Doctor X

Oh Seekers of Knowledge:

I constructed this off-line only to find out that my little Mac can find a wireless connection to the internet. Where it comes from, I have no idea. That is what I love about Macs. They know the user is an idiot and does the job for him.

So . . . what follows it what I put together off-line. Methinks it should address some of the issues.

Child Sacrifice:

While traditionally more of a Christmas subject [Stop that.--Ed.] here is some more information on the subject of child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. A correction for Dado--I suggested Collins references the Isaiah passage in his article. The passage is actually from Ezekiel. It is also actually referenced in the reference used by Collins. . . . Why I should not try to do this from memory. . . .

This material comes from Levenson's work.

Translation of Exodus 22:28-29:

As Spin noted previously, "first-born among your sons" is an appropriate rendering. It does not refer to the animals. Levenson is the Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the Divinity School and the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University. Not to play scholarly long-distant micturition contests, but he seems quite competent at rendering and correcting translations. He notes:

He quotes the passage:

Thus, unless someone wishes to defend a different rendering which removes the sons and conflates with the beasties . . . we shall move on.

Redemption in Exodus:

As Spin notes "redemption" passages exist. Different authors were responsible for different portions of the Pentateuch. I will use the Documentary Hypothesis as presented in Friedman.

"Redemption" does not happen until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

Exod 22:28-29 is part of the Elohist or E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian or D material. Frankly, given the "distance" between redemption and the requirement, I think it possible that Exod 13:13b is an addition. However, assigning both Exod 22:28-29 and Exod 13 to E creates a "doublet" or a repetition of material. So, yes Spin, I can disagree with Friedman. . . . Someone hand Toto some smelling salts. . . .

Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the Yahwist/Jahwist or J material. Back to Levenson:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks in Jeremiah 19:5-6:

Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments:

It's a fair cop! Ezek 20:25-26:

The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:

in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention:

Friedman dateth Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile.

Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem:

Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.]

The point Collins stresses:

Right, that should be enough. Amalek13, be so kind to hand me your club, methinks the horse carcass still quivers. . . .

--J.D.

References:

Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.

Freidman RE. Who Wrote the Bible?

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity

Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence

rlogan

While traditionally more of a Christmas subject....

That was a cute little article on violence in the Bible Dr. X.

Everything in context. Sacrifice and slaughter were ubiquitous.

From a 1722 history book here is a drawing referring to Moloch sacrifices:

Toasty 'lil chilluns

I don't know how accurate it is, but it's cheery nonetheless.

Doctor X

rlogan:

Indeed. Thank you for the recommendation as well.

Deep in the small print of the footnotes of the Collins article is some stuff on what Molech means/implies. There is "yet another book" I would love to get which is not really available.

So many books. . . .

So little time. . . .

Why do I feel like Burgess Meredith?

--J.D.

Doctor X

Incidentally, the second chapter of Levenson's work discusses YHWH versus Molech. Briefly, in the 1930s a scholar argued that Molech was not a deity but a description of the act of sacrifice. This has not held, but the point is controversial. The point is that then all attacks in the OT on sacrifices to Molech are really attacks on sacrifices to YHWH.

He then describes a rather scary statue from Pozo Moro in southeastern Spain dated 500-490 BCE. He quotes a scholar as stating it is, ". . . as close as we are ever apt to come to a photograph of the ancient cult [of child sacrifice[ in action."

The point of that is that it is most likely related to the "Punic , that is, neo-Phoenician, colonies," and:

He then discusses the OT references to connections which Phoenicians. He continues--something interesting:

Neat. The point is archeaologists have discovered a major site for child sacrifice in the remains of Carthage. Estimates of deposits average to slightly fewer than one every three days or 20,000 urns deposited between 400 and 200 BCE. Akin to that discussion on where are the graves of the first-born in Egypt, analysis of the urns show the there are usually two children, one a new born and one roughly 2-4 years of age. The area also contains the immolated remains of animals. Is this a "pet cemetary" one of the main references quips sarcastically? No, these are substitutes.

With regards to redemption above--substitute Mr. Kitty for Betty-Sue [Stop that!--Ed.] it seems this practice existed but:

Sacrifice there apparently continued into the common era!

--J.D.

dado

there are two issues going on here. one is if child sacrifice actually happened post-abraham, the other is whether or not Torah encourages or discourages this practice.

the answer to the former is yes, absolutely, it did happen, and it continued happening for some time. if that was the actual original question, then i apologize for misunderstanding. it never occured to me this could be a point of contention as this isn't exactly news, it's been known for millenia. every Bris is a reminder of that horror and all Torah can be viewed as a record of the slow convergence between theoretical teaching and actual practice - a convergence which has not been completed, even today. the process started when abraham realized it was not necessary to sacrifice your own children, and the process continues today.

the answer to the latter is a resounding "no", and to refer only to Written Torah as support of the counter argument is to engage in the Pat Robertson school of analysis:
(a) read "literal" when it suits the purpose
(b) disregard the support material - specifically Oral Torah, which was and is as important as Written Torah
(c) assume there is only one "right" answer

Amaleq13

Doctor X - beware for I may alter my allegiance next season due to geographical considerations limiting viewing opportunities to the almost mighty Seahawks. At least I'll have better odds against thee if at home. This could change drastically, however, assuming the availability of the NFL package in my portion of The Last Frontier and the subsequent opening of viewership options. Perhaps I will even Trojan thy horse and cheer on the Pats...an act nearly certain to doom thy team.


The ending of the story doesn't suggest it to be a parable but actual events that inspired a subsequent custom:

"At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year." (Judges 11:39-40, NASB)

Even if the story, contrary to the ending, is understand as "only" a parable, we are still left with a devout Jew who apparently believed God would accept a human sacrifice and a God who apparently did. After all, Jephthah received no last minute reprieve like Abraham.

I agree that one learns from the story to be careful about one's vows to God but, given the absence of an Abrahamic reprieve (copyright pending) there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting child sacrifices were "vile".

dado

you are downplaying the father's devestation at losing his only child.

Quote:

we are still left with a devout Jew who apparently believed God would accept a human sacrifice

that's not true at all: he did not offer his daughter in the vow, he offered the first thing out the door of his house. Oral Torah teaches us he was expecting a *dog* to come out first. he does not say "whoever", he says "whatever".



then we should include the original Santa story in history books since that inspired one hell of a widespread custom.

i find it amusing how quickly critics become literalists.

Doctor X

Even a bit more complicated than that! Abraham is a mythic person. Interesting to note the adequa [Pretentious term for the binding of Isaac.--Ed.] story is a combination of the E source and the J source. In the E source Isaac does not get saved and disappears from the story. Some scholars speculate that the E preserves the earlier version where Isaac indeed "gets it."

No problem

Not . . . really . . . known as in "popularly known."

Eeeeee . . . the problem is the Pentateuch is comprised of texts that consists of different texts. If I characterize Spin correctly, he proposes a "continuous redaction" over time whereas the current Documentary Hypothesis--summarized in Friedman--has it as separate authors redacted at distinct periods. Actually . . . both positions sort of work out the same in practice. The point of that is that the texts represent a particular conception of what the past should be--a mythic past--to justify to religion of the present from the perspect of the respective author. I would add politics of the present. For example, you have the J school promoting Moses over Aaron and P/D promote Aaron over Moses. The point is that they represent claimed descendents of the two--"our progenitor is better than yours!"

On the contrary then, the texts do represent actual stages of practice and a created ideal depending on the situation.

See above.

Actually, it does. Sorry. Review the passages above. By the time of collection of the Pentateuch with redaction it appears the practice is to be condemned. Nevertheless, as the passages discussed previously demonstrated, this was far later than the mythical period of the Patriarchs. The passages demonstrate the practice was not ancient with respect to the age of the texts.

Poisoning the Well and incorrect. You only have the texts. This:

is also an incorrect ipse dixit. Like Augustine, it appears you want "allegory" when the text says something nasty and "literal" when it does not!

No, the scholars above simply read the texts, as they always have, and looked at the archaeology.

In your mind, perchance, but not in scholarship or, frankly, reality. Targums, Mishnah and other commentaries are quite late compared to the composition of the texts. They preserve a period of religious conception and argument--some actually reverse the trend and claim Isaac was squished!--but this is no more relevant to the texts of the OT in context of the time of their composition than Pat Robinson is to the NT.

Non sequitur.

--J.D.

dado

that statement shows a fundamental ignorance of judaism and judaic scholarship. the reality is when push comes to shove, Oral Torah trumps Written Torah. and if you don't understand Judaism, you have no ability at all to place the texts in their context.

but that doesn't have to stop you from having fun with the texts, so...enjoy!

Amaleq13

Not at all. Jephthah's grief is quite obvious but the point is that there is no indication in the story that God considered the sacrifice of the child to be "vile" or even unacceptable.

I wrote:
we are still left with a devout Jew who apparently believed God would accept a human sacrifice

That Jephthah did not originally intend to sacrifice his daughter does not change or deny the fact that he obviously believed God would accept the sacrifice. The fact that he eventually goes through with it clearly supports my claim. If he didn't believe God would accept the sacrifice of his daughter as a legitimate fulfillment of the vow, why did he go through with it?

In addition, you failed to address what seems to be the most significant aspect of the story and that is the fact that God apparently accepted the sacrifice. There is nothing in the story to suggest that sacrificing a child to God is against the will of God.