the Ammonites into my hand whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lords and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." verse 34 "when Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah who should come to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tamborines." verse 39 "After two months she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed" The example of Abraham being so obediant to God that he was willing to sacrifice his son may also have inspired devout Jews to sacrifice there children.

12-13-2004, 05:27 AM	#4
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	In reading Numbers I also see the Levites were implied to be a proper substitution for the firstborn sons of all. The Levites belonged to YHWH, so all men need not "give" their sons to YHWH. The notes in the Ox Annotated say that "giving" your son to YHWH "might" mean to serve in the Temple in some capacity. Of course, I am entirely cynical about those upper crusty Levites and their right to everyone's first fruits and best produce and food animals.

12-17-2004, 03:40 AM	#7
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Yes, the "Documentary Hypothesis", where Genesis is split up into sections with different authors depending on the name used for "God" in each section. Isaac disappears from the "E section" (where God is El/Elohim) at this point, and never reappears in that section. Actually, the angel that stops the sacrifice is sent by YHWH, a later name for God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.